Tarquelne

I'll just have to start spamming e-mails - I can barely resist even now - and then any message boards you're on. If I'm sitting staring at the computer I've got a lot of time to fill. Eventually, after a few further levels of escalation, I'll learn how to hack your library page and fill it with bad manga and every edition of the Harry Potter franchise I can find in a desperate bid for attention. (This isn't a threat - I'm just describing what's happened before.) Mostly I need more games... I had 5 going and after a period of adjustment enjoyed playing those and getting some work done. Then a series of computer problems or routine delays cut the games down to one, and now my schedule's thrown off *and* I've got this addiction to feed. Maybe I'll add another vice to my life. Hmm, I don't drink much... (Actually, the hacking thing is probably plenty time-consuming.) Thanks for seeing about the clock-thing GaJ. ATM I'm using a function of the Windows clock that isn't entirely satisfactory. But it does tell me it's 1:20 pm where JonS is. H2HH tells me it's been 12 hours since I sent my turn. He's probably sitting there with his finger on the "End turn" button, laughing at me. (I'm assuming Kiwi's, like Americans, all do something involving recreational internet use on increasingly-long lunch breaks) I wonder if I can find where he is on Google earth, and if I've still got that cross-directory phone software...

Suggestion: Allow "Other Info" to show oppo's local time if you put the zone in at the "Edit Game" box. This will help cut down on the amount of time I sit staring at the screen, hoping a turn will arrive.

I'd guess it was an issue with LOS through bocage. Was it at something of an angle? I've had the LOS tell me I had LOS, a Target command was allowed... but, apparently, there was no LOF. Shifting the tank to decrease the angle through the bocage allowed the tank to shoot.

Thanks! Trying it out - looks great. I've been using an RSS feed with Dropbox... pretty good. But it occasionally misses a file and, of course, lacks the various organizational functions of H2HH.

Maybe all that's really needed is some additional guidance from the briefing? Or is it more of a general experience thing? Everybody probably gets it in the neck from a bocage scenario or two. Re: recon forces balance - George, assuming you do want to beef up the Americans in the early game: Rather than adding to the U.S. force, perhaps remove a Puma or two from the Germans, or down-grade them to a couple of 20mm armed ACs? That preserve the rather distinct nature of the two forces while still giving the Americans a relative boost.

First, I'm curious about the state of everyone's game at the end of the "recon phase", before the heavy armor arrives. In my game the Germans had occupied the victory locations. The Americans may have had an edge in strength, but were considerably outnumbered. And the routes from where the armor would enter to the river lacked effective American opposition. (As did American routes to the river.) *** "just a bad use of whatever strengths you believe the Americans have?" I think there's something to that. Though I'd put it "It's much easier to use the German units at full effectiveness." In theory the forces might be equal, but in practice the Americans have a much more difficult task. I played as the Germans. In the recon phase I didn't want to take on the American Stuarts and Greyhounds with most of my forces - the MG HTs and infantry - so I used them to occupy the victory locations while the American dutifully explored and skirmished with the German 20mm HTs and 50mm ACs. That served me well in the next phase of the battle. There wasn't much opposition to the armor occupying great positions defending the victory locations. With armor (and infantry, and esp HTs.) to spare for the other crossing points. As I did this I was trying to figure out what I'd do as the Americans. Whatever it'd be, I think it'd have to be something clever involving smoke with a combined arms assault. Much trickier than finding good defensive positions for the German armor. The Panthers especially have some great options - they were destroying American tanks still 300+m from the river, from locations another 200 or so meters away from the river. (And one HT got nailed near the American map edge.) Some more arty sounds good for the Americans - at least if the main engagement consistently plays out like an American attack. And do the Americans have access to arty at the beginning? If not, perhaps some off-map 81mm mortars? I'd suggest beefing up the American initial recon forces. (Not necessarily more Stuarts or Greyhounds - maybe more HTs or jeeps.) Though the best thing might be to create an additional American force that comes in well after the game's start but still in advance of all the armor. Perhaps another recon detachment. They could be used to either delay the German armor, or make an attempt on the victory locations. So rather than a German defense there'd be the possibility of phase two being more like a ME or American defense.

