Yggdrasill

Doesn't at all surprise me that they have a poor reload time, and i'm certain to have nothing better than a regular crew, most likely green/conscript). My question is, will they survive (not die, not panic) a shoot-out long enough to reload, and can they hit anything? Unfortunately, I think I will be forced to use them as tank destroyers, because i am defending against [elements of] an armor division.

WARNING - THIS IS A PARTIAL SPOILER FOR THE BARBAROSSA OPERATION. * * * * * * * * * * * * Ok, so I'm playing the Russians in this 5 battle operation, where my orders are to block the German advance. He has a lot of tanks and AFVs, I don't. In the first battle I had no vehicles, and he advanced well by concentrating on a single sector of my MLR, losing just a few AFVs to ATR and ATG fire. In the second battle, I destroyed a number tanks and assault vehicles with my 45mm and 76mm guns because he was careless. I also had received as reinforcements a platoon of armored cars and a platoon of light tanks, all armed with 45mm guns. I was able to kill a few PzIIs that foolishly tried to traverse the lines, exposing themselves to flank shots. I lost half of my AFVs. All in all a good battle as my infantry chewed up his infantry pretty badly, and he made little progress. NOW HERE'S MY QUESTION: The third battle is about to begin. He has at least a dozen AFVs, including many PzIIIs, and probably will receive more as reinforcements. I am getting another platoon of ACs and a platoon of KV-2s. HOW DO I USE the KV-2s? I have no experience with these tanks. I know they're heavily armored, and have decent penetration. But they're outnumbered, slow, and will probably have poorly trained crews. They can't maneuver. Is it best just to slug it out? Will they panic and retreat? Are they vulnerable to the L42 gun? ARe they accurate? Do they have an ammo load to last a prolonged firefight? [EDIT: Just wanted to add that the terrain is fairly open, some clumps of woods, some hills, some long open spots. It is possible to engage at range.] Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. [ December 19, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Yggdrasill ]

Vader! :eek: I thought you had packed it in and chucked your CMBB CD. Did the release of CMAK bring you back. p.s. where's my mod CD!? thor

Good questions Wicky. I have an older G4, 400mz, with a Radeon 64mb graphics card. Yes I backed up my bmp and reinstalled that folder when I couldn't get the other one to work. And yes, I did have some alternative sky mods. But I have a lot of ram, so that really shouldn't be a problem. As to the nature of the crash, I don't remember exactly, but I think the game froze when trying to load a scenario. As to the particular mods, too many to list but there were a lot, dled from the CMMODS site. You've given me some good ideas. I'll start with uniforms, then vehicles, then terrain/sky, then sounds. It's just so time consuming, testing each mod pack. I'll check out the sound mods to see if they need to be converted, but I'm using a program (a mod manager) to convert the files for a mac so that shouldn't be a problem, should it? </font>

I still dare not play Ops via PBEMs as I think they would take a looong time. But Barbarossa, from reading the briefings, does look quite interesting. I have heard so much about Our Backs to the Volga. I think I need to try it out!! </font>

I know that this is going to sound like whining, but does anyone have a "mod package" for CMBB? Last weekend I downloaded a whole bunch of mods - tanks, guns, uniforms, terrain, sounds - and installed them on my mac. Then CMBB would crash on opening. It just seems sooooo time-intensive to test each one to see if it works. Even a basic "package" would be great. thanks for any ideas/leads. thor

Robert, I understand where you're coming from. I don't mind being thrown into an "impossible" situation - that gives the rules some bite and realism. What concerns me is the way in which the rules handle the outcome after the fact. It's not unreasonable of my "CO" to tell me to hold a piece of ground against great odds. But it does seem peevish of him :mad: to tell me I sucked when, to put it immodestly , I honestly don't see how a better outcome could have been achieved. Here's the thing: the force specifier in the QB for the Soviets was random. It turned out to be a heavily armored force (with lots of everything else as well), against which I had a miniscule infantry force and no tanks, defending in open terrain etc. etc. Now it seems plausible for the "CO" to say after the battle, "Wow, that was a stronger force than anticipated, no wonder you got wiped out," and adjust favor accordingly, especially when one considers that the casualties I inflicted meant that the Soviets weren't going any further that day. In looking back, the only option available to me to preserve my force was to have abandoned the field before annihilation. Some units did rout and retreat off the map, but there was no general retreat order. I would balance this outcome against other outcomes I've had defending against the AI where I've done extremely well in less unfavorable circumstances, because the AI generally does poorly on offense. The system currently handles it by penalizing heavily in the first instance, and rewarding heavily in the second. I wonder if a more balanced approach wouldn't work better, in which you don't get too severely penalized for extreme "no-win" situations, and don't get excessive reward for easy wins. I think that more extreme rewards/penalities are appropriate where the player is attacking, because the outcome depends less on the AI's eptitude and force handicap. Just a thought. Thanks again for the great rules. thor skov

Any idea how to do this on a Mac?

