Sardaukar

Yep, and that'd be entirely realistic. While the men and vehicles as single entities didn't survive, units usually did. Gaining experience was also normal, since those who survived were definitely altered after first battles. I'm not in favor of unrealistic campaign game enhancement a la SP or (*gosh*) CC series. I'm just asking tools to make it available..since non- "diehard grog" gamer wants (IMHO) is not to play "Private Newbie" who dies during his first battle (which is realistic) but follow the footpaths of "Major Tankslayer" in footpaths of tank aces for example. Both are historical entities, latter just with lot less probability. I definitely want CM stay realistic war game (it's just a game, though). Thus, it'd be tough to include realistic campaign engine until AI can play as well as human to have comparable casualty figures. But since AI is no mach for competent human in most games (except maybe in chess with Deep Blue) I see no problem including tools to make campaigns easier. They are interesting, you know..and you grow detached to your units. Cheers, M.S.

I definitely agree. Even though I play PBEM a lot and participate to externally run campaign in Band of Brothers, I still want quality time spent offline with AI. Besides, I can only do mostly PBEM games and not fast paced TPC/IPs nowadays. We don't necessarily need "campaign engine" in CM, just tools to make it work. I think there are plenty of willing if tools are available. Cheers, M.S.

Well, I like campaign idea. Due to battle attrition in CM battles results may be even realistic. Lot of your men will not live to see next battle and will be replaced. I can think reasons why not include campaign system to basic CM, primarily because it'll take resources from what is the real forte of CM, small scale combat. I don't want to see too much effort directed away from that. CM:BB offered great tool to external campaign designers (I made one for CMBO recently, and CMBO doesn't allow even 1/10th of versatility in external campaign making compared to CM:BB...no disrespect to CMBO though, it's just older game). CM:BB editor and QB generator allows you to edit your core force squad by squad (or tank) and then import it to Quick battle. That feature allowed true campaing rules developed by Biltong. I don't necessarily need campaign in next CM engine. I'd sure love to see some aids for external campaing designers to be added. If there are huge amount of modders, there are also bunch of external campaign designers/designer-wannabees who would love to fill the gap. Easier bookkeeping of core force and easier importing to Quick Battles would go far to make people want to play those external campaigns. And there would be probably be also externally designed specific campaigns with linked scenarios if core force could be imported to scenarios too. Frankly, we don't need campaign system included into CM, just few modifications to make designing them easier. 1) "slot" for "core" force in QB/scenario system to easily edit/replace/resupply/etc. where you can import them into QBs/scens/operations. 2) ability to import forces to scenarios/QBs in way of it can be done to QBs, but from that "slot" instead of having to create a scenario (ok, that's easy) and use autosave import. 3) ability to link several operations/maps together with above abilities too (that'd probably mean they'd be playable only from one side, but that'd fine with me) I think we don't need more. Thus, the specific campaigns and even dynamic ones in way of BCR could be more easily maintained/designed. Maybe there will be as many long campaigns designed for CM as there are for Steel Panthers series someday. Cheers, M.S.

You can adjust points freely, if you wish. 1000-1500 is just a suggestion. Cheers, M.S.

I have had couple of bad experiences in the receiving end of Big Cats too. Platoon of Tigers 42-43 is definitely bad news for Soviets. Cheers, M.S.

Have several anti-tank rifles targeted to them to button the Tigers up, while trying to close with pioneers etc. Problem is that Tiger is very good anti-infantry vehicle too. But at least ATRs reduce their spotting capability, so you can use them to help your tanks to get closer. There is not much else than Valentine IX and 57mm anti-tank gun that have ability to KO Tiger during that period. When 85 mm comes, then one can try to fight Tigers with bit more equal terms. There is a reason why Tiger was so feared weapon until autumn 43 when 85 mm equipped tanks and tank destroyers come to Soviet inventory. T34/57 is nice too, but horrendously expensive. Nothing gamey about Tiger being very tough opponent during that period..just like KV-1 during 1941, it's just historical fact- Cheers, M.S. [ April 05, 2003, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