What does "efficiency" mean there? Trying to get a good handle on this... Could you tell me what's correct or mistaken with the following? Links to off-map HQs can matter for spotting. Artillery assets are assigned to certain levels - company or battalion or higher, for example, and those levels interact with a spotters C2 links. With a working radio a company HQ is assumed to have C2 to it's off-map battalion HQ, and that will help it's spotting efficiency for assets not assigned to the company. A company HQ without a radio has no C2 to it's off-map batallion. It can still spot but with lower efficiency. If platoon, company, and battalion HQs are all on map without radios they'll need to be near/in sight of each other for the platoon HQ to call on battalion assets at full efficiency. But without the C2 links all the way up it can still call the assets. (Assuming they don't need an FO.) HQs with radios generally don't need to worry about the C2 links. HQs without radios will never have a C2 link up the chain to any off-map HQ.

I'd summarize it as "Go look things up online." I find that easier - and more informative - than deciphering the "Defenses Report". But here's my easy-to-remember rule of thumb for American tanks: Any anti-tank weapon can kill it from any direction. Here's this from page 68 of the manual: Hollow charge is the top line, small arms the bottom one. I'd guess part of the hull is exposed, as opposed to just the turret being exposed relative to the spot your targeting. Hopefully someone who knows for sure will come along.

Units behind bocage seem pretty stealthy to me. As long as there's not someone within 10 or so meters on the other side, and as long as the unit doesn't fire. General scouting: Smoke can be useful. Smoke shells from a tank or mortar can temporarily blind the most obvious enemy observation areas, or allow you to place some good cover where you want it.

Efficiently? As in quickly and/or easily? You don't. I never claimed checking out the maps would be fun, quick, easy, or highly remunerative. It's just what I think you need to do for the best shot at a good fight. Buildings: I just had what I'm pretty sure was rifle fire from well outside a building (20m at least) strike down most of a squad as they tried to get out the back door, on the opposite side of the building. Sniper? Probably just an Engineer squad.... Geesh. Other than that it's been better than I expected.

Well... yeah. I guess I didn't say so explicitly, but I think you need to look at the actual map to judge it. The names/categories are far too broad.

Too bad the QB maps don't have real names as opposed to numbers and designations. What were they named by, the US Army?! I'd have some suggestions if I didn't have to go searching through the QB map directory. I think you're right about a list of good maps being great... though I don't think it's as simple as good vs. bad. More like "What's this map good for?" One of my first PBEM maps, for example, involved a Mixed game that was really bloody short because arty + tanks made for such an easy approach... plus blowing the heck out of the defender. An All Infantry (or maybe even Mech.) game on the same map, OTOH, might have been great. Assuming some sharp restriction on arty, of course. I don't think a random set-up for PBEM is likely to give a good, fair match. Could still be a good game, if the players are resigned to one of them getting shafted. I'm having some trouble coming up with fair matches even when selecting the QB type, forces, and map. So I don't think we can expect it of the random generator. Too bad. Best bet might be for players to decide on a map and then what sort of QB to fight on it. Some parameters could be random, but most - or at least several of the more important ones - manually selected.

After my first few games I resolved to buy less. Pretty much just when I have some specific, planned use for it. Suppression and/or smoke for an advance, for example. OTOH, the American rockets *are* wicked-cheap. And the smaller the map the better the value arty gives. I'd say it's over-powered on most or all the Small maps. But an agreement with your opponent to limit arty purchases should fix that. That all applies just to QBs, not scenarios. So far I've only happened to play 1 scenario with off-map artillery in it. Huzzar: I'd rather have received some extra infantry.

