Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
"Look! A dog with a ham!"
I'd worry more about arguments concerning the exact armor-piecing abilities of American AT ammo.
-
I could use that criteria to demonstrate that every game ever made has sucked.
A TRUE grog would.
An unsophisticated grog would limit himself to demonstrating that the wargames he sucks at suck.
A "Renissanse grog" would go on to demonstrate that everything ever made has also sucked.
A sophisticate grog would do the same, but less convincingly and with far more verbage.
What I think you're talking about here, Vanir, is a "bitter grog." Which is also a mix of certain kinds of ale and beer. So, despite the criticism in this thread, it's the best type of grog of all.
-
after six or seven hits
How about the morale status? The crew may have become distracted and/or lost focus.
-
Actually now that you ask, there is!
OMG, it worked!
-
It really astonishes me again and again how houses are build in the US. It must have some kind of advantage else they wouldn't be build like that but there are no such houses here.
There were some really big advantages when the basic building style became popular after WWII. Very cheap and fast compared to preceding methods. Now... not really. For a little more initial outlay there are several newer methods that give a much better house (IMO) with, among other things, a far greater resistance to small arms fire. If that sort of thing is important to you.
-
I had a squad in perfect cover (in that the pesky Pz IV had no LOS to them). Then an AP round hit the friendly Sherman to their left, ricochet off into them and took down two of the squad. Brilliant.
I had a QB where the majority of my casualties were from AP rounds bouncing off tanks.
-
Well, when I play a PBEM, we usually use a house rule that bans us from firing onto an opponents set up zone with a pre-planned barrage. I'm sure I'm not the only one that does this.
Yeah. I like a similar rule. I need to remember to mention it each time I play a new opponent. ATM I'm waiting on the first return-turn in a game and wondering if I'll see a big setup-area barrage.
My rule of thumb is:
Arty should be limited on Small or Tiny maps (Say, only 1 mortar section on a Tiny and 1 mortar + 1 other on a Small), and no pre-prep for defender or in MEs.
-
Guessing: The carbine-guys might be ammo carriers for the MG or the bazooka. (IIRC the zook generally doesn't go with the Assault squad.) The commanders probably have SMGs, but if one has a carbine he might be stuck with the the long-range squad.
-
I'm playing a couple now: Each is a "Medium" game.
The first (where I chose the full setup) does indeed look artificial. Infantry only, one smallish objective in the center or the map, corner starting positions. So we've got around half a battalion on each side racing to take up positions in the woods around a small collection of houses.
The other (where I didn't chose the setup) has the same force size, but Mixed. The map has a large town in taking up the whole center area of the map. This one seems much better: More like a couple of mech forces clashing over a key point. We're each probably racing for our initial positions, but by the nature of the map and the forces I think that initial phase will be quicker and occupy less of the map: I expect a fairly short but still significant scouting phase.
So while they often are quite artificial I think you can get game that *seems* reasonably historical if you use the right map and relatively small force sizes. Generally... maybe "Tiny" for Infantry Only (I think that'll get you a Company) and Small for Mixed.
-
Because it's an in-progress PBEM I need to censor this post some, but:
*** ***** ***** *** 155mm ***** **** Stugs **** **** ** JonS ** ** bitch!
-
What is to be done? I don't know. BFC says that the machine-generated map is gone forever and is not coming back,
I wonder if we could get some machine generated help. Say, a procedure to add minor elevation variations to an existing map. A few aids like that might not do anything for the reproduction maps, but could make the creation of "good" QB maps much easier. I've seen a slew of map-generation algorithms created for other games by players.
It'd require some new elements to the scenario editor... so maybe with the UI refit.
-
I wrote carelessly up above: I *do* think there are problems with the current QB system that go beyond map selection. However, the solution to them careful map selection. And since you should "review" the maps anyway my only ongoing problem is finding the right map.
I still think there's a lot worthwhile in the system compared to scenarios. But then, for me almost the whole point of QBs is picking my own units. I don't really mind needing to find a map. Or discussing the set-up with my opponent (if it's H2H) and working out the other parameters. I do think that's a lot more work/effort required than CMx1 games... but I still like CMBN QBs.
My biggest dissatisfaction has been with balance. My current rule-of-thumb is: Think hard about the map if it's an Assault, a small map, an Armor or Mixed QB.
For Assaults I think it's pretty easy to get a map that won't really work with your chosen forces type.
Small maps you can have problems with arty or domination by Armor units.
Mixed QBs, if the map happens to be well-suited to Big Cats, may see the Big Cats too dominant. (Hmm.... if it's Mixed or Armor maybe use a Random map with no map preview?)
-
They will never mis-identify a moving enemy unit as a cow pushing through a hedge, or vice versa,
Just how often did they mis-identify moving enemy units as hedges push through cows?
The only way, in CM, to conduct a stealth-based infiltration is to literally stay out of LOS, at all times. Everyone of your moving units has to remain under concealment for the entire journey. It's possible, but really hard to pull off.
I wonder how close we can come.
I inadvertently had a infiltration-ish QB. Set a Dawn... maybe with Haze? I don't remember, but the LOS significantly changed over the course of the game. The map was large enough that it was hard to figure out just where the attack was centered. Hardly a true infiltration-attack, but it was pretty good.
A scenario where the attacker has multiple set-up zones within the defender's general line - but not enough units to place in all of them, ala Vark's post, might be the best we can do.
-
My only problem with the maps is the difficulty of finding what I want for a QB.
