laxx

kewl...very nice movie! well done! laxx

i really tried to look for that pic of the babe with the hmg 42 but all i could find was just a m16 carbine...

Hi, this thread is on Common AI behavior. Things/perculiarities which the AI will exhibit under certain conditions. The question of whether this is gamey or realistic should be avoided, because the opponent is the AI and not another player, also, this will undoubtedly create alot of unnecessary flame from forum-hijackers. I will start with a few of my observations: #1. When given the option of off-board artillery, the AI will use turn-1 artillery at the location where it spots enemy elements. So, if you have a sacrificial lamb located at some highly improbably place where the AI can spot you. It will call on off-board arty (which cannot be changed later on) on that location (away from the rest of your main body). #2. AI will almost always follow the path covered by trees (scattered, pine, woods). So, if there are multiple approaches, to the victory location, it is quite predictable that the AI will choose the path covered by trees. The scenario, Close