*bump*

Have to check that one , this is still alpha version anyway Edit: at least game engine allows it...so I don't see any problem with that. If it's totally realistic, that can be debated Cheers, M.S. [ March 27, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Well, my idea is not to restrict really the forces available, but player tracks only his tank among several through battles. Single tanks were rarely seeing action alon, but usually as part of larger unit and task force. About restricting game to views 1 or 2, I wouldn't do that, since it makes managing task force bit hard. And since force sizes are actually same compared to normal QB, map sizes are too. German side version is very good idea. It was easy to make American 10th AD campaign, since tabletop solitaire game "Patton's Best" have daily combat calendar describing action from July 27th to April 18th. If there would be even generic record of battles for German side, it'd be easy to make similar rules for Germans. Due to game engine QB generator limitations, modelling/tracking larger forces by individual tank/squad is quite hard. I plan to make similar rules for CMBB that would track single tank commander rising to command platoon, company etc...if staying alive. Maybe something modelling careers of Wittman, Carius, etc. In CMBB it's easy to edit individual tanks/squads since one can import them to QB from saved game. It is really good feature that allows "dynamic" campaign a la Biltong's Campaign Rules. Maybe modelling tank battles of Heavy Tank Companies (Tigers) of SS and Wehrmacht on west is also a viable idea. Sardaukars were Imperial elite soldiers in scifi Book Dune, written by Frank Herbert Cheers, M.S.

Thanks, Biltong ! You inspired me, and I wanted to make bit "lighter" campaign rules than BCR BCR/BCRAV are great, but take lot of time and effort to set up battles and track units...price of the details And when I found my old "Patton's Best" solitaire tabletop game, it occured that it could be easy to make a campaign rules based on data in that game. Cheers, M.S.

Sorry to hijack bit space here , but I posted this on appropriate CMBO forum (and I think crowd might catch it better here too : I made a solitaire campaign rules for CMBO (inspired by Biltong's Campaign Rules for CMBB, but quite totally different). It's loosely based on old tabletop solitaire wargame called "Patton's Best" where player is commander of Sherman tank fighting his way from Normandy to Germany as tanker for 10th armored Division. Now you have chance to try same in CMBO. Alpha 2-version can be downloaded from: http://members.surfeu.fi/sardaukar/SarCampRTF.rtf as .rtf text file All comments and suggestions are welcome ! Cheers, M.S.

I made a solitaire campaign rules for CMBO (inspired by Biltong's Campaign Rules for CMBB, but quite totally different). It's loosely based on old tabletop solitaire wargame called "Patton's Best" where player is commander of Sherman tank fighting his way from Normandy to Germany as tanker for 10th armored Division. Now you have chance to try same in CMBO. Alpha 2-version can be downloaded from: http://members.surfeu.fi/sardaukar/SarCampRTF.rtf as .rtf text file All comments and suggestions are welcome ! Cheers, M.S.

If your T-34 is still in that minefield, they may refuse to take out minefield in fear of knocking out friendly tank. Cheers, M.S.

Going against KV-1s in 1941..tough. **** happens and it's not ahistorical. Those beasts did delay some of the most experienced tankers from PanzerGruppe Guderian for considerable time. If there are no rules agreed beforehand, it'd consider it extremely lame to complain about opponent who uses his purchase points best way he thinks. I had a game recently that got me against platoon of Tiger Is..them having hill position and all. I had Valentine IXs and T-34s..as it was, I was outgunned, outbought and totally out of luck **** happens..get over it..opponent will not keel over and surrender. He will buy a damn Sturmtiger if he thinks it'll suit his plan despite rarity if he can afford it. Poor selection of forces and inferior tactics are easily explained by blaming opponent selecting "gamey" units. Cheers, M.S.

What I'd like to see is a possibility to push immobilized vehicle clear by another. At least Otto Carius in his "Tigers in mud" says it was very common to push Tiger with another when one was bogged or had flat battery. Especially it was common to start Tigers with flat battery by pushing it with another Tiger. And since vehicles can push KO'd ones out of way in present engine, that shouldn't be too hard to implement (or maybe it is, donno) It might cause a need to differentiate between immobilized by bogging from mechanical breakdowns/thrown track instances. IIRC, both are now treated with same bogging/immobilizing now. Cheers, M.S.