Regular, -1 leadership. I think their morale state was OK. Responding to dakuth above: The ground cover was a little shaggy - not long grass, but wildflowers. That, combined with the rise, seems like it could easily degrade the LOS. Erwin: I bet everyone's aware that it could be a bug or flaw. But at this point I think it's easy to believe there's a rational explanation for the team losing then not spotting the Marder. (And maybe it would have Spotted it if given more time.) I *do* think there's a flaw, in that the AT team would have just needed to rise to a crouch to re-acqure the then-oblivious Marder and didn't. But, again, maybe the would have if given more time. And maybe they didn't want to expose themselves any more - very rational. Going to a crouch is the sort of pro-active action AIs generally aren't good at. Most of the time being prone works. So the flaw is just another of those hard-to-fix AI things. At least they didn't fire off a few rifle rounds before dropping. In the future I'll try to be more aware of slight folds in the land between AI teams and their targets. And maybe see about tossing in a move order toward the target if it seems a concern.

There was a gap of of more than 30 seconds between when the team went prone and when the Marder turned, which is why I think they spotted the prone team. But as you say, it's impossible to say without seeing things from the other side. Hmm... And his infantry was in the area. I don't think anyone was in a good position to see the team. But of course he'd be trying to keep them from being spotted. From another thread I gather one of them might have spotted the team and relayed the info to the Marder. Looking from the Marder's perspective the bazooka team does seem like it'd be visible. Somewhat hard to spot, but I can make out a couple of little drab shapes. And I assume the Marder has binocs or optics.

It spotted them when they were prone. (This is in a PBEM and I haven't asked, but I'm pretty sure: Toward the end of a turn the Marder turned it's gun right at them.) It did fire, but not until the bazooka team started to run. It fired quite quickly after they popped-up. I'd assumed they were already in the process of firing before the team moved. But perhaps not. The Marder took either took as long as I'd expect to fire, or was much quicker. It's hard to say exactly what it was aiming at. It looks like it was more or less on-target, just short. It's nice to know the AT-guys can fire from a crouch.

I'm trying to figure out why a bazooka team can't see a Marder while the Marder can see them. This first picture shows the team with the Marder spotted. They Hunted to their current position and dropped to the ground when they saw the TD. This shot was taken just after they dropped to the ground. Their next move was to crawl to the left a little. Part way through that move they lost sight of the Marder. Less than 20 seconds elapsed between the two pics. So they lay there the rest of the turn futilely searching their arc for the missing Marder. Toward the end of the turn the Marder, OTOH, saw them. I'm puzzled by the (apparently) one-way LOS. There's a slight rise in the ground in front of the bazooka team. In this shot you can see how it makes the ground 85m away a reverse slope target. And here you can see that the ground 127m away is a reverse slope target. 85 and 127m because, with the camera at ground level, the LOS tool jumps from 85m to 127m. The Marder's about 100m away. It's possible the team is just unlucky and or unskilled - I don't know what sort of chance elements are built into the spotting system. That was my first idea, when I thought they'd merely failed to spot the TD at all. Not spotted it and then almost immediately lost it again. My other theory is that the team can't see the Marder while prone because of the small rise. In this theory the team doesn't really have a LOS at all in the first screenshot, or the LOS is very poor and once a little time passes they lose their "Spot" on the Marder. Yes/no? Also: If left in place would the team have come up to a crouch eventually? Assuming they weren't whacked first. I've seen AT-rocket teams who fire in the middle of a move fire while standing. And I've seen stationary teams fire while prone. But I don't recall seeing any fire from a crouch. (Which would mean they can never fire from behind a low hedge or wall?) For those worried about the fate of the team: They scarpered successfully.

