Tarquelne

Thanks much! How about suggested German defense configuration?

But not for quite all KV-2s. Stalin was very interested in tank development, and when he became aware of the KV-2's problem he "suggested" a change. I think 3 tanks were modified for testing. Stalin's basic idea - the one used in the prototypes - was that the tank actually have a somewhat _bigger_ turret, and carry a large enough crew that everyone flinging themselves into the "up slope" side of the turret would balance it, and allow the turret to rotate around. Three small villages were depopulated during testing. In the end Stalin stopped the project because of the unsatisfactory results. He'd been hoping for at least six moderatly sized towns, or Latvia. [Edited to remove an inadvertantly included fact.] [ June 27, 2002, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

How far back....? Rhetorical question. What I'm getting at is: Jason (or anyone) - How about suggesting a map size and general terrain? Maybe two sorts of terrain: Attacker friendly and defender friendly? (Esp. if there's a difference between the sort of country Germans or American's liked to attack through.) Turn limits and Victory flags suggestions? (To make the scenario "balanced" even if the forces aren't.) The force compositions and sizes - for both defender and attacker - look fun. As do the tactics outlines. (Thanks Jason.) Given those, plus the map/turn info, we'd have the framework for some really nice generic attack/defense scenarios. I can see using Jason's suggested forces and the "Auto Generate" feature (plus maybe some map tweaking) to create interesting scenarios quite quickly.

That's very true. No 3D graphics intensive WEGO wargame of CMBO's quality has EVER done well in the console market. And no one has ever made money trying to sell a product where there wasn't a well established market already. Furthermore, the console market is completely static - the technology isn't evolving, and the userbase is shrinking. Everyone knows that there's no overlap between the console and PC demographic, and that console gamers take drugs that suppress the pituitary gland and freeze them at a physiological and psychological 12 years old. (And that console gamers are born missing 4 genes, too.) Whoops, slipped from sarcasm into absurdity at the end there. C'mon guys. I don't think porting CM to a console is practical, and "selling out" on BTS's part would almost certainly result in a farce. But as long as the console tech. contines to get better, and especially as the market gets bigger and more diverse, it becomes more and more likely that someone could make a "butt load" (I think that's a technical term in console marketing) of $$ feeding the action-tile-glutted console market a great but good looking strategy game. Such as CMBO. (I personally have hooked 3 non-wargamers on CMBO, including my wife.) I think it's too soon... but the idea isn't absurd. It's amazing how many times I havn't upgraded my OS or hardware to take advantage of CM mods and patches. But, sorry, it is a good point. As long as consoles can only read from cartrages, and can't use an internet connection or discs there can be no "mod community" or upgrades for a console game. Maybe sometime around 2010... but now, 1990? No way. [ June 26, 2002, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

How thin does top armor have to be to allow 81mm to kill a closed vehicle? (How about 60mm or 50mm?) I'm pretty sure I recently saw a StuG III killed by 81mm mortar.

I'll help you. The projected release date is July, 16th, 2004. It might be out earlier, though, if it's done sooner.

I've had some success using Veteren engineers riding in HTs.

That's absurd. Haven't you ever seen a building destroyed in CM:BO? It's obvious BTS has assumed that significant amounts of TNT, finely ground grain, or Communist literature are stored in all the game's structures. A little HE fire and... BOOM! (Or Fwooosh! crackle crackle crackle.) OTOH, I've been doing some research lately, and I think BTS has _may_ have overestimated the amount of explosive materials commonly kept in west front homes, churches, etc.. For example (This is taken from an account of the fighting around Calais): "... the Germans had gone. The captain told us to go in and see if the building would make a good HQ. In an upstairs bedroom I found three large barrels. One was full of gasoline, and the others contained what looked like coarse black powder. Cpl. Hoagland found twenty back issues of "Novy mir", but they'd suffered severe water damage and didn't seem dangerous. Captain Godwin had us move the gasoline into another bedroom, and one of the other barrels downstairs. He told us not to worry about the magazines. The other buildings in the town seemed clear. I grabbed Ansty, and we set up the radio on the downstairs powder barrel." My italics. See, in this account only ONE building in a large village had explosives in it. Furthermore, no high-explosives (TNT, dynamite, Marx's "Manifesto") were involved at all. [ June 22, 2002, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