Soviets have this wonderful beast indeed called T-34/85 (get 1944 late with fast turret). IS-2 tends to fire too slowly and it's eaten alive by optics and rate of fire from German tanks...even Pz IVs/Stug IIIGs do that to IS-2. Problem for Soviets is that nothing they have is reliably "shotproof" from long range like King Tiger or Ferdinand/Elephant. And if you are in late 1942-summer 1943 against Tiger Is, forget those T-34s... Valentine IX is the only one with even remoted chance to punch through that big cat's armour...and it's even slower than Tiger Germans can have easy time while Tiger I reigns (before Soviet 85 mm). Those 57 mm guns from T-34/57 and Valentine IX can be nasty sometimes. King Tiger and Ferdinand are better treated as semi-mobile pillboxes But if they are protected by Pz IV/70s (nasty), Hetzers, Pz IV Hs (don't buy J, it has slow turret), Stug IV/IIIGs and so, you can be quite confident against Soviet heavies and medioums equally. 75L48 is typically enough to hammer Soviet tanks "dizzy" even from distance. Cheers, M.S.

Lot of Soviet problems existed because of inexperienced and incompetent commanders from platoons to STAVKA. Lot of that was because of purges and system of political supervision, not many wanted to try to show their military prowess after Tuhatshevski. But that is something that is not simulated in game, because that commanding officer is you (if Soviet). As when playing against AI, lower AI experience level simulates history quite well indeed. Coscript/Green Soviets have very hard time against Regular/Veteran Germans (or Finns). 1944 situation started to be bad for Germans. Not only Soviets started to have more experienced troops around, but German casualties and tendency to form new units instead of replacing the casualties of old had bled veterans white and introduced scores of green units. One example how that effects on troops is Soviet XXX Guards Corps. It performed very well during summer 1944 on Karelia Isthmus. Due to high casualties, it was then given lots of replacements and sent to Baltic Front. There, not surprisingly, it's performance at start was less than stellar...and that was an unit whose core was veteran. Imagine how newly formed Luftwaffe Field Division with no veteran core and no compat experience..or even suitable training could fare. Cheers, M.S.

JasonC: Excellent points. I hope that things like that would be implemented to next game engine. I think TRPs should be used better for fire adjustment. They represent pre-plotted targets anyway and shifting fire from one to another should be very fast. But TRPs have one additional feature that I'm not sure I like, they also represent "boresighted" target area for AFVs and infantry. I fail to see how pre-plotted artillery target helps with tanks firing at same area . I think we need 2 types of TRPs, indirect artillery and direct fire ones. Cheers, M.S.

Interesting, one learns something new every day. Besides, RA had always been damn good artillery force. Well, as it was said in previous posts, Finnish artillery really got it's act together in those decisive battles of summer 1944. The combination of getting fire from all tubes available and simultaneous arriving of fire was indeed devastating. Also the availability to switch the fire group's targets quickly (and I'm not saying we did best in that). It was the only way that army with relatively limited resources could manage to compete with enemy with huge resources. In Winter War, first method was in use, but there were not enough tubes and pitifyl amount of ammo. In summer 1944 that was remedied. Cheers, M.S.

My CM games are nowadays 90 % CMBB. I especially like the way infantry is modelled, and really love the way heavy machineguns pin down attacking infantry. CMBB in that aspect plays more realistically..as on armour side, I rarely use some new neat commands like shoot&scoot or seek hull down. from simulation point of view, CMBB is better and with bigger distances you really find out why for example Tiger was so feared 1942-43. It's interesting (as in Tiger case) how what you know from 20 yrs of military reading and wargaming comes alive on your screen and you really undestand instead of just knowing why it was so much feared on East Front. Cheers, M.S.

I agree totally. It's actually more realistic to make a plan, then plot the movement and interfere only when needed. That's how commander would do it in real life too. And it's lot less pain in butt, especially in larger battles. Cheers, M.S.

