Yggdrasill

What problem? Can you say "dug in"?

I played two QBs against the AI, with identical parameters, except that I switched sides. Parameters: December 41, Finland, Soviet Mechanized attacking Finnish Infantry (Ski); heavy woods, modest hills, extreme cold, strong winds, damp (no SNOW!--AI's choice originally and I kept the same for the second game). Experience was unrestricted; I chose my own, and AI chose its. In the first game, as the Soviets the AI picked Crack and Elite troops, which, due to poor leadership, got slaughtered. In the second game, as the Finns on defense, the AI chose Green/Regular troops?!?! Again, a slaughter, though things could well have gone differently had the AI chosen more experienced units. Is the AI's selection entirely random when unrestricted, or does it depend on year, nationality, etc.? Any thoughts?

Not true, in my experience. I played a QB as the germans on defense. All my units were hidden at the start. The AI called in a 3-turn long (beginning turn one) barrage of some small caliber artillery (81mm or thereabouts) on an exposed (clear terrain) hillside near a victory flag. There was nothing to hit, but that field was ready to plant when the FO got through with it.

Any thoughts as to why BFC chose to do it this way? I'm guessing because it's too complicated to distinguish between waterbodies with ice sufficiently thick to support vehicles and those where you'll get a *CRACK<>KERPLOONK<>GLUB GLUB* instead. Incidentally, one way (partially) around this is to do as the designer did for the Lake Ladoga scenario, to make a road across the lake, on which the vehicles can drive.

For fun i just played a 700 pt ME against the AI; summer 1942; AI was axis armor; I took all infantry, mostly green it turned out. Fairly open terrain, some hills some patchesof woods, but a lot of open space. Axis had 4 PzIIIJs, a PzII, and two armored cars, plus a platoon of recon infantry with mortars, but no MGs. I took two platoons, about 15 AT rifles, 4 MGs. I crushed the AI, but mostly because it wasstupid, and advanced against me. At range (500m), I was able to take out only one armored car; the rest of the kills were much closer, only around 250m, tho I did have some guns shooting from the flank at around 150m. Never had a chance to kill of better than very low, and the PzIIIJs took a LOT of hits. They bottled up in a copse with my infantry on them and got hammered. But even so, one PzIII made it to the last turn, after taking what I would swear was around 150-200 hits, including numerous track and gun hits, as well as a few penetrations, not to mention 4 molotov cocktails. It was firing to the end. In the end, all the tanks abandoned, none knocked out. I would NOT have liked to have tried that against a real player, who would have just sat back and pasted me from a distance.

I agree, as I said in my original, post, they work against LIGHT armor , such as the Pz38T. But against heavier stuff you'll just keep them buttoned (which is of course very helpful). The thing is, while I agree 8 (or 30) AT rifles can be effective, you have to start weighing that cost against buying actual armor. Of course, if you're defending with an infantry force, that's not an option.

Well, it really depends what you're going up against, and what you expect them to do. I have taken out just a single tank with AT rifles (the Finns took out a Russian light tank), but they will regularly take out un/lightly armored units such as trucks and halftracks. However, they may need several hits to do so, and sometimes even that is not enough as the rounds often pass clear through without damage. However, AT rifles have a lot of rounds, between 50 and 100 depending on type. I find them extremely useful for keeping armor buttoned up, more so than snipers. They also appear to be difficult to spot, especially in steppe. Hence, against real tanks they work well for suppression, and may *rarely* get a lucky kill. Use them in conjunction with infantry or AT guns, but don't expect them to stop an armored assault.

thanks for the link.

sorry for such basic questions but: 1. is there a grid mod for CMBB and 2. can you mods with MCM3 (I have a macintosh) thanks.

Familiarizing myself with the Soviet units, I noticed that these two are remarkably similar. They look identical. Was the SU-76 a copy of the StuG? Obviously it had a smaller gun, inferior optics, and so on. The thing I don't understand is that the SU-76 is listed as having a superstructure, but I cannot see this from the graphic.

