kenfedoroff
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kenfedoroff
-
-
Can the British bomber be used to bash the ports so they can't be used for Sea Lion?Originally posted by An Old Man:Wow! Thanks for all the great replies! =)
It definately confirms my suspicions.
For me I think the British bomber (only one in the game at start in '39 Fall?) has 2 options from now on:
1. Sell for $225 (Rambo)
2. Operate down into the Med to help crush the Italian Navy (since no fighters unless Germany sends one or two down).
Thanks again for all the replies and if anyone has a 3rd option I am interested....
Just wondered. I have yet to play a human so I don't know if this strategy works.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Exactly. Bombing with Strategic Air should effect cities irregardless of garrison. This would stop operational movement into that city.Originally posted by viper_ss:I think another possibility is to have strategic bombers cause alternate damage instead of just straight strength points....
Regular air fleets should hinder/degrade land movement(if air superiority has been established).
I am looking forward to an SC "air superiority rule" that models historical results. This rule would effect land movement AND air recon. The Axis had a hard time with both in June of '44. There is no way the Axis could operate/move a panzer army from the Eastern Front to Normandy in one turn/week. They could barely get a recon flight over England to view the Allied build-up. Conversely, in June of '41, Axis air superiority in Russia helped protect the flanks of the breakthrough through the interdiction of Soviet counterattacks, plus, the Soviets were hampered for lack of air recon. Perhaps an air superiority ratio of three or four to one over each paticular hex could be determined for effect.
The effect on movement cost could be +1 for example. Air recon might be nullified for that hex.
Gee, I'm hittin' Santa Hubert pretty hard this Christmas, aren't I?
End of rant.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
I tried the Windows ME update trick and it still locks up when I hit the "Quit" game button .... for what it's worth.
If anybody has a fix, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
For what it's worth, I too am having lock-up issues when I hit the "Quit" button. I am also running Windows ME. It's been happening all the way through to version 1.06.
I will look into the Win ME update suggested in the Gds_Starfury thread.
Please delete or move this thread as you see fit. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Hueristic:3) If you're not prepared to ram the Italian fleet in the Med., don't move your pieces to activate the Italians
What do u mean by this? What Activates the Italians?
Moving either French corp in North Africa or Syria seems to have an effect on Italian war readiness. But don't take my word on this as I am no expert. Check the War Map for percent readiness changes of Nuetrals and Major Powers after every turn.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
CMBB scenario designers looking for ideas might be interested in the book:
"SS Steel Storm, Waffen-SS Panzer Battles on the Eastern Front 1943-1945" by Tim Ripley.
While this book does not delve too much into the small unit tactics upon which CMBB is based, the broad overview of "the use of offensive tactics in defensive battles" may be of interest to gamers with a focus on East Front Axis offensive battles/operations.
There are many large-scale maps for designers to start a search for more detailed maps, plus lots of photo's that give an idea of terrain, weather, and battle conditions.
A common theme throughout books dealing with East Front operations is the price paid, in lives and equipment, for direct attacks against a dug-in/fortified opponent in good supply, and thus, why mobile operations were so important.
Ask Santa to stop by amazon.com !
Sincerely,
Ken
-
-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by japinard:Please! I'd ask that you stop adding new content, so you can get the patch released. Thanks. Really looking forward to it.
Except the starshells for the night battles! Gotta have them starshells.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
-------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:.... Oh, and CM AI: your attacking skills still suck major spherical objects.
Not if your H.Q.'s pop first!
-
Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:
The 380 mm projectile seems very overmodelled, both for accuracy and blast (I seem to get hits with what is a rocket fired mortar shell at 700m on individual tanks. The blast effect seems akin to a neutron bomb..........................
-------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth,....
"Enemy troop concentrations around the road junction northwest of Kirchhellen were a rewarding target. Hauptman Adam, who led the 1st Battalion of the Panzer Regiment, reported the following after the war:
Four Storm Tigers were subordinated...to me...Since, due to the rocket propulsion, the projectiles left a long, meteor-like smoke trail behind them and thereby gave away the firing position, the position had to be changed after every round.
The first deployment was in the Dorsten-Kirchhellen area. After the evacuation of Kirchhellen, we took up position in the forest north of Feldhausen....We had a good view of the fork in the road north of Kirchhellen and observed that strong American combat units were assembled there and had come to a standstill. With all four Storm Tigers, a salvo...was fired. The effect...was hard to comprehend in those days. Vehicles flew through the air, and tanks flipped over like cardboard boxes. Of course, we had to immediately leave our position, but it took hours for the enemy to recover."
Page 429 from "From Normandy to the Ruhr: With the 116th Panzer Division in World War 2" by Heinz Gunther Guderian
I haven't tried the Sturms out yet but I'm going to now!
Sincerely,
Ken
-
The CM AI (Tac or Strat) never ever has, and never ever will, cheat.....Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Ken,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The reason I am asking about this is because I suspect the computer A/I "cheats" to even the odds.
Steve</font>
-
Shane! Shane! Come Back!
-
Again, i doubt it, as there should be no effect on troop AI whether you're playing against the computer or a human. I'll test the theory as soon as my friends have time to play against me.</font>Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kenfedoroff:
I was wondering if this stuff only happens when playing against the computer A/I ?
-
I don't think any human would launch such a clumsy infantry assault... I played against the computer.Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kenfedoroff:
Just Curious. Are you playing the computer when this happened, or a human opponent?
</font>
-
Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:
[QB]Ok, here's a series of screenshots I took to prove the infantry simulated stupidity. Infantry only, 600 points, June '43, midday. Defending with Heer.........[END QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------
Just Curious. Are you playing the computer when this happened, or a human opponent?
