Jump to content

kenfedoroff

Members
  • Posts

    452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kenfedoroff

  1. I notice this in CMBB as well. Haven't tried CMAK yet. Ken
  2. My point of view is, someone who is looking for a particular battle type (Example: "Assault"), year, region, force mix, nation, etc. should be able to find it in the General/Overall briefing. They should always have a recommendation: "Best played as... " Scenarios made for head to head play should be noted as such. I like to PBEM scenarios "Blind", so I don't read the side specific briefings until we start play. Ken
  3. I am guessing that the victory was not fast enough to become a victory... In other words, you had to accomplish the objective one battle sooner than what you did it in. This happened to me in another Op (except I was on the receiving end of a shellacking from my PBEM opponent). I thought my opponent achieved total victory, but it ended a "Draw". The author of the scenario explained that indeed, the objective had to be taken sooner, so I am guessing this happened to you, too. I've never seen it explained just how victory is calculated for Ops, but obviously from our experience with them, speed is essential. Maybe the author will stop by and explain it (or perhaps you could e-mail him). Hope this helps, Ken
  4. I don't play much early war CMBB so this is the first time I've seen this. I've got two T-26 tanks in the German rear area targeting a truck (approx. 200m away). One is the HQ tank for the platoon and the other is a platoon member within a few meters of his commander. Neither tank is "panicked", etc. One tank is in "Hunt" mode (shouldn't matter anyway). For an entire turn these two tanks have refused to fire a single (gun) round at the truck, so as to move on to other targets! Instead, they pepper it with MG fire! Each tank has over a 100+ rounds of ammo (HE and AP combined), so there is no need to conserve ammo. This same tank platoon had no problem expending gun round ammo against Panzers (I don't remember how they performed against half-tracks). Has anybody else experienced this refusal of a T-26 to fire a gun round at a sitting duck truck? [Ok... On the second turn of targeting the truck, neither T-26 fired a gun round, but continued to pepper it with MG fire! The sitting duck truck was finally knocked out by my tankette approx. 500m away while the T-26 were closing in to less than 200m!!! Go figure.] Ken [ December 30, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]
  5. I loaded this in the Scenario Editor and see that Axis reinforcements spawn in plain sight of Soviet zones, but this can be easily changed for replay. I would recommend (again, my personal opinion) that the author have reinforcements spawn out of possible LOS for both sides. Still... a fun scenario. Ken
  6. I am currently playing this PBEM as Soviet and have a few turns left to go. I disagree about Soviet being too powerful, as one Stuka pass resulted in: 1 X T-34 immobilized 1 X T-34 shocked 1 X Inf platoon (4 X squads w/HQ) = eliminated 2 X MMG (6-man crews) = eliminated Axis artillery is devestating, able to suppress units in heavy buildings. I would agree the scenario is too short (but I say that about every scenario). It's just my personal opinion, but I feel the attacker should have 10-15 extra turns on every scenario (for Recon). However, having said that, I don't know if the scenario would have that "Mad Minute" feel to it for every single turn, if the battle had 45+ turns. I thought this was a great scenario, especially as my opponent is relentless on the attack. My wish for this scenario (because it is so much fun) would be for the chance of replayability by spreading out the spawning of reinforcements in both time and space, with some percent chance of appearance thrown in as well. Perhaps, add some heavy buildings in the Soviet rear area and make sure the Inf spawn inside these protected areas. Sometimes it's fun to swap sides and have a go at it again. It might also be interesting to experiment with Dynamic Flag (w/auto-pick) with the opportunity for replay in mind. Great scenario and AAR. My 2 cents, Ken
  7. My opponent and I have not finished this yet, but so far, I really like this scenario. I like the Map and the Concept of the Dynamic Flag in particular. I think I could load this in the Scenario Editor, strip the forces out and have a great QB map for replayability. Since I am playing PBEM from the Soviet side and we haven't finished the battle, I can't comment on set-up zones, reinforcement spawn points, force mix, etc., but so far it seems well thought out. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Ken [ December 27, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]