I think they had to make some sacrifices for the gameplay aspect. And also figuring different artillery models must be a pain in butt to program. Maybe in engine rewrite. I think that Finnish artillery in game would have become unbalancedly powerful (since I think like you that game models more weight of fire as compared of accuracy of it) if given all advantages it had vs. for example Soviet artillery. Because of that, Finns suffer a bit compared to others in QBs, but I can live with that. Games would have become either artillery duels or more likely in Sov. vs. Finns game Soviet player raining everything he got as pre-planned bombardment...and then Finns hammering the hapless Soviets when they advance. It's historical, technically accurate but it's not fun (just my opinion). And it couldn't be toned by points cost or rarity because that'd open another as unsolvable can of worms of fairness. So, we are stuck with Anglo/American-German-Soviet artillery game model, which cannot grasp all Finnish nuances...since it cannot grasp all American or British artillery nuances truly accurately either (in that I have to trust the word of USMC artillery expert who should know). I think game models Soviet artillery quite well, and up to point German too. But when it comes to finer points of artillery fire, same model cannot fulfill all it's asked to do. Discussions like this should be discussed, for sake of possible improvements in future engine. But I'd rather seen sissi-squads after 1943 and T-28/T-28E in game (I know the multi-turret problem, but ) than possible Finnish artillery tweak. Sissi-squads because they were similar to squads in divisional jaeger company (that were not present in every division). And campaign mode (that's what I miss..and ahistorical it might be, capability to track one's units through war is entertaining...yea..I know operations ) Anyway...maybe in engine rewrite we can see more variation...in way of CM 1939-45 maybe ? Cheers, M.S. [ February 12, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

Well, I thought to toss my oar into this a bit. As an ex-regular officer in Finnish Defence Forces (albeit not artillery) I can say that what Tero is saying in his posts is indeed quite correct. Finnish artillery system and doctrine is very poorly known in both West and East. Not many know about it's inventions and doctrine. Not many even know the name of Gen V.P. Nenonen. Even fewer know the name of Maj. Veikko Koppinen (11.D staff member), who created the system of getting the all available arty and mortars inside range to have their fire arrive simultaneously. In addition to capability to fire with all available units, now the initial shock and destruction effect was multiplied (since most casualties happen when targets are not yet taken cover). This advancement was tried first in battle of Lake Kuzra 20.3.1942 with 6 battaillons of artillery and 10 mortars. Effect was devastating. As it's said in Finnish documents, during summer 1944 battles, at start, fire support was not as effective as infantry in front line would have wanted it to be. In main battle area (I think german word "schwerpunkt" describes it better), support was approx. 10 artillery battaillons under single fire orders, becoming 18-20 battaillons in start of July. Finnish artillery shot during 22.-30.6.1944 in Tali-Ihantala battle 48 400 rounds. In comparison Soviets did shoot 129 000 rounds. 1.-7.7.1944 43 800 compared to 86 350 Soviet rounds. When Soviet barrage could last 1-2 hours, Finnish were 1-2 minutes. Finnish translations of official war diaries of Soviet 21.Army HQ, XXX Guards Corps, 79.D and 109.D. (available in Finnish War Archive, obtained after war) show from late June to start of July how the artillery superiority shifted from Soviets to Finns, even though Soviets had multitude of tubes more. One (cannot remeber right now which, might have been XXX G.Corps diary) says clearly "despite our efforts, enemy has obtained clear artillery superiority on this sector". That was quite an impressive statement on effect of Finnish artillery in that crucial but less known battle (after all it was the size of El Alamein which everyone knows). And it was achieved by good tactics, training and doctrine that is still in use. Does that have anything to do with CMBB ? Some but not really significantly. Most if not all aspects of Finnish artillery can be modelled in CMBB already. Would it be fun for gameplay perspective. IMHO no. Create a scenario with lots of massed Soviets advancing, give them pre-planned bombardment (but not as much as to Finns, since we are speaking about effectiveness now, not numbers). Then give defending Finns for example 18 battaillons of artillery with lots of TRPs around for battaillon size force. Then play that...it's not fun, or fair, it's educating and historical though. That's how Soviet advance was stopped. But would anyone want to play as unbalanced game ? I myself wouldn't want, since I want enjoy CMBB as a very good wargame and not historical simulation. Just my few cents, Cheers, M.S.

Any idea what size the patch will be ? I won't be happy with downloading a 60+ meg patch... Cheers, M.S.