TSword

Not to be forgotten, There's no smokescreen on the water ! So to protect the bridgecrossing from flanking fire, you need to smoke the other side of the river some length up the rivershore on both side of the bridge (Expensive !!) You should have bonus points (If you are the attacker), since the task for the attacker is very hard, if this is the sole route over the river.

Turretring, Sure they did ! The US tankers did the same in the Ardennes btw.

Louie, My procedure for setup is essentially the same than yours, and i bet for many others too... (Especially with loads of troops, double rows and the like..) So, wouldn't it be nice (not moving the world of course) if troops are grouped a bit already ? Say tanks together, platoons grouped, support grouped by type, Non Platoon HQ-units grouped. The setup zone normally has enough room so the CM-SW could place them somewhere ahead of the rim of map..

50 mm at under 100 m for a 14.5 mm rifle ? What's the muzzle velocity ? Was it a wolfram carbide core ? The 3.7 cm Pak did around 40 mm at point blank for comparison and had a mV somewhere around 700 m/s if i remember correctly. So the 14.5 would roughly and very optimistic need a mV of over 1000 m/s to achieve this astonishing penetration capability.

That's why many german tanks had "Schuerzen" or skirts on the side...., nice to see them effective in CMBB. Or ever wondered why some of the very late Stug's or even Shermans were plastered with a thick layer of concrete ? The russians found out another trick to protect their tanks plates against HEAT-charges, they used beds !!!! The springs and tight wiring effectively held off the panzerfaust !!!

Some MM really is tiring, for example you cannot lay multiple movment orders for a selection. Much time would be saved if this would be possible (Maybe already in CMBB ?). Actually more "Control" would be great, but of the kind: - You setup your platoon with added Supportunits - You give the whole platoon multiple waypoints - You give an additional order "platoon should only move as fast as it's slowest member" (at the time of selection). (Now Sneak is slower than move, MG-teams can only move, so they overtake..). Voila the platoon and it's Supportunits move in some order without intervention at every turn. Remembering groupings(Selections) with key-shortcuts would also be of great benefit, so you can easily recognize your groupings even after some tumultuos fighting. More MM for tanks would also be great: 1 Command to face enemy "over the corner" 2 Command to engage only enemy tanks, or defensively other AT-assets (when in danger). 3 Interdiction fire (Tank goes Hulldown fires until target destroyed (Command 2 becomes very important here), then immediately goes into defilade again). And last but not least. It's extremely tiresome to group the troops in the setup phase in a > 3000 Point QB, (Especially an american battalion brings you near a heart attack with all those bazookas, MG's and mortars). It would be nice if the CM engine would be able to group them a little bit already. (Well, maybe very expensive to code..). I agree that there should be the possibility for units to dig in. It was common practice (atleast for the experienced troops), as soon as being at the objective, or even worse if an attack stalled (and no shelters near), you had to dig-in in no time, because the enemy would plaster your position for sure, because he knew only to well where you were... The shovel was the most important lifeinsurance for a grunt on the frontline. If only you dig a hole some centimeters deep it already gave you added protection. (If you think of operations it becomes even more important..) If gound was frozen you could only pray the engineers would arrive some time before enemy barrage...

JasonC Your post has something for it. For rifle at mid to long ranges (250 - 400 m) the single aimed bullet counts per man, whereas closeup (In an attack rushing the enemy) or ambush at close range the volume becomes the deciding factor (Of course still the aimed shooting is still highly advisable). In short, the close range effect of automatics is off the mark about the same. It is just plain ridiculous when a squad can tramp into an ambush in a pine wood at 30 m range and 4 automatics of the ambushing squad are not able to annihilate them within 2-3 seconds, instead the probabilty to even win the fight are quite good for the foolish squad. The same on a rushattack, where you have a very decisive advantage from ranges 100 m downward even while moving fast, whereas the rifle is just helpless. Automatics like the german assault rifle overlap with the "rifledomain" as they can be used as a rifle at somewhat lowered ranges but certainly up to 250 - 300 m with similar effectivness. In short, higher effectivness at long ranges for rifles (the aimed shot per man), higher effectivness of automatics at short ranges (bullets/second or volume of fire). The MG delivers volume up to ranges, but is of lesser use than the automatic rifle below 30 m (The mount hinders you to cover a wide enough arc, actually too much volume for too narrow a field of fire)-> but whatever lays in it's initial field of fire is shredded to pieces at 30 m. This is atleast true for the german bipod mount (LMG), which is best at ranges 50 - 200 m G and 50 - 300 m for the HMG (The allied MG's being more like the HMG with it's tripod mount). Ok, an Arnold Schwarzie type of squad may hold the MG like an automatic rifle for very close range fighting... Of course the effectivness of the MG at 300 m is lower than the rifle in regard to aimed killing shots, BUT delivers volume to ground(pin) the enemy in numbers (several squads), panic him etc. (Nobody likes bullets zipping around his head like an angry swarm of bees..) Of course certain automatics like the assault rifle are too present in "vanilla" german squads. In 1944 mostly the specialized "Sturmtruppen" where largely equipped with them or certain elite units in the SS-units.(Late 1944 there was an acute shortage of automatics for instance). => Price/point/rarity/distribution adjustments necessary for automatic rifle heavy units. [ March 22, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Tanklord, Pack some charges of Highexplosives on the roadblock and blam, it's gone !! Tough, you probably will be confronted by a crater afterwards with which you have to cope