  8. If you ever have time to PBEM the Germans again, please, drop me a line. I am wondering how the Germans have a chance in this. Ken
  9. Amen, Hear-hear (or whatever) ...And don't forget to add the parameters for Quick Battle reinforcement. Sincerely, The Peanut Gallery
  10. I think the full name of the Op at the Scenario Depot is: "GP-1 Podvyssokoya (It's found in the letter "G" index). I played this as the Soviet against a pbem opponent who usually gives me a tough fight. I felt sorry for the guy because it seemed like the Germans don't have much of a chance. However, he may have had some bad luck at the start. Before I rate this scenario at The Depot (a great site, btw) I would like to PBEM as Russians again. While I understand I could post this in the Opponent Finder Forum, I thought I might have better luck here at Scenario Talk. The briefing and background for the Op is a "10" in my book, so, to have the battle turn out the way it did was a disappointment. So if anybody is already bored with CMAK and wants to do some forest fighting as a German/pbem, please look me up. Sincerely, Ken
  11. Thanks Jason C. You make some good points. I was thinking/hoping that the purchase price alone would keep down the number of Stugs and Tigers, as they do fall at or below the 30% cut-off point (House Rule) for July '43. The next map I'm making is for Aug '43 but is going to be HUGE so that the Axis will have to fight a mobile defense. I guess until I play-test an opponent on a huge map, I won't really know just where the advantage lies, as far as (Axis) quality vs (Soviet) quantity. Certainly, on small maps or with terrain not fit for manuever, the T-34 is a loser vs Stugs and Tigers. I intend to create some "Mechanized Madness" where elements of a Soviet Mech Bde crash the party, and the Axis Mech bouncers must "ask" them to leave, but it will be in QB format so the opponents can pick their own force. Thanks again for your input, Sincerely, Ken
  12. I just completed a 1,600 X 1,600m Steppe map to import into a 3,000 pt QB (Soviet Attack/Assualt) The time period is July '43 (South). The intent is to have 2 Mech force fight for 3 Dynamic Flags (flag worth 1,500 pts) I have offerd my opponent the following "House Rule" and I thought I might as well float it here. With Rarity on "Standard" Force Mix and Experience = Un-Restricted "Each side can only purchase 2 items from each category, i.e., Support, Vehicle, Armor, Artillery, of greater than 30% Rarity rating, in any combination." Example: (from July '43, South) From Support: Axis could purchase 2 X 37mm AA guns or 1 X 37mm AA and 1 X 150mm IG, or some combination, etc. Armor: Soviet could purchase 2 X 152mm Assualt Gun, or some combination, etc. Axis could purchase 2 X Ferdinand TDs, etc. Artillery: Limits each side to 2 aircraft or 1 aircraft and 1 heavy artillery FO, or some combination. Vehicle: Limits Soviet to 2 half-tracks or some combination. My intent is for an unknown force mix, but without either side going nuts on exotic units. I'm not sure if this would work for other time periods, but for July '43, this looks reasonable to me. Thoughts? Comments? Complaints? Thanks in advance, Ken
  13. Thanks Jason C. I confused myself by thinking in terms of model years. Ken
  14. Apologies in advance if this has been discussed. I am creating a battle for Dec. '42/South. The T-34 Model '42 has Rarity of 125% T-34 Model '43 (early) is at 0%. How does this happen? Is it just like the Big-3 and the new models come out in Sept.? :confused: Thanks, Ken
  15. Amen. A follow road command. Even a conscript can do that. Amen. Get the Tac/AI to recognize "dead-ground" in relation to the incoming. Have ability to remove wire, road-blocks, etc. Improved Artillery Model. Make the wooden MG bunker at least equal to an MG in a trench as far as spotting. As far as Multi-Player: Have an Operational Map where units move, but the resulting combat is resolved in CM. This could also be a separate Campaign tool for sale for the current CM series. If they could integrate operational movement, supply, etc., we could recreate the historical "what-if" that sets the stage for the CM scenarios. Santa! Are you listening? We've been good! Ken