My uber-Finns lit up a russian truck with a BOYS anti-tank rifle in the Lake Ladoga scenario. And in a QB a soviet Cromwell blew the $#!^ out of my Marder II -- kaBOOM! If you want to see burning hulks, grab a KT and a JagdTiger. Those more often than not seem to brew up whatever they hit. I suspect an ISU-122 will do the same.

This is not entirely true, in my experience. When I played the Lake Ladoga scenario, the Soviet AI moved several of the forward trucks in the column. Others (those at the rear) remained immobile. Now it may have had something to do with being shot at, but I was under the impression that these vehicles drove into my line of sight. As for the troops embarked on the trucks, most disembarked, though some did not . Just my two cents. thor

I was playing the Lake Ladoga scenario and noticed that the T-38M2 has a rudder and propellor. Was it amphibious, and if so, is that reflected in CMBB? Any thoughts?

Man, how cruel is that, to ship on a Friday. All weekend I will staring at my computer, thinking how useless and empty it is... Maybe we can get BFC to put a Monday shipping date for CM2 on their calendar for 2004... :cool:

Whenever I defend against the AI, I give the computer at least a 50% strength bonus. In my experience, the AI does not well execute a coordinated attack, doesn't engage in flanking maneuvers, doesn't lay smoke to screen an advance, doesn't do much in the way of scouting, tends to bunch it's infantry into killable groups, exposes its vehicles to infantry assaults unnecessarily, etc. If you play with no computer bonus, you should be able to force a surrender most of the time, unless it's a really short scenario or especially weighted against the defender.

Actually, in my experience, jeeps die pretty darn quickly. They are especially susceptible to small arms fire. The only real good they can do in such forward spotting by drawing fire is to reveal the location of enemy guns, although if the guns are well hidden the jeep won't see what hit 'em. If my opponent wants to waste points in such scouting, that's fine with me. None of the good players I have played against used any such sacrifice tactics, presumably b/c they knew it wasn't worth it.

I would just add that the "recon by death" tactic of sending an unarmed jeep to "scout" is pretty friggin' gamey, considering that when the jeep is knocked out, it no longer (presumably) has a (functioning) radio, and could not report back. Likewise, the use of tank crews for scouting is similarly gamey, especially considering that what you would really want to do with them is get them the heck away from the fighting and in to another tank. I scout with sharpshooters, although I don't know if it is realistic to consider them equipped with a radio. I know a guy who served with the 82nd airborne as an infantry scout and was given a radio by his CO to take on a scouting mission with him into Germany in early '45. The thing squawked so loudly that he threw it as far as he could, and ran the opposite direction, while German MGs used it for target practice. All in all, I wonder how realistic non-vehicular scouting really is in CMBO. If you don't have a radio should you really be able to report back what you're seeing? I think it would be cool if the game engine fog-of-war allowed for a player to send a non-radio equipped scouting "unit" (sharpshooter, half-squad, zook, whatever) into the unknown, with orders to proceed to contact and then to return, and then have to wait. The unit would "disappear" once out of line of sight, and then (hopefully) reappear with intel some turns later. This really plays to the importance of having all units on the map within line of sight of some other unit, that is in line of sight of some other unit, etc. etc. I sometimes use lone zooks or sharpshooters as flank guards when defending on large maps, but these guys are out there on their own, out of sight and out of touch with the CO. Can I realistically be expected to know what they see and be able to give them orders? Just food for thought.

One gun by itself, for that matter any single asset by itself, subjected to fire from numerous enemy units, is toast. Are you defending? Is this an meeting engagement? If you're defending you might assign a particular sector to the gun, giving it a limited field of fire but also subject to fire from only certain areas. Jason C had a great post on the reverse slope defense. Look in the archives. If this is a meeting engagement and you want to give the gun the widest field of fire possible, that's ok too. In either case, you want to place the gun in good cover, usually woods, and hide it until you're ready to use it. You cannot put it in a building. The question then becomes one of when to expose the gun to achieve maximum results. Assume the gun will die; you want to kill as much as possible with it before then. One way to approach this is to open up with as many assets (AT guns, MGs, tank destroyers, artillery) at the same time, so the enemy will not automatically concentrate fire on a single exposed asset. An AT gun should not be exposed to enemy small arms fire. It should be far back, and/or well protected from enemy infantry by your own infantry and MGs, mines, etc. In return, the gun will protect your infantry from enemy tanks. Against artillery there is nothing you can do, but since it takes a couple of turns for the rounds to come in, you should be able to take out a couple of tanks before then. Often, trading a gun for even a single tank is a good swap, as AT guns are generally much cheaper than tanks (except the 88s). Last, if you are defending, you can always buy a pillbox AT gun for extra survivability.