Right, but i think that would need quite some additional coding by the two programmers.... The list of desires could be enlarged for engineers: - Engieers should be able to be tasked to actively search for mines and clear a path through them (rather to clear them altogether)... this was actually achieved by special explosives (damn, forgot the name, but it can be seen in the "Private Ryan" film) - Houses should be able to be "Booby trapped" (You buy Booby traps during unit purchase), adds tremendous suspense when entering houses prior under enemy control... - To create more realistic scenarios tanks should be able to ford certain rivers ( Additional terrain "Tank ford") with some probabilty (Editable by Scenario designer) to bog down to simulate nondeep waters.

Sven is correct with his question. But i think it is almost impossible to implement an algorithm to do it right. Because it is situation dependent. (Because it can easily be exploited: a tank pops up in your flank, your turret rotates, flankthreat dissapears and blocking force tanks appear at your front neatly holing your weak side turret...) There are more oddities with which you have to cope with in CMBO. Still i'm convinced that there should be a command to direct a tank only to engage (rotate turret) priority targets and to define them as either inf or Tanks (of course also the current sheme still in place). Another aspect which should be changed: A tank does not strive to face an opponent frontally at 90 degree but instead "over the corner" (striking angle to frontal hullplate at around 30-40 degree and side plating at 60-50 degrees), one then also has to add the slope of the plates).-> Much improved protection For instance, the Tigers or even the Sherman's front plates would be much harder to be penetrated by an opponent.

redwolf, Thanks for your answer, but why is the bow mg blocked then ? Looks still strange to me Mickey D, Taking the M10 was by pure random, aim of test was only to determine the Tigers armor reaction on shots fired at it at the edge of penetration capability (Tiger was without any 88 ammo..). [ March 22, 2002, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Micheal, Ok, Gunston's book may be a bit unclear about the detailed naming, but the performances of the different "M-2 derivatives" (WWII-Models) where almost similar, right ?

Gyrene, The 12.7's mounted in P-47's, P-51's and so fort had a muzzle velocity of over 800 m/s. Futhermore the 12.7's mounted for instance in the B-17 look exactly the same as those in Jeeps, tankroofs, Halftracks, even the mountings are very similar. They all were called M2 (Source Bill Gunston on Aircraft armament)

ciks, You are wrong, the Tiger's late toparmor was increased because of Artillery, and not the M2. Very few tanks (Tigers and KT's) were actually lost due to fighterbomberattacks in contrary to popular belief. The M2 has not the penetrating power to pierce 25 mm armor at angles. Both Tiger and Panther are vulnerable against 12.7 mm fire or even smaller calibres, because of the engine radiator fans. Those fans sit right under slitted openings on the reardeck, which will likely brake even on some load of small arms fire and stop functioning, this renders the tank immobilized after some time (dependent on climatic conditions, the fan's speed was regulated by a thermostat). There was a fieldmod for the Panther in late 1944 which covered the radiator fan intakes with some armored plates against this type of harassment and ari-shell-fragments.

I read about the "Hull-down" position to be black or white. Either you are or not. (Well, small variations in your exact postioning of Hull down, can bring your enemy out of his holl down and improve your Hit probabilty dramatically, because very often if you go to the lowest possible hulldown the target will be hulldown also, move a little further and you are still hulldown, but not the target... ) But i found with some testing that in Hull down your tank can be frequently be knocked out with shots into the upper frontal Hull. Note: Created a Testscenario where the possible postions were carefully "measured" for BOTH vehicle whether they are Hull down to each other. And played it through in Hotseat mode to have control over both units. Tiger I (without ammo) vs. M10 without Tungsten both in Hull down. Bow MG of Tiger cannot shoot at M10. Most kills of M10 where achieved by an upper frontal Hull penetration. ???!!!! Has somebody observed the same, or an explanation which renders this as something to be correct ? In my eyes this a bit strange.

