blackbellamy

the hitler no retreat rule is not in effect units do retreat after the attack is over, when it's your turn to move, you can click on them and move them back out of harms way ;p if you want to simulate the hitler rule just make a house rule where any axis unit in russia can only move in a western direction by using operational movement

sven that's like a wet dream for me. i purposefully place the german fleet just south of norway in the hope of goading the allies into some sort of a fleet action early in the war. i don't mind losing some fleet factors for the chance to pound the allied navy for two turns with my 4 or 5 airplanes and hq. send in the carriers, i'll sink them too also, as the german player i heartily welcome any allied comittment in france, whether it's the canadians, or the maltese air, or whatever. i don't care about conquering france on time. i only care about destroying as many british mpp's as possible in the early war phase, even if i have to trade them on a 3 for 1 basis

i think the single most important imbalancing factor in this entire game is that there is no way the allies can support the russians any world war 2 game which does not include lend-lease and the murmansk convoy automatically biases the outcome to the germans the german can ignore every single front but the east. they can lose africa, they can lose italy, they can lose half of france but as long as they have 12 air fleets on the eastern front the russians will die and once the russians die it's game over the allies can only stand and watch. they cannot send a single tin of food, a single 2.5 ton truck, not a single spare part to the russians ever. but anyway, the underpowered americans only get their stupid 180 mpp's so it's not like they have anything to spare for the damn russians either way.

you have to place the transports directly on the arrow hex, not underneath it it should disappear at the end of your turn and you should get the "cape" message

you have to place the transports directly on the arrow hex, not underneath it it should disappear at the end of your turn and you should get the "cape" message

i never surround tripoli one fleet, three fighters and a bomber suported by an HQ reduce it to like a 3, then the army cleans up and a corps walks in

for the defense of france question, when playing against the AI i reinforce france some, but i make sure to get the units out before france falls when playing against the human i try to get as many french ground units into britain as possible while still trying to maintain a historical fall of france date usually i can get out a french HQ and 3-4 armies while madly building hedgehog corps around paris

as for the allies reinforce the russian front question, it's all about the airpower if the axis have 10 air fleets on the russian front and the allies deploy ground units there then there is no effort for the axis to bomb the hell out of them since the air is already there i think the key objective for the western allies is to take the heat off the russians by forcing the axis to redeploy air from the east to deal with invasions in the west - if you just send units to the eastern front via iraq then this allows the axis to concentrate on the east

Last night I was able to get out a French HQ and 4 French Armies into England, and I was able to save the Syrian and the Tunisian Corps before France surrendered. I also had 4 French Fleets in British harbors but none turned Free French. France fell early May.

As the Allied player I find I can seriously contest the Med battle from the get go. It doesn't matter if the Axis brings a bunch of Air Fleets down to Italy because the battle is at Tobruk and Axis planes can't reach there from Italy. I welcome any attempt to move Air Fleets closer, into North Africa itself, because this usually means supply problems for them and they are eventually wiped out or have to re-base. Either way the Axis player only gets a short window to operate in the Med since the war with Russia is just around the corner. If the Axis doesn't pull all air to the eastern front he won't be able to roll over Russia easily and as the Allied player that is exactly what I want. The Brits don't mind trading fleets and air for a stalemate in the East.

i am still unclear why all the effort and thought is being put into this non-problem if you are playing against the AI, it will never invade north america so there's no problem there if you are playing against a human, just have an understanding that if any axis units ever land (or are adjacent to, or whatever) in north america then the allied player wins an automatic victory so if the ai doesn't invade, and if the human player knows he will lose if he invades, then why all the bother? you say house rules are bad. why so? why look for the most complex solution? why discard out of hand an elegant and quick method and look to solve the problem programatically? the only reason i could see is that you don't trust your human opponents - except that this particular house rule can't be ignored and is not subject to interpretation - your axis opponent either leaves north america alone...or he loses. simple as that. the moment you see a landing craft adjacent to new york you offer your condolences to your opponent on his loss and move on.

