Panzer76

My Grandfather was aa officer in the Norwegian army. During the occupation he was in the resistance. He got cought and spent time in a concentration camp. He never spoke about the war or the scars on his body.

My Grandfather was aa officer in the Norwegian army. During the occupation he was in the resistance. He got cought and spent time in a concentration camp. He never spoke about the war or the scars on his body.

My Grandfather was aa officer in the Norwegian army. During the occupation he was in the resistance. He got cought and spent time in a concentration camp. He never spoke about the war or the scars on his body.

Same reason all the others units that arent moddeled correctly. To save space on the CD.

I used them as others pointed out, they should be used. It was a QB map, medium hills and med trees, Italy March 45. The Archers crested a hill in hull down position and with covered armour arcs over the roads. SO, they were in pos and waiting for it's prey. I dont know if it's worth mentioning but the Archer that chickend out didnt reverse, but fast moved forward. Of cos, that meant it exposed himself to other potential threats. It didnt matter though, I cancled his fast move order and targeted the PzIV, it died half a min later.

Yes:

Ah yes, I have seen many a time the Hetzer (with his slow ROF) backing off from a firefight with allied armour. Oh wait, no I havent, not once.. hmm...

Because they are 3 m apart maybe?

Hehe, dont over estimate the TacAI They arent programmed to follow any kind of national doctrine.

Oh yes, it was facing the right way AND had armour cover arcs.

Ok, played a TCP game today, had 3 Archers lined up on a hill waiting for the gerries. And sure enough, one PzIV popped up and started shooting, all 3 Archers targeted him and a duel ensued, range approx 1.2 km, good range for the german but with 3 vs 1 in odds I was pretty confident in victory. What I didnt count on was that some of my Archers started running away?! The PzIV (it was also IDed as such) was a Reg and my 3 Archers was Regs. 1 died pretty fast, one tried to run away and one stod fast trading shots. End of story, 2 KOed Archers, 1 ran away after reciving a penetration. So, why on earth does a Archer (unhurt) run away when it targets a Tank which it has excellent odds of destroying it. I mean, I could have understtod it if the axis tank had excellent and mine had Low or something like that, but the 17 punder would have sliced through that baby. So, instead of concentrated fire from 3 TDs, it just fizzled away almost making it 1 vs 1 engagements 3 times in a row. Whats the logic behind a TD running away from it's prey? Huh?

Well, I remember there was an discussion on the effectivness of the .50 vs the tracks of a Tiger. Well, in my latest TCP game my Tiger (30 degrees angle to the .50 on level ground) was immobilized by a burst of the .50 from a HT.. distance approx 200 m. This was my 10th game or somfink playing CMAK and I hope I wont see this for my next 200 games The Tiger then got hit a couple of times by a Sherman bouncing his shots , but being immobilized and all, the crew panicked and bailed [ December 09, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

Same problem, but I have a US version and the other guy had a CDV version. Game crashes (either him or me) in the end we couldnt even connect ! Im sending you a email and description Matt.

First off, ACs get their points from the Vehicle list where the axis had more points to spend than the allies. Also, almost the same AFVs was in CMBO which gave the axis less armour points.

Hmm?

I think his strategy guide would quickly deterioate into his bitching about how the T34 is undermodeled and the Stug is over modeled and then chicken out of any debate when it's obvious he has no proof of the matter

Got it yesterday in Bergen, Norway. What a fine looking manual

Why is it that the axis now have the same amout of points aviable for purchasing armour as the allies. In Italy atleast. In both CMBO and CMBB they had much less and I guess that was to reflect the battlefield conditions of the allies having much more armour than the axis. But, not so anymore, why? BTW! I dont mind, infact I think it's a good thing. Now we wont only see toons of Stugs, but a toon + a extra Stug

Yes, but it went something like this : 1. Scenarios included was boring. 2. Suggested you play humans. 3. MEs was boring and PBEM opponent just bailed. Solution: Play TCP, dont play MEs, play QBs, find regular PBEM opponents. So, back to topic: CMAK scenarios are boring. Since I dont have the game yet, I cant comment on that, but, I think I will feel the same when it comes to the desert warfare. It hasnt anything to do with the scenarios per se, but I really dont find the desert warfare interesting. The maps I suspect, and as shown in the demo, are just too... boring. So, I hope Italy will save CMAK for me, and I think it will.

[/QB]

Im ordering it from BFC 'cos of 2 reasons. 1. More money to them. 2. I dont like CDV and their cencored verion with the much hated copy protection.

Compare the same guns in CMAK and CMBB

I think quite a few of these "new" observatons are just the same in CMBB, but people havent paid attention to it before. The biggest change : Different penetration values for the same guns in CMAK vs CMBB. PS! No reason to include spoiler warnings in the post, the whole friggin tread is as nature of it's topic a spoiler!

Again, I would point out that BFC has admitted that, at least some, if not all, the penetration values in CMBB is wrong. Just compare the penetration value in CMAK and CMBB.