Can't remember the names of more than two, but I am currently playing the Barbarossa operation, which is really interesting. I'm in the second battle of 5. Our Backs to the Volga is a GREAT battle. Very tough for both sides, it's a bloody primer on urban warfare.

Robert, Awesome rules set! It destroyed my weekend. I have a quibble though. I got stuck with a battle in December 41, where i (as the Germans) was ordered to hold against a Soviet assault on the southern front. This was a small map, open woods, rural; the Soviets had +75% handicap, and a combined arms force. I was defending with an infantry force of just two platoons, 2 guns, and some MGs and mortars, with just 40% ammo load (though I spent favor to increase it to 60%). This was a small battle, about 500 points, because my core force is just a Gebirgsjager platoon with some supporting weapons. Now, we held out for 22 turns (25+ variable) against a Soviet juggernaut of over a dozen AFVs, including a T-34 and a KV-1, as well as supporting infantry and artillery. It was only at the very end, when my CO with a great morale bonus was routed, that my resistance collapsed. I inflicted a lot of casualties, especially considering how much I was outgunned. But despite the fact that my green/regular forces literally fought to the last man against overwhelming opposition, or almost, I got demoted and lost a lot of favor. This just didn't seem fair. Was this a fluke or was it a correct outcome in your opinion? Thanks again for all your hard work. thor

Don't forget allied airpower. I think that the "west" could have dominated the skies, which would have been a counter to the soviet superiority in tanks. Also, the allies were a much more mobile/mechanized army than were the soviets. Also, wasn't the Pershing a good match for the IS-3?

I have put round after through HTs without killing them, so I don't think the Russian ATRs are "too" effective, at least in terms of KOing vehicles. They do have two great strengths, in my experience. First, they carry a lot of rounds, so they can fire for a good number of turns, buttoning up whatever they shoot at. Second, and perhaps even more important, they are incredibly hard to spot (not sure why this is the case). So they are relatively invulnerable. I have had opponents waste ammo from 50 amd 75mm armed HTs, firing at where they guessed (incorrectly) the ATR rounds were coming from. In my opinion, the best thing to do about enemy ATRs is either to ignore them and focus on more available targets or to stay hidden. Trying to engage them if you can't see them is a waste of resources, especially if it's just one or two.

My favorite thing to watch is an ambushed squad go from full strength to zippo in half a turn. Those little soldier icons drop like dummies in a carnival shooting arcade. Of course, this is NOT fun when it's my squad. Second best is still watching a building blow up.

That's what I am going to have to do from now on. Thanks for engaging me on this question. thor

Oh, I get it. This IS a PEBKAS problem, if I'm reading correctly. You've got a line of sight, that goes THROUGH the building, to something on the other side? That's because the tank is tall, and can see over small buildings, but when it fires it doesn't "arc" it OVER the building. It goes into that first building (and, despite your claims, can sometimes go completely through the building). The LOS is just THAT. A Line of SIGHT . It doesn't guarantee hitting anything. In the other case, that of the target line showing it as well, it's because the gunner can see the target as well, but anything in the way (like a house) will get in the way of the shot. If you left the AI to it's own device, it won't take that shot (for just this reason), but you ordered it to, so it does it, and takes the house with it. This usually happens when you hit the CORNER of a house, to a difficult target on the other side. In that case, it won't say you "will hit the house", because that kind of data is too accurate for the FOW.</font>

I appreciate the replies, even the PEBKAS Terrapin . Could be player error; I should do some tests. But I am pretty sure it isn't since I had to work a bit to be able to draw a LOS to the building I wanted to hit, and double checked both times. As to Panzer Leader's suggestion that the proximity to the firing unit is destroying the adjacent small building--well, why does that not happen if I'm targeting something else? I've never seen a building blow up just because a nearby gun/AFV fired unless the building itself was the target. I did a search as PL suggested, but couldn't find anything. Will keep looking. No, the deal is that I am targetting one building, but hitting another that is between them. That's logical. What isn't is that I can draw an LOS "through" the one to the other. If I can see it, I should be able to shoot it; or, put another way, if I can see "through" it why can I not shoot "through" it?

Terrapin, Sorry, PEBKAS? How often you ask? One time each in two consecutive games. And sure, I can move the tank, but by then the damage is done. At such short range, a T-34 makes short work of the adjacent untargetted building (and my squads hiding there).