It's ah, 6:00 am here and I havn't been to sleep yet. Rather than actually thinking I'm just going to write "stuff". Here we go: Definetly - the Hummel and the Hetzer look pretty much the same to a Jackson, and that's "easy prey." Given that, I think you're wrong to use the Hummel that way in the 700pt. def. scenario. And, of course, I'm sure that's why you didn't say you would. I saw 4 closed AFVs get KO'd or Immobilzed by arty in my last too games. Maybe just lots of arty in the games. (And, actually, 2 of the Immobilizations were obviously due to an extreme amount of luck.) I think I've had better than "iffy" success against OT vehicles with 81mm mortar. In QB, at least, I've found it worth the points to fire at OT vehciles - plenty of ammo... I'd rarely use it all against infantry. Not always a succesfull defense, but I generally focus a lot of my set up/tactics on avoiding artillery. By "a lot" I mean "more than the other people I play." I'm pretty sure this is true: I _do_ often succesfully avoid arty damage, and I have an easier time doing this against 155mm... OTOH, my defense is so mobile it's very easy to take even more casualties from enemy infantry/tanks. "Risk" preferences again, I bet. Thank you, I didn't want to say that. I can understand why redwolf wants to do that map-rejection stuff: try to minimize the map's influence on the 700pt. defense "test." Redwolf: What about developing a "neutral" and rather un-interesting test-map to be used multiple times? (Assuming you're quite interested in the matter...)

Personally, I was just hoping someone else would take a few chunks out of Jason's post before I replied. And, anyway, I didn't see much to disagree with. We both seem to be shying away from committing very many SWL units to early anti-recon work, which would be our answers to bc's question. And "it is one choice in the defender's "head game" toolbox" sums up my attitude toward the idea pretty well.... it could be no one is posting because we agree with him. What _I'd_ like to see now is bc's (or anyone, really) either defend the general idea or just discuss when a larger commitement of units to early-anti-recon (EAR?) is a good idea. [ June 21, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I agree, but doesn't the pricing system affect scenarios too? True, in a scenario you don't 'buy' your units at the start, but you do still 'pay' for them when they die, and the cost you pay is based on the pricing system.</font>

Wouldn't that totally screw up the QB system? Shouldn't the opponents have forces with balanced _combat_ effectiveness? Not equal price tags? And for a scenario it doesn't matter, does it?