  16. If I am understanding Treeburst correctly: "...With the invisible dust, your LOS tool and arty targetting tool will both show a blockage. You just won't see the dust that causes that blockage." Then what I experienced is not what he describes, as no rounds fell in the target area, no smoke or building debris, and my LOS tool initially showed no blockage w/FO target line blue. ...So LOS and FO target-line are good in orders phase, but after watching rounds fall off target the next orders phase shows you now do not have LOS. Kind of strange, but at least I saw it with my own eyes, and now have an idea as to the cause of arty. rounds falling off-target. Ken
  17. I thought it was interesting that LOS can change from "good" to "bad" for no apparent reason, and the fact that it happened on two consecutive turns (the 2nd turn to re-adjust) might be an explanation for what others might be experiencing... but then, I could also be missing the point as far as "bug". Best regards, Ken
  18. That's why I posted my experience in this thread, because I would call that a bug. It doesn't really matter to me what we call it, now that I understand what is going on. In hundreds of CMBB games I don't ever recall experiencing this Target Acquisition/LOS situation (although some of my PBEM opponents were obviously having trouble, he-he). I would suggest that anybody having their artillery fall off target, use the LOS tool first and then without moving the pointer/curser switch the FO to target (w/blue target line) that spot. IF your artillery falls off target, go back and check your target point with the LOS tool. I think you will find that it changed to "blocked" (even though there is no smoke or building debris), as it did in both of my experiences. I would add that the portion of the LOS tool that is now "blocked" is only a matter of a few meters, but that is all the program understands... IF LOS blocked, THEN arty. falls off-target, while in real life the FO would still observe rounds impacting in desired area. Sincerely, Ken
  19. It happened again in the CMAK Demo. I used LOS tool to make sure I could see target. Then used target tool to the exact same spot (did not move pointer/curser) to get blue line. Rounds start falling off target. Check target point again with LOS tool and now LOS is blocked! (again, no smoke or explosive debris to account for change). LOL, I laughed when this happened to my opponents, but now the joke is on me. Here's to a better target system. Ken
  20. I finally experienced this bug myself in Sword of Bagration. I had a Blue Target Line from the FO to the target. When the shells fell off target, I checked LOS to the FO target line and LOS had changed from good to bad. It did this twice. There wasn't any smoke or building explosion debris to account for this. Now I know what my opponents have been bitching about. Ken
  21. I've only played the Demo a few times, but if BTS won't fix the silly-crawly, I won't bother to purchase it. If the Tac-AI of a unit can't recognize dead ground, then they could at least program it so that it crawls in the opposite direction from enemy fire. Either that or it's already programmed to crawl towards the friendly map-edge, and the scenario designer reversed it to tweak the attack of the AI Germans. I sure would like an explanation for this "crawling towards the in-coming" behavior. BTS prides itself in realism, so I don't understand how this got into the game. I can understand how units caught half-way to an objective (on a Move/Advance order) might continue the attempt, but to have units sneak up to a crest, stop, peek over the top, then take fire and start a long-distance crawl towards the incoming... well it just borders on the ridiculous. Here's to an improved Tac-AI, Ken
  22. I was hoping they could get the Tac AI to recognize dead ground for taking cover from enemy fire. I still find it frustrating to see my troops crawling forward to some distant patch of cover when all they had to do was sneak back a few yards and drop down out of sight. ...And what's with the AI ability to spot an FO I've taken so much trouble to sneak forward so he could just peek over the top? Don't these FOs ever use camouflage or scissors 'scopes? End of rant, Ken
  23. AAHHGGRRaaaaa!*&%#!? ...My idiot tactics got a whole platoon of Pz-IIIs wiped out by those buggers. (Gnashes teeth in dispair) They are worse than the damn KV meanies...(bangs head on desktop to relieve stress). Did I mention I like to whine? Ken
  24. Page 158 of "Blood Red Snow" describes the action of the "Ferdinands"... "the new 75 ton tank destroyer with an 88mm gun". Plate #22 is supposed to be a picture of a Ferdinand, but it's such a close-up shot from the front quarter that I can't see the over-all body of the tank. Good (first person account) book. Tell Santa you've been good this year. Ken
×
×
  • Create New...