Help me out with this. I have had this precise situation occur twice, in separate games. I am playing as the Soviets, mid 43. One of my T-34s targets the second story of a, 150m or so distant tall building containing pesky enemy units. The tank in question is within 15m of a small building, which (of course) contains friendly infantry. The tank is able to draw LOS to tall building, and targets it--plotted orders show the tall building as the target. We click "Go" and the tank proceeds to shoot "at" tall building but hits adjacent small building, :eek: naturally blowing it up and killing unfortunate friendly infantry. :mad: I don't understand why I can draw both LOS to and target one building, but when I fire I hit another. Am I missing something here? It takes 3 or 4 shots to blow up the wrong building, so it's not as if the tank commander missed on the first shot and adjusted his angle of fire. any helpful, or humorously sarcastic responses welcome.

I'd say quite a few rungs above Sid IMO. I loved the Civs, especially 1 and 2, but the man was just too greedy. Example: after 6 years of development, Civ3 wasn't even multiplayer when first released. That was simply milking for every last penny. Battlefront doesn't do that. They put out quality products and patches. AND they engage their customers, something that Sid has never done to my knowledge.

Once when I was learning to play CMBO, I set up a scenario to experiment with artillery. I defended a town on a medium map as the allies, with just three observers of the heaviest calibers I could afford, including 8-inch naval guns. The computer attacked with mostly infantry. The comp moved its units from tree clump to tree clump. When the artillery fell it wiped out pretty much the entire attacking battalion :eek: It was amazing to look at the map afterward and see unit after unit of eliminated squads and teams. Frightening really. I have never gotten to choose 8-inch guns in a real battle, but they were something to behold in action.

The southern summer offensive of 42 caught STAVKA by surprise. Stalin had been anticipating a second drive on Moscow and had deployed soviet forces accordingly. Initial German drives to Rostov and the Caucasas succeeded. The Battle for Stalingrad built up incidentally, and the Germans gradually occupied 80% of the city. The Soviets saw morale value in holding the city that bore Stalin's name. Hitler, in his unwisdom, bought into that propaganda, and fixated on taking the city. Even without the ultimate debacle, it was a costly urban battle with little to gain. In answer to your question, Schoerner, the Germans never should have gotten into the Stalingrad battle in the first place. They could have bypassed and cut off the city. Instead they chose to invest more and more soldiers, in bloody urban fighting, and progressively weakening their flanks. Or, they could have screened the city, and driven on towards the oil fields at Baku, which were their true objective in any case. What Von Manstein showed in 1943 was the effectiveness of a mobile defense. If the Soviets had threatened to cut off Army Group South, a mobile defense could have pulled back and met that threat. If the 6th army hadn't been occupying the city, it could have maintained a wider front along the Volga. If 6th had withdrawn after the beginning of Operation Uranus, as common sense would dictate, they would have survived to fight another day. But Hitler WAS an idiot. He chose to invest in Stalingrad. When things went poorly he ordered the soldiers not to retreat, and then, not to surrender. Von Paulus was too much of a coward to defy Hitler until it was too late to save his army. I don't think that this is hindsight. Hitler's generals at the time urged him to pull the 6th army back. Your notion of "soaking up" 5 armies is ridiculous. True, the Soviets lost close to a half a million troops, to the Germans' 250,000, but the Soviets could afford these losses, as history shows, while the Germans could not.

I have to agree with JC. Germany could not afford to lose 6th Army. Those 250,000 veteran soldiers were, simply put, irreplaceable. If 6th Army had broken out as part of an organized retreat, the Soviets would have had a MUCH harder time of it. Of course, the Germans should never have allowed themselves to be surrounded at Stalingrad in the first place, but then Hitler was an idiot when it came to strategy. The stand-and-die/no retreat standing order sealed the death of many German soldiers to little or no avail.

I can sum up my attitude with the phrase, "what's good for the goose..." MGs work both ways. Infantry is still king of the battlefield, IMO. Unless I know I'm up against a heavily armored force, I would just as soon spend my last tank's worth of points on infantry. If you're attacking, buy your own Heavy MGs and mortars to pin your opponents. There's a reason support units are called "support units." Infantry unsupported by MGs, guns, artillery, and AFVs will have a hard time defending against a combined arms assault, and an impossible task attacking against a well-balanced force. I don't think my force compositions or tactics have changed all that much, except that I'm much more likely to purchase aircraft. I luuuuuuuuuuv those rocket graphics!!

This is an interesting bug. As the Soviets (always on EFOW) I have yet to misidentify a halftrack for a gun tractor. Is this bug simply random or does it occur only in conjunction with other parameters (weather, year, troop experience, etc.)? And to throw in my 2 cents on ATRs, I have yet to find them ineffective. I do have a question though. Will they fire AP rounds or HE (assuming they have them) at soft targets?

Apologies if there is another thread on this topic, but I couldn't find anything in a search of the archives. I wonder why CM doesn't allow for the use of starlight shells in night battles, at least by off-board artillery. I don't know how common these were in WWII but certainly they were used in WWI. Seems to me they'd be at the appropriate scale/time frame of a CM battle. Is this something that could be included in a patch?