I'm trying to figure out some rules-of-thumb for QB game length and was looking into this. I found at a QB map (120) that has the same set-up positions available in Probes, Attacks and Assaults. Maps 12 and 13 have the same set-up positions Attacks and Assaults. So it looks like some maps don't adjust starting positions based on battle type. (In this case it was 100% of the maps I examined that didn't adjust.) I checked a couple of things on map 13. I made a test Attack and Assault with the same defenders (2 Shermans) and attackers (FO + Kubelwagon) each time. In an Attack the victory area was worth 650. In the Assault it was worth 750. Killing all the Attacking attackers netted the defender 350 points. Killing all the Assaulting attackers netted the defender 250 points. (So in an Assault the attacker can afford to lose more?! Nice for the attacker.) Given all that, my conclusion is that Assaults should generally be given less time than Attacks or Probes... at least on for smaller-battles and/or open maps. And when the map doesn't adjust by QB-type.

Yes. I'm not sure of any of this - it's all just based on fiddling around with forces for QBs rather than a real examination, but: I think it's something like a 50 point charge on formations after the first. IIRC I found a case where that didn't happen, so I'm not sure what's going on. But an extra 50 points is what I've come to expect. Maybe it's only when you mix formations from more than one category? Why not buy everything as individual vehicles/teams? Because you also seem to get a discount on units bought as part as a formation. At least sometimes. IIRC 52 points for a German MG section as part of a formation vs. 56 points as a team. I imagine the idea is that you're rewarded for fielding a realistic force, with "Adheres to a coherent TOE." as the measure.

Yep. I suspect it's far down the list. The best opportunity for it getting included may be the upcoming GUI re-vamp, since it might need that anyway. But I'd use it - I'd often rather do all my arty pre-planned.

Ah. Thanks - that explains a lot and fits well with what I've seen.

Does range matter? Say a tank is within effective rifle range but a bit of a long-shot for a AT-rocket: Will the Anti-tank soldier delay firing, or (seems more likely) just take longer to fire? That'd give Mr. Optimistic, the guy with carbine shooting at the Tiger, a chance to fire first.

Perhaps the rule should be if one player does pick the map, the other player gets to load up on cheap rockets or artillery. I think that could be very good. At least in this case.

Might be some really severe bottlenecks for vehicle movement up north, which would nix my oh-so-cunning plan above. "Mech only" seems like a problematical choice for the attacker - at least in a QB where humans select the forces. A closed map is bad for an American force, since the relatively heavy vehicles are restricted by the terrain and the infantry is poor in automatic weapons. And the Germans with a problem in open terrain: Nothing (besides the rare Puma) better armored than a HT - American HMGs have a party. Yes/no?

Good point, and good reason to definitely *not* go with the "all inf." option I suggested above. M1's often stack up well against German squads, but the forest is not where you want to meet a bunch of MP40s, 44s, and up to 2 LMGs per squad. I don't think that's quite true, if the defender can't (or just doesn't) set-up too far forward. Assuming the top of the map on the first page is North, here's what I'm thinking: Plaster the buildings N of the railway and near the forest with pre-planned artillery. (What wouldn't be all that gamey... 2x105mm? 4? Certainly a Mech. Inf. company's 3x81mm isn't too much, though I'm not sure it's enough...) And maybe the woods ahead of it a little. Get from your setup area to the area just shelled ASAP. You might need Smoke (probably yet more arty. So the fatal flaw here might be you won't have enough points left for a credible attack force.) to cover it from the south. I'm not sure how fast units can get through the woods there, but I think they could get there before the defender reorganizes. You might need to set the pre-planned artillery for turn 5, and use the time to edge forward. At that point you *don't* fight through the woods. You fight through the rest of the villiage and/or the fields toward the victory area. The defender will have a lot of troops in the woods, and you can expect a lot of fire from the edges. But if you can get some vehicles in the town you have a good shot at out-shooting them. OTOH, if the defender reads these messages he may concluded that: A) If you go through the woods you're hosed. Yay. and He should anticipate a shelling and quick-strike at the village, and take steps accordingly.