Maybe if we go back to the last completely on topic question: (First, I should mention that I exchanged a few e-mails with Fionn. For fear of misrepresenting his position I don't want to just say "This is what Fionn says"... but I don't want to pretend that my thinking is completely origional. How about we just say that most "good points" I have are Fionns, and all the "bad points" are mine? Ok?) Lets use "RARE" - there are a bunch of reasons to avoid the "screen". Rear Anti-Recon Elements, OTOH, is nice and vauge. (And short.) Lets also think about whether we really want to use a new term at all.. err, ok... I will quote something: Fionn's words, but I agree. That's pretty much what I do. Moving the units back up to the MLR is important to me. In part because I don't want to weaken the MLR, in part because I don't think the SW units out of the main SWL will survive very long. (It's also more common for me to open fire with the rearmost SW early than actually place any SWs significantly behind the MLR.) The nice thing about thinking of the units in the above way (as detached parts of the SWL/MLR) is that it encourages you to use them in sort of a dual role. They'll plink away at recce for awhile, and hopefully accomplish those three tasks, but they still serve on the Line. The assumption here, which I'm sure everyone has picked up on, is that dedicated-RAREs don't work very well. billcarry - how long/well do your RARE units survive after they start fireing? (And is this against the AI or humans.) Which units do the most damage (or draw the biggest response? I rarely use anything other than HMGs. My little SWL "strongpoints" don't last very long - either because I move them, or they get hammered. (Obviously if you "draw fire" you're going to recieve some.) The most I hope to get out of the exercise, as far as inflicting damage on recce, is a HT/AC, or AFV commander or two. (Sounds like using a HMG or maybe a mortar as a "super Sharpshooter", eh?) I think I'll try most of one of bc's RARE groups... everything but the fixed guns. I'll have multiple HMGs and mortars, and maybe a vehicle's cannon, open fire on an enemy recce element or two, and then I'll load up the infantry into vehicles and bugger off. So, much more firepower than my usual "HMG Sharpshooter" - hopefully to do some real damage and draw significant fire. But I'll leave the area quickly to. Hmm... a little line of these Fanged Rabbits might be best, to give the impression of a "line." How far away can HT's be heard anyway? Is it a fixed radius? To return to a subject that interests _me_, if no one else: As far as applying a seperate term to "RAREs" goes, success might be a good criteria. For me, RARE-role units have never really been successfull enough, or used in enough numbers (because of lack of previous success, of course) to really merit a new term. I just thought of them as "bait." Or, if I was feeling pedantic, "detached MLR (support weapon)elements.") (Yes, I think in parenthesis.) [ June 19, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I'm suprised you thought he used the term in a negative sense. Sorry to be abrupt, but

It'll be very important if the smallest individual unit after the re-write is the human foot, obviously.

Yeah, there's often a big difference between 3000 pts of AI Eleite troops and 1000 pts. of Human Regulars... can be hard to compare. What I'd like to see is Austrian Strategist try out his force. (I'd offer, but I'm not allowed to play outside my LAN group. If one of us does that he tends to get much better, very quickly... and I'm the only one with the time and inclination to do so. )