Short of an allowing the maps to be sorted multiple ways in-game (type, size, features, etc.) I think adding a name to each, in addition to the current label and number, would be an improvement. It'd make them easier to remember and encourage the use of at least one feature name on the map. (So rather than just "ME Med. open/bocage 0666" we could have "ME Med - Huguenot Cabbage Plantation - open/bocage", for example.)
Hey, make the map files MP3s and put the meta-data, as well as all the map data, in the ID3 tags? That way you could also attach a music track to each map, too. What's not to like?
-
How about the range?
The longer the range the more AP penetration decreases. IIRC the Stummel has a pretty short gun: It may rightly estimate that the odds of AP inflicting damage is even lower than the chance for HE.
-
Rumor has it the guy who suggested on-map power-ups got whacked.
It pays to keep your head down. Happily most dissenters quickly discover the only safe way to communicate: coded hyperbole.
-
I don't doubt it would be tiring, but for emergency moves and quick rotations it is extremely plausible.
As far as I can tell, the game has no way to distinguish between an "emergency" 3m shift and packing up for a ride across the map.
There are already generally two teams associated with ATGs - gun and ammo. Maybe a future title will model things in more detail. ATM the ammo guys seem pretty sprightly. I suspect they're not pulling their weight.
-
So you guys are saying that German snipers used "88"s? Sources, please.
-
I found the immobilized Stug (thanks, Jon) and it was actually one track on a dirt road, one track in a grassy bocage action spot.
Is having each track in a different type of terrain a no-no for WWII vehicles?
-
It occurs to me that despite being outnumbered, human-controlled Germans actually have a large force relative to what they are required to do; hold the crossings.
I think that's a good point.
I had a Stug immobilized for no apparent reason before reaching it's firing position. Rather than following my normal procedure when faced with an unexpected "technical" setback in a PBEM game (cursing God, pouting, etc.) I really didn't care all that much. I had plenty of Stugs for the job at hand.
Had I been attacking I imagine I would have felt differently. But if the main engagement turns into a German defense the Axis armor allowance seems luxurious.
The limited approaches to the river makes the German task quite a bit easier - I like the idea of a Rhino in the American force. Especially if the German player isn't told about it. Could give the Americans a needed "Surprise!" factor. And I've already played the scenario as the Germans, so I probably wouldn't be on the receiving end of any such surprise.
-
Put them in the DB folder? At that point I can root through them and figure out which one it is.
-
Steve has specifically stated that tanks with tracks in good condition should pretty much never immobilize on a road in dry conditions, and specifically asked for a save game showing this
Anyone happen to know if a save from well after the Immobilzation would be of any help? I had a Stug become Immobilized in Huzzar (dry), but all I've got is a save from the final turn.
-
My rule of thumb is no pre-planned for defender, or for either in a ME.
Arty is always problematical on a small map, even when attacking. "Small" being found in the ratio between the size of the set-up area and the # of points the opponent gets. It's probably rarely if ever a problem on the large maps.
The QB system in general seems much "looser" than in CMx1. I seem to remember point allowances for various types of units, for example. OTOH, I think that made balanced QBs easier to achieve. OTOtherH, more freedom can be nice.
I've been having trouble matching map to forces for a given balanced QB type, but the arty and force mixes haven't been the problem.
-
(minor Spoilers)
The briefing and map indicate the Germans are to the SW, but they're actually everywhere. That makes sense for the recon, sort of, but not so much for the heavy armour.I just looked at the briefings. The German briefing does seem more definite: It's clear the bridges/fords need to be held. Nothing else seems to matter. It says the Americans may show up anywhere, but probably along the NS roads. And it looks like that's where they do show up.
The American briefing struck me as less clear. Or perhaps it just gives the impression that it's the German heavies that'll attempt to take the victory locations. Feeds into my main balance concern below.
OTOH, I don't think it says the Germans are to the SW - just heading for the river. (And, unless I"m turned around, the pic. shows them to the SE.) The heavy armor does show up int the south - though not always where the briefing implies. OTOH, the recon forces that show up N of the river make it easy to beleive other German units might show up in unexpected places.
Both briefings say they enemy will probably use the NS roads. I took that to mean the major NS roads toward the middle of the map. I don't know if the Americans use those roads, but the German armor doesn't - they enter more or less at the SW and SE corners, along the S edge. The Panthers seem a bit out of luck, showing up in among some trees without a nice road to follow. But they don't have far to go before they reach positions giving good LOS to American approaches.
but didn't secure myself any good terrain.
That's my main balance concern. I think that leads directly to the German heavy armor in place to defend against an American attack rather than contest the victory locations on an even footing. And I think securing the terrain is much easier with the German dismounts.
I'll really have to try things from the American side, though.
Hmm... it'd be interesting to compare the amount of time it takes a Quick-moving German Stug to reach a position with sheltered LOS to the bridge compared to an American tank. If each is unopposed should one always arrive well before the other?
The Germans get, what, 6 Stugs? When I played 2 went Greyhound hunting and the rest races toward the river as Quickly as possible. I'm not sure if they "won" the race because simply because they had a shorter course, because I knew the route was clear (thanks to those dismounts) or for some other reason.
I'm trying to remember why I wasn't worried about Americans already being in place. It may have been not so much that I had a clear route to the river, but a couple of units stranded to the NW acting as spotters, and a LMG up on the second floor of the building on the N side of the river with a good view. Either way: It was the dismounts.
CMBN Game Review Link
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I took that as implicit encouragement to vilify Holien, an active poster. IMO if JonS should be criticised, it's for failing to do that.
I did awhile ago. I thought it disappointingly prosaic and endorse sbuke's recommendation.