Mercury

Anyone out there done a mod for this yet or know what file number it is in? This weapon literally glows in the dark...really spoils the much better look of CMBB.

Give up playing the AI except for practice. Take on human beans and you will see the difference.

And what are the octagons within?

Well thank you, flattery will get you everywhere!

Thats very interesting mercury. |My how clever you are!

Hans I think I may be able to get hold of the details for you next week. My dad still has all the detailed scenario info for PG. I'll look it up next time I'm over at my folks house. Send me your e-mail and when I have it I'll send it!

Check out this passage from p71 of "Citadel: The Battle of Kursk." by Robin Cross. "A tank crew member from the 6th Panzer Division wrote: "We had one advantage - mobility. They were like a herd of buffalo which does not have the freedom of movement enjoyed by the leopards which prowl around the flanks of the herd - and we were the leopards." Recalling the tank battles of 1942, a German staff officer was highly critical of the tactical ineptitude and mulishness of Soviet armoured formations: "In tight masses they groped around the main battle; they moved hesitantly and without any plan. They got in each other's way, they blundered against our anti-tank guns, or, after penetrating our front, they did nothing to exploit their advantage and stood inactive and idle. Those were the days when isolated german anti-tank guns...would shoot up and knock out more than 30 tanks an hour." Does that sound just like the AIs armour tactics or what? BTS must have it spot on!!!

I'd like to be able to build stone walls, can somebody point me in the right direction?

I wasn't having at go at any learners!! If anything what I said lets you know that there is hope! Just adapt and practice and you get your rewards, that's all. The more novices there are out there the more opponents there are and more power goes to BTS's elbow. We are ALL learners anyway. The beauty of this game is that no matter how many times you play there is always something new to figure out! And so what if it was my first victory over the AI, I've not been able to defeat its masterful use of armour for the last two years, why would that change now?

I've seen many posts about how men will go to ground far too quickly compared to CMBO. However, if you play this game the right way, with lots of correct tactics, this does not happen..... Take Cemetary Hill for instance: If you want to rush across the open terrain to rush some buildings, like you could do with CMBO then your in deep trouble....but if you use your support weapons in close conjunction with infantry movement, as was supposed to happen, then its a different story. There is nothing more exhilarating than seeing your troops close in on enemy positions having worked damn hard to get them into that situation. Challenging? Yes Unrealistic? No I played a complete novice at CMBO and he tore through my well placed HMGs with nothing less than an old fashioned WW1 infantry charge from 200m away! There is no room for novices anymore....learn to play my friends! And play to learn!

I knew it must be easy. Just tried it....a piece of cake. Thank you old bean!

I know there is a simple answer to this but I need to hear it anyway..... How do I take pictures of the action?

Turn up the sound, launch the rockets and watch the sheer devastation that results!! Terrifying! :eek:

I use 80m James. But the only thinking behind that is because it is in a BUA. I'd probably make it larger for other terrain.

Oops! I drip feed reinforcements every BATTLE, not every turn. Sorry :eek:

I've been searching for a way to get the AI to challenge me more in battles where it is anything but the defender. Here are some thoughts that you may wish to try out: These thoughts are based around a meeting engagement operation I devised in a town on a small map (less than 1km square. About a company strenth force is used, a little less for me, a little more for the AI. The AI is solid but inflexible so in my experience the game against it always reaches a critical point and when it has been broken it lacks the initiative to recover and fight back....the game generally becomes a walk in the park as you overwhelm its forces when a human would clearly do something far more 'logical' and unpredictable! So how do we avoid this? Well I set a maximum battle length of 15 turns. This gives you enough time to launch assaults and be decisive but not quite enough time to wipe the floor with the AI, unless you are a miracle worker. Thus the AI is never quite smashed and lives to fight on. Secondly I drip feed reinforcements to both sides every turn, a few support weapons, couple of tanks or artillery observers. Always ensuring the AI gets the edge in points, generally, I make sure the AI gets at least a full platoon or two every battle, along with the other reinforcements. But don't overdo this or the game becomes cumbersome. Divide the objectives so there is one clearly in between the forces and one each for the two setup zones. All of the same value. All the above seem to result in tense battles with a genuine challenge from the AI. It still does stupid things from time to time but the time limit prevents you really going to town. Anyway, there you go! I've done this and had a real maelstrom of a fight on my hands! great fun.