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Originally posted by arby:
I'm of the opinion that it[stategic bombing] probably had more effect on transportation, and just tying up German units, than it did on the actual production capacity of the German economy.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes! Disrupt the transportation system and unit movement. This is why Rommel wanted his panzer units so close to the landing zones.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------This needs to be considered too.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
--------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:... the best improvement would be the ability for bombers to attack garrisoned cities, not the corps
CvM
I agree that the garrisoned city should be able to be attacked/disrupted. This is the only way to stop your opponent from operating units from a thousand miles away into the city area in one week.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:
[QB]Berisovka Station:
I have played this one four times, mainly as a proving ground for various combined arms tactics. I have tried several different strategies against the AI, and have never done better than a draw. The reason for this is something I have mentioned on the main forum, to whit:
*
*
*
*
*
The Luftwaffe
-
"The (Dream) Seam"
*****Spoilers******
*
*
*
*
Played as Allies vs Axis A.I.(as is, no bonus, etc.)
Seemed to give a realistic re-creation of actions I have read about of East Front.
T-34's strike fear in enemy.
Lack of flexible soviet, (or perhaps my own), command forces pre-planned assualts/arty, sometimes w/un-happy results.
Axis cavalry shows up and kicks butt.
Hit cease-fire button after turn #40 for draw.
I may have flunked combined arms class but I still think this is a great scenario.
I would like to see more big scens like this.
Sincerely,
Ken
[ October 11, 2002, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]
-
Please direct me to any discussion about the Winter turns being compressed into a length of one month. I'm sure this issue has been covered elsewhere but I haven't found it.
--------------------------------------------------
Consider:
One month winter turns put the allied player at a huge disadvantage regarding sea transport to the Middle East. Rather than have four move turns to transport to Egypt, (or anywhere else for that matter), he now only has one.
Perhaps this is accounted for by giving troop transports a movement factor that enables them to out-run just about any fleet unit, (or are they riding on the Queen Mary?), but I wonder how this effects game-play.
I realize this issue could be solved by allowing unit builds in Alex., but I would rather the convoys have to battle their way thru the Med. Just consider giving them the time to get there.
I understand the Med./Middle East area was a small scale operation, (compared to the russian front), as far as forces involved, but it is important area as far as resources are involved, (witness Churchills' personal visit to Egypt). It is also the only area left where the allied player has a foothold from which to start a comeback against the Axis juggernaut without having to make an anphib/invade.
Maybe this post should be under wish-list for SC2.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Originally posted by Scorpion_sk:
"Anyways, I don´t see how the proposed tech engine would change the fact that one side can get very lucky while the other spends the rest of the game waiting for the same miracle to happen. This has larger consequences in especially jets, the rest can be dealt with...altough having high industrial tech is a great big advantage if the other side does not have it."
"2. Modifiers according to date -
Each tech level would belong to its corresponding 1940 year (note that as it is I think it´d be best to make it universal, instead of bickering about the individual historic dates....)
Ie. level 1 would belong to 1941
level 2 to 1942 etc.... (which would conveniently mean that Me-262´s, ie. level 4 jets, belong to 1944, and level 5 tanks, belong to 1945)."
Could the above date modifier for tech as proposed by Scorpion be integrated into the game as an option (such as FOW is offered)?
Has anyone play-tested the date modifier option in a pbem game?
It seems to me that two honorable gamers could use the date modifier option as a "house rule", and check to see if this makes SC more fun to play.
I have yet to play a pbem game, but when I do, I would like to use the "tech date modifier" option(except for Ind./tech, which would be more of a mobilization factor). I have been amazed by degree of luck, (both good and bad), that I have experienced when playing against the A/I. I would not want this "tech luck" to decide a game. Rather, I would like the "Strategic Command" of the individual to decide the issue.
Thanks to everyone for participating in this forum.
Sincerely,
Ken
-
Consider the possibility of being able to move fleet units from any sea hex on the North edge of the board to any functional port in Norway.
1.This would increase the strategic significance of Norway. (Why was Hitler so eager to go after Norway so early in the war? Did the occupation of Norway make it more difficult for the Allies to bottle up the German fleet as they did in WW1?)
2.Some sort of "operational fleet movement" (from a functional port in Norway only) gives the Axis player the threat of un-leashing the Bismarck into the N. Atlantic. It would also allow an alternate route for damaged subs to re-supply.
3.The Allied player would have to consider this threat before charging off to the Med. to hammer the Italian fleet!(Historical).
4.As it stands now, sub warfare seems to merely provoke the USA into early entry of the war. Some sort of "operational fleet movement" from Norway to the N. Atlantic might allow sub warfare to be a more rewarding strategic opportunity.
5.Upon the USA's entry into the war, could one or both of their ports be activated as target ports?(such as Halifax and Liverpool). This would allow the Axis Player to expand his threat potential via sub warfare. The clever Axis player could even position a sub near this "target port" in anticipation of the USA's entry into the war, and score a quick kill on some MPP's, just as they did historically.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely, Ken
[ September 16, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]
-
While playing the Yelnia Stare scenario, I have noticed, (in what appears to be the same terrain element), Russian inf., running like heck, being passed by a mortar crew at walking speed. Is this an optical illusion or for real?
Congrats to CMBB for fixing the AI's handling of armor formations. This is a huge improvement over the snake mating rituals I have witnessed in CMBO.
Concerns. The AI still has units needlessly running about the battlefield when it is on defense.
Congrats for a great game.
Sincerely, Ken
Game Locks Up
in Strategic Command Tech Support Forum
Posted
Sincerely,
Ken