You're more sanguine than I am about using open top/backed vehicles in the area of a (possible) 105mm FO. Point taken, though. I would indeed have my infantry posed to run. What to you mean by "after the armor table has been "run""? After the enemy's armor has been eliminated? Or just spotted? Hmmm... in CMBO I don't think the defender needs to "hope" that something unlikely happens to win, or that a single unit performs esp. well, which is what I'd characterize "gambling" as. But this (my Hetzer, not your Hummel) is certainly in opposition to redwolf's "dual purpose" policy for this defense - which I think is a very good one. Once again, I think we're just disagreeing over the little details... how _much_ a gamble the Hummel vrs. the Hetzer is. I must say I think a Hummel is more _fun_. I wouldn't expect to see the 155mm FO. I'd be _pleased_ actually. I'd be much more afraid of the continued pounding from a 105mm FO and extra points in armor. 155mm's are certainly bad news on a small map, but I think they're still too chancy. I believe the 105mm's 7 extra points are well worth it. I consider the 155mm FO a "special purpose" unit, and don't think they're appropriate for a QB attack against 700 pts. of German combined armed. (When I see a spotting 155mm shell land I tend to run. Maybe lay smoke and run, hopefully run behind cover - but run. It's seldom that a particualar place on the map is worth waiting for the other shells to arrive.) I wouldn't expect to see less than 2 AFVs on the American side, btw, even with 4 platoons of infantry. As the American I'd know the Germans couldn't afford more than 1 unit of "serious" armor, and I'd try to gain "vehicular superiority." and invoke that "last tank standing" phenomena that's so often the bane of low-point games. (The Americans could actually bring 2 full 76 Shermans and still afford a company of infantry and a 105mm spotter.) You mentioned the Jackson a few times. Did you mean an M10? I don't think Jackson's are available in July '44. Effectively the same, though. Both will take out any German armor. Whoops. I just checked. A (t)less M10 (AFAIK, all of them in July '44) has difficulty with the Hetzer's sloped armor. Chalk up a point for the Hetzer. Priests are a worry, too. 105mm for Anti-infantry work, and often enough © to menance a Hetzer. It's certain to have the HE to take out a Hummel, though. Good point. ("Deadly even to Hetzers." Though called into question a bit because of the M10/M36 issue.) I'd still rather have the Hetzer, for the lower silloute, and the ability to reveal itself/move more safely. (For example, a .50 cal in LOS wouldn't worry me.) And really, _any_ 76mm gun needs a bit of luck vrs. a front on Hetzer. 60 at 60 degrees is tough for 76mm, even at 100m. The lower hull is, IIRC, 60mm at 45 degrees. At 100m I think an American 76mm can penetrate... I don't know about longer range... Personally, I wouldn't worry about side hits much. Not with the relatively mobile Hetzer, not with the maps I saw. I certinly didn't exhaustivly sample maps, though. Puppchen are indeed very nice... though I am one of those people who avoid them outside of scenarios. You you still get the Hummel if you weren't allowed Puppies? [ June 19, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I agree with what you're saying, I think there is a "good reason" though. CMBO is supposed to be realistic enough that you can just imagine how things work in Real Life, and that's how it'll work in CMBO. It's supposed to be "immersive." I don't know exactly how true that is. I do, know, however, that I've never tried to Sneak, Move, Run, or Hide in Woods, Scattered Trees, Rough, or behind Stone Walls with a group of 7-12 other heavily armed soldiers. Knowing all the facts & figures would help a great deal... but I have to admit that it would decrese the level of "immersion" I'd feel. Woods would be less like a woods and more like a chunk of 25% Exposure terrain tiles. (Or whatever the actual figure is.) So I really sympathize with BTS's unwillingness to lay out all these terrain and movement modifiers in numerical terms in the manual, or explain _exactly_ how all the movement types work. It's obvious that "immersiveness" is very important to BTS, and I respect that. OTOH... _I'd_ rather know the #s. BTS wants you to learn from experience... I'd rather RTFM. I in no way want to imply that BTS shouldn't do things the way they want - I don't want to discuss the "rightness" or "wrongness" of they way they've handled the manual... but I will download any hard figures the second I see them. [ June 19, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Ok, then you just don't understand. "bc's "RSE"" _is_ like a Forward Screen Element. Note the quotes around RSE. Note "bc's"? Notice the word "like"? They're supposed to share many of the same primary functions - That's enough to consider them "like" things. (I think this is a very important point, so I'd appreciate a response to the above.) OTOH, A Rear Screen Element _isn't_ like "bc's "RSE". AFAIK, everyone agrees on that. See the distinction? When you say that comparing the-thing-bc-described to a "real life" RSE is wrong you are, indeed, correct. But when you so strongly deny the similarity between bc's "thing" and a FSE you sow confusion. Look at all the time you've spent attempting to gently persuade us to abandon the term. I still think 80% of that was time ill spent. Give us the correct term - but "SWL" or "MRL" _isn't_ going to work, unless a "RARE" is really one of the uses they were commonly put to. I'm _sure_ you have far more that you could contribute that telling us, over and over, that RSE isn't the term we want. There have been a few posts now that have bent over backward to avoid the irritating misnomer, pehaps you could just reply to them? YES YOU HAVE! We _still_ want to talk about heavy weapons used as anti-recon, "bait", and to mask the location of the MRL. We don't want to talk about Rear Screen Elements, just "bc's "RSE"'. And untill a professional is kind enough to give us a satisfactory term (I've already discussed why "SWL" and "MRL" won't work unless our understanding of "SWL" is changed), "bc's "RSE" or something we poor, ignorant amatuers make up is the best we can do. This is OT, but I think it should be said: Personally, I try to understand just whats being discussed and then supply the correct term. I know others do this too. Ignoring the discussion, mocking it, or, ah, "chiding" them for failure to fully comply with the terminology you think best are not the only options. [ June 19, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I bet this is safe to write: Ident. unit Coding effort > BTS interest in feature. Percieved Ident. unit player interest < percieved interest in other requested features. BTS interest in "other requested features" > BTS interest in in Ident. feature. If all of the above is true, and I think it is, it's perfectly reasonable for BTS to leave the feature out, even if the "coding effort" is small.