Actually, in many cases, such as with a cross-roads or a hilltop, controlling the flag-area would make a difference in real life even if surrounding areas were controlled by the enemy. The cross roads doesn't do the enemy any good if they can't use it ('course it doesn't do you any good if you can't use the roads leading up to it). But victory points are awarded on the basis of enemy and friendly units killed. If all you can control is a flag or two and the enemy controls everything else, then presumably you have suffered greater losses which would be reflected in the final score.

I don't know if I would call those "1 in a million" shots, but the odds are low that you would get three shots on one turn, such as you described. However, I don't think that you can call CM unrealistic on the basis of that single experience. It would be a different story if this sort of thing happened regularly. In that case, you can't chalk it up to the vagaries of war. But in my games at least, I have shot and missed numerous times, even from an immobile position. I am curious. What were the experience levels of the crews involved?

Another possibility is hemp. I was on a cross-country horseback trip through France in 1990, in late August, and passed hemp fields whose plants stood easily 3-4 meters. Corn also grows high, but none of the grasses are tall enough to conceal tanks.

I have a great 6 pounder story. I am defending a crossroads as the brits. 5 tanks came over hill, 2 pz IVs, 2 stuGs and a panther. My veteran 6 pounder, entrenched in woods, opens up on the first Mark IV at about 400 meters. BOOM *miss* Now it's under fire from two tanks and an MG, but the crew gets its act together in a hurry. Second shot, BLAM, one Mark IV toast. Reload. Next Mark IV, BLAM, also dead. Then it targets the StuG which moved to the flank and is rotating toward it. BAM, right through the side armor. End of turn. Next turn, opening seconds, the gun targets the last StuG and fires, a second after the StuG does. Both shots hit and they take each other out. But all the gun crew survives (to take home their medals). Hardly a typical experience, but immensely satisfying. The quick turning and high rate of fire are great advantages for this gun, over something larger and more cumbersome.

YankeeDog, Good points you make. I also thought about the issue of having to commit a leader. I always seem to have a "spare" one who comes with a weapons platoon or some such (not to imply that I couldn't use them more effectively elsewhere). The question is, can you achieve similar results more cheaply? I think the answer is yes. On reflection, I think it defeats the purpose of snipers to send them in a team of, say, 3. You want them isolated, both for their own protection and so they can cover more territory. If you use 'em to spot enemy guns, for example, and the risk to them is too great if they attack the unit themselves, then just call in artillery to take the guns out. Also, snipers attacking from several areas, rather than from one general area, creates more confusion.

Ok, here's a thought off the top of my head. May be stupid, but here goes. What if you paired a crack sharpshooter, or even several, with a platoon leader who had a good stealth bonus, and sent them to infiltrate enemy lines. The advantage of snipers is their ability to sneak and stay hidden. Already they are only one soldier. If you can increase that ability with a leader, you might be able to do some damage to mortars, artillery--those rear echelon units.

I find that to get really good results, of the type mentioned here, that you have to buy crack or elite sharpshooters. Veterans are better than regulars, but in my experience there is a huge qualitative jump when you move to the highest levels. Snipers are great for spotting and suppressing, especially at longer distances where squad fire would be ineffective. A squad opening up at 500 meters would probably not make a tank button up, but a sniper pinging a shot off the turret will. Also remember that a sniper is good at hiding from enemy units as they pass, so they can "infiltrate" behind enemy lines when you are defending. A good sharpshooter in an enemy's rear can wreak havoc.