Its interesting to see when looking around this forum that I am not the only one who was out there boardgaming on my own way back when... Anyway, this got me thinking that CMBO/BB must be able to trace their heritage back to the good old days of figure wargaming. Remember those wonderful battles using 20mm or HO/OO scale plastic figures from Airfix, Esci et al? There must still be figure wargamers out there but are they a dying breed? There will always be a few, I hope. But given the quality of games such as this the hobby's tabletop days could be numbered.... This then led me into thinking what could be done to make CMBO/BB the ultimate "PROPER" wargame. here's my wish list!! A few unpainted buildings Trees that keep falling over The odd metallic figure, unpainted. A river that is made from Road terrain pieces. The whole underlying terrain made froma kingsize duvet! I swear I did this as a kid! A tank that has a glued down turret that can't rotate. A mascot at the rear of your sides setup zone (normally a bizarre fantasy character like an Orc or Wizard) Some dice lying about. The rule book that gets in the way. A glass of beer. And the piece de la resistance: When a squad is destroyed a hand descends from above and either takes the casualty away or flicks it off the table! Any more suggestions to make us old and grizzled wargamers feel at home?

But if its only heavy weapons teams that get exhausted so fast why does it also happen to artillery observers.....? Surely they aren't carrying the whole battery around in their pockets? I tried to get three Red artillery observers to move through a wood this way and they were tired and exhausted so fast it just didn't seem right, especially as my infantry squads were doing the same thing and happily overtaking them, leaving them way behind in the rear.

I would like to see a patch that tells me what's going to be in the patch. If that can't be done, then perhaps a patch that tells me what is NOT going to be in the patch. And failing that, one for the hole in the elbow of my jumper, I am but a measly pauper.

Perhaps if one could re-perambulate the factual disregards of this intense debate.... Forthwith a moose shall be known as an elk only to those amonst whom it travels to the dusty graveyards of Lancashire.

I read a superb account of the battle of the Bulge which definitely mentions this happening around Krinkelt-Rocherath, amongst other locations by German Panzers. Unfortunately I've leant the book out so can't remember the author, Charles Stuart? Not sure.... The point about the abstraction of squads is interesting.... However, the AFVs in CMBO/BB all seem pretty harmless in collision with each other and in literally over running positions. I can't fault the ballistics or, in fact, just about anything else but the AFVs do not seem to have a "solid" presence. They can partailly integrate with buildings, other vehicles and infantry with little effect.... AFVs DID kill infantry with their weight, not just enemy infantry either. And faced with death from an AT gun when my gun is damaged there would be two courses of action. 1) Get the hell out of there! 2) Charge!!! Is there a morale factor in the game engine that takes into account the foreboding presence of armour closing in on infantry? Be it with all guns blazing or simply from closing in? Let's face it, who wouldn't be unnerved with a King Tiger bearing down on their position? Bazooka in hand or not.

I take your point. However, I am still pretty sure that armour did, quite literally over run infantry positions. Is it a tricky situation to add to the engine, or been left out for another reason?

You can't beta the Brummbar for its roomy interior and boxy good looks!! Created by fledgling Volvo designers!!

Having a decent knowledge of WW2 leads me to believe that AFVs were used to over run infantry positions by simply crushing these poor souls in their fox holes or trenches. I'm pretty sure that soldiers were encouraged to dig quite deep into the ground to ensure they would be relatively safe from this form of assault, amongst other things! Clearly there would be a considerable risk from AT weapons but with infantry support this would appear to be an emminently sensible, although appalling, tactic. When you have 40-60 tonnes of steel roaming around it can do more than just fire its gun! However, there does not appear to be any way of utilising AFVs in this manner....why not? I seem to recall both Squad Leader and Panzer Blitz/ Leader had overrun attacks in them so I don't think I'm on my own with this thought. Any thoughts?

Ok Ok I just tested it out! They ALL go round as Madmatt suggests. I do find this odd though given that many street battles were fought out in European cities where there are great rows of, effectively, terraced houses, be it grand ambassadorial residences or smaller apartments. Footage of the Iranian embassy siege in London years ago shows how close these buildings are, there are no gaps. While the SAS attacked with stealth from the next building, presumably, in the massive chaos of a WW2 street fight, blowing a hole, or mouseholing, would have been relatively simple. Clearly there is some logical thought behind the reason not to allow it, could somebody enlighten me on the reason for excluding it? Thanks