Actually, 12 HE shells is the _lowest_ I've seen for a Hetzer. 18-20 seems much more common. Its blast if 34 is equal to many tanks... not much compared to the Hummel's 200, sure. But it still far less vulnerable to infantry, and its MG and blast will really slow them down, if not kill 'em. And I think thats all you need for the scenario. I dunno... in this scenario the attacker can only bring in 4 platoons of infantry, maxium. If any platoons are Vet. then the max is 3 platoons. The defender can afford a whole company for anti-inf work and "depth". And that's just what I'd do, if I bought a Hetzer. Early is actually cheaper. A Crack late StuH is only 3 points more expensive than a Hummel. True about the HE, but ten early StuHs had an average of 1.5 HEAT. As good as the Hummel's figure, I think. Of course, the StuH does _need_ HEAT to kill a Sherman... but the Hummel isn't guaranteed a kill against a Sherman with HE either. It sounds like we're really pretty close on the Hummel vrs. Hetzer or StuH... You yourself stated that the Hummel is a gamble. I just think it's too much of a gamble, for the return. I don't think either of us can come up with anything really conclusive here... quite possibly you've had better expereinces using Hummel's than I have, and I've had better luck with Hetzers. Or we just have different tolerances for risk (or different attitudes - I'd rather risk not having enough offensive punch than risk loosing lots of "punch" in one open vehicle.) What I was trying to get at is that there's little "risk" involved with loosing the unit - Any AFV might get whacked without fireing a shot, but FO's generally survive to deliver their "payload."

Mortars are my biggest worry too. I've found I usually do something like you describe, bc, when I can use a few buildings for shelter. Pretty good protection from mortars. Your opponent is also often more willing to beleive your MRL - or at least something worth dropping heavy artillery on - is among buildings. Speaking of spread out, I like to have a vehicle of some sort that can "ferry" some HMGs to the true-MRL positions when the early part of a battle is past. A tank, maybe, moving from a "reserve" position to something closer to the front. You'll want a covered approach route, of course. Though I'm beginning to think a partially covered route is best. It can distract your enemy to let him see a bunch of tanks zooming around your back area. And a tank parked near your RARE (or whatever) can be used to reply to any long range AFV fire you're lucky enough to draw, if you're willing to reaveal it. (Probably not worth it, unless you've got an experienced Big Cat to place against a short-Sherman, maybe. Or a Firefly to take pot shots at a StuH.)

I said "might"... since the discussion has been about the term RSE, and it's role, AND IV lines, then "dealing with what I am saying" isn't particularly easy. And - just to perfectly clear - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But I do think hammering out a better term would be far, far more usefull at this point than continued discussion about why "RSE" isn't the right term. A problem with simply calling it the "support line" is that it, too, might be misleading. It's certainly ambigious. If for no other reason than bc's units aren't meant to directly "support" anything else. (IIRC) Come now. "Nonsensical" is much too strong... "Wrong" or "Misleading" is much better, and doesn't run the risk of confusing someone. ("Nonsensical" imples that bc's "RSE" is _nothing_ like the FSE.) What I was afraid you were missing is that the bc's "RSE" might be deployed and used in a different manner than a MRL's "traditional" machine guns, mortars, etc. A term to distinguish bc's units from a standard, not-anti-recon focused support line would be usefull. (What I mean by "traditional" is focused on the MRL's main role, which, I'm pretty sure, _isn't_ taking pot shots at recon elements, acting as _bait_, and trying to look like an MRL.) I don't remember if you answered this question unambigiously or not: Are an MRL's support weapons _often_ deployed to be used more against an enemy's recon force than anything else? As a HW group _not_ focused on supporting either the MRL or the FSE? If so, the SWL and bc's RSE are indeed the same. If not, if the SWL's aren't generally used against recon forces, or used to "flush out" enemy long-ranged weapons though being fired upon, then a seperate term is usefull. (Note the presense or lack of IV is another matter.) Ah - but _definetly_ not a very "usefull" thing to do. Not if the discussion is about using a SWL in a specific and unusual manner. If we do that it's good to be able to quickly distinguish bettween a more-traditional MRL and support focused SWL, and billcarry's anti-recon/"bait" SWL. Well, that might not be completely inexplicable. You're certainly not wrong to point out that RSE is the wrong term here... but that's percieved as a "negative" activity. Doing it multiple times without strong need will greatly inflate any negative perceptions. OTOH, being willing to discuss what the right term should be - as you've just done - ought to foster warm fuzzy feelings, and thus make discussing the issue easier for everyone. [ June 18, 2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I still don't like the idea of getting a Hummel instead of a Hetzer. The Hummel carries about 1/2 the ammo. The Hummel has about twice the sillhouette. (Ok, only 172%.) The Hummel's armor is much worse than the Hetzer's. A Hetzer has a decent chance of surviving a hit from Allied armor. The Hetzer is far less vulnerable to .50 cal fire, or to artillery. Except for the © rounds a Hummel's penetration against a Sherman is iffy. And it might not get any © rounds. Hmm... redwolf mentioned "dual purpose" units, which is certainly a very good point. What bothers me about the Hummel is that I think its worse in an anti-armor role than the Hetzer is a in an anti-infantry role. For me, the Hummel's poor armor clinches things. The Hummel is much more of a gamble, and with only 700 pts and Veteren+ units I don't think gambling is a good idea. Those points could be put toward units much less risking, and almost as effective. 120mm mortar FO - Excellent against infantry, and little risk involved. Like other big shell arty, the odds of an immobilizing hit on armor aren't too bad, either, if you like gambling. StuH - Still has a blast of 77, machinegun(s), more amo, © ammo is also capable of taking out a Sherman, and much better armor. A StuG is more expensive than a Hummel, but can still be bought. Like the Hetzer more usefull against armor, better survivability. Better than the Hetzer vrs. infantry. Yes, blasts from the 150mm gun are awesome... but limited AT use, limited survivability... it just doesn't seem worth the risk. Shrug I guess that while it's easy for me to imagine a Hetzer being hard pressed to help hold back the American infantry I find it even easier to picture a blasted and burning Hummel. [ June 18, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

And that "strong support element" is called....? It _doesn't_ necessarily actually support the MRL at all. It isn't really even intended to support the FSE. It's supposed to duplicate the 3 of the main functions of the FSE. (It's success or failure is a different issue.) It may be part of the MRL, but it doesn't _act_ like most of the MRL. A word differentiating it from the rest of the MRL would be usefull. (Also, I'm not sure if "500m or so behind" is correct. Why would units fulfilling the role bc proposes would need to always be 500m behind?) I don't say "I think you're wrong, Fionn." very often. And I won't know. I'll write it, though. I think you're wrong, Fionn. We don't need to be reminded that "RSE" isn't the correct term - note the amount of time it spent between " " s in my message. I also attempted to supply a new, not-inccorect, label. What we _do_ need is the correct, or at least "more acceptable" term. Remember - while you might think that the "RSE" idea is impractical, simply arguing that "RSE" isn't the right term is very far from demonstrating that it wouldn't work. We need _something_ to call it while we talk about it. Apparently my message to Hiram was usefull... It wouldn't have existed if I had to write "support element placed behind the MRL that's meant to duplicate 3 of the major roles of the FSE." every time I wanted to indicate those units bc was talking about. BTW - A dozen paragraphs about "RARE" being the wrong label too _really isn't necessary._ Just one would do. If you drop the name of the correct term into the discussion that'd be great. [ June 18, 2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]