go load up each of the scenarios and check out the tech levels for each country at that time the first thing you will notice is that the numbers are extremely low compared to what a human player will research - almost everyone i know tries to max out their industrial tech - meanwhile check out britain in the 42 scenario - industrial tech ZERO

the natives are restless - and hungry your troops were eaten

all my games have a house rule that you can't invade the americas under any circumstance if you find yourself ready to do it then it's time to call it and start another one

that is correct - this strategy might work against the AI but it will doom britain since in order for the invasion of italy to work the british player has to strip his little island bare the german player will have his fleet, six airplanes, and enough transports to take care of britain in the same amount of time it took for the allies to take care of italy

im not sure if infantry rifle fire receives a upslope/downslope modifier, but i found that AT weapons are much more effective from the upper floors, especially when the target passes right by the window. i usually do not place infantry squads on the upper floors since this exposes them to concentrated fire, but i do place machine guns, artillery spotters, AT teams, and sometime HQ units - so yes, i believe it would be incumbent for my opponent to scout and clear the upper stories

that sounds about right if you want to, i believe you can target abandoned/wrecked vehicles, so if you really want to set them on fire, just keep plugging it

a little known historical fact is that Soviet infiltrators would be sent in the night before to cover the German tanks with bacon grease woof woof!

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,466248,00.html Check out the harsh review. They gave it a 3 out of 10 !!! Yup, it looks like Combat Mission remains the one and only, and all pretenders are swept away into the dustbin. I actually had hopes for G.I. Combat as I had a lot of fun playing all the Close Combat games upon which it is based. CC was never about absolute historical accuracy, but it was a hell of a lot of fun to play. From the review I gather they put the 3-D in, and they took the fun right out. Guess there wasn't enough room in the box? I actually held G.I. Combat in my hands yesterday, thinking maybe I'll give it a shot. Man, I am so glad I waited for the review.

somehow there should be tentacles in that swamp not too obtrusive, but just enough to grab an ankle and pull someone under Fritz! Wo sind Sie ?

look kirill i don't think you get the point the sturmtiger is sexy the 85AA is not the company didn't have to put in the un-sexy 85AA in the game. why? cause they're not sony or disney and they don't have a kubelwagen full of graphics people, so they could have said screw it, let's not put in the stupid 85, because we can't spare the time to do the model of a rarely used weapon in the types of combat we want to portray, but instead they went hey, we'll put it in, and give it another model, something that looks close, and maybe we or some modder will get to it later. you don't have to play the game in extreme close-up, and believe me, from a hundred yards out any gun just looks like a little stick with a bunch of ants around it, all getting surpressed and **** from the super sexy and mean sturmtiger, so does it really matter all that much?

Also a very interesting quote about Panzerfausts: " We have equipped our infantry and reconnaissance units with captured German bazookas and they have great confidence in them. Since we habitually carry them on vehicles, their greater weight than the U.S. type is not a factor."

ROFL I love this quote: "Our men, in general, realize that the Sherman is not capable of standing up in a ding-dong, head-on fight with a Panther." ding-dong fight? hahaha

During dry conditions at sea level, when the temperature is 65 Fahrenheit, the speed of sound is approx 342 meters per second. For comparison, the muzzle velocity of the 105 mm IeFH 18, which was the standard divisional field-piece used by the German army, was 470 meters per second. The famous French 75 had a muzzle velocity of 550 meters per second. The 88 had a velocity of 1000, and no German AA piece had a velocity of less than 820. Looking at other tanks and guns we see a wide variance, but in almost no case is the muzzle velocity less than the speed of sound. Now I'm no expert in ballistics, and it's possible that the shell decelerates significantly after it leaves the muzzle, but I just don't see it slowing down by 50% or more. So in an example where an observed enemy gun is firing at your position from 2000 meters, you would see a little puff of smoke, and the sound of the firing gun would reach you in about 5-6 seconds. Unfortunately the round would reach you in half that time.

I think that people are confusing the huge and long lasting preparatory artillery barrages with the off-board support available in the game. It is true that the Russians used artillery to destroy tanks. However, I do not think this was a tactical application, but was instead the result of massive barrages that are not modeled in this game. The Russians destroyed tanks, that's true, but I think that this was because the entire German line was shelled prior to the ground assault. The Russians weren't specifically targetting tanks, they were just laying down shells all over the place. They destroyed bunkers, trenches, machine guns, etc, so it's only logical to assume that this barrage would also affect any AFV's in the area being shelled. I don't think the Soviet doctorine at the time was flexible or allowed specific targeting of AFV's by artillery. I think they just blasted the hell out of some area, and if some tanks got hit, well so much the better. I wouldn't count on the off-board artillery in CMBB to be very effective against tanks simply because it represents a limited number of tubes over a short period of time, instead of the saturation shelling of a preparatory barrage. Sure you might get a lucky hit, but I would save the off-board artillery against infantry and soft-skinned vehicles instead of targetting tanks.