Especially true when they are 5 - 20 m in front of 3 enemy squads, or they lie in multi-mg crossfire (None more than 40 m away).... Those hated buggers are nothing else then ammo depleters, i always try my force to hold fire with exception of one to save precious ammo..., as soon they try to run away they usually die quickly...

The campaigns in russia were so vast in scale, that it will be difficult to resemble some of that vastness and unprecedent terror in the "tiny" scaled CMBB. I regularly have great difficulties to create playable scenarios of Company/Battailon sized Battles in CM for such tiny battles like the ones in the alsace for instance (Hatten, Rittersweiler). Now to imagine Kursk with it's unsurpassed scale, where Corps,Divisions, Regiments attacked on broad front against unbelievable massed deep russian defences is hard for me to imagine with the scale of CM(BB), maybe a battaillon on a 300 m wide and 3000 m deep map....

When speaking of light, will there be some nightlighting by use of flares and the like, to allow real nightfighting ? (I know, engine is not really new, but maybe there's a way around..)

All fine and nice. I can very well understand the limitiations which the CM-engine imposes. BUT why then lower the Panther to 85 % quality, while knowing that shatter gap is also not modelled in the game ? This together leads to a very noticeable boost in M4 76's performance against Panther, which in that form never existed. (I don't list the huge load of american tankers (In US elite units like 2nd AD..) and antitank gunners here stating that only with the 90 mm they had a decent chance to knock out a Panther front on..). They instead could have weighten out the limitations of the engine (Plate uniformity -> flaws, shattergap) and come to a model which would fit reality much closer (Panther almost invincible against frontal plate attack). There are other cases like the Tiger-mantlet (Tiger I taken out by Cromwells at > 500 m for instance front on...), Panther and KT turretspeeds, optics, always interpreted negative -> lower speed, not better SPW 251 with a mere ammo load of 40 against 250 of US HT (They may have more maybe, but 6 times..), the M2 ubergun, the german counterpart 20 mm has no rate of fire at all (calculated as cannon with a single shell with laughable power always missing moving troops, only supressing stationed troops..). Generally larger reaction times for german artillery even for unobserved fire..., though both FO's had wire or radio..(More deviation of impact point would be ok for german ari, but reation time..) It's a pattern recognizable and annoys a lot of people i know playing CM Of course (thanks god) it's only a game, but with the focus to be as acurate as possible. Now most of the above i think is possible to correct without disturbing gameplay or anything like that.

Words from a german soldier....pah, a nazi, they always lie.... (Have the book with the statement of course). So BTS will assure that T-34 have 95 - 100 % quality armor until PROVED otherwise by hard facts (A thing logically impossible by the way). I bet everyone a beer !

A german Tankdivision in 1944 had an alloted strength of 8 armoured Antiaircraft guns, either on 38(t)- or PzIV-chassis. In reality however they often might have much less. Beside that there were numerous towed antiaircraft guns. For a CM game (Up to Bataillon size) atmost 2 armored AA-guns and maybe some towed. In the Normandy they were deployed to protect supply lines as intended against the overwhelming allied airsuperiority rather than in groundfighting, so i would use them very scarcely. Beside that they have only supressing quality against nme inf, since the high firing rate is not simulated, the gunners ALWAYS fire after moving Infs and miss. They are great against nme soft skinned vehicles. (The 3.7 can also be used against tanks from the flank).

Another question somewhere linked to "Damage Control": Is it possible for dead soldiers to pile up in such a way that following (living) soldiers will have some protection against small calibre riflefire and even more important some concealment. I think the very common human wave assault of the russians often created huge piles of corpses which may have given some protection for following waves.... ? (Disgusting i know..)

Will the build prize for a trench tile depend on the underlying ground ? It's much harder to dig in frozen ground (In fact one has to rely excessively on explosives, but quite easy in the spring/summer month on soft soil. Can the trenches be leveled/detroyed by heavy arty fire -> Give less and less cover after consecutive hits near misses ? What are in general the possible effects of mid - heavy arty on trenches and their poor inhabitants ?

Rexford, as always, your posts are a delight to read, some light in the dark... Question: Is the slopemultiplier above 40° the same for all t/d ratios ? (t = thickness of plate, d = diameter of round)

Yes, agree absolutely CM IMHO could be "extended" with a strategic layer, as i know there where already some "handmade" attempts to go in that direction. CM with it's perfect tactical level engine (well almost the best imagineable..) would be absolutely great and open up a vast multiplayer universe... If the CM-engineers could implement some API's (Applicationinterfaces) into the tactic level engine a third party could build a strategic level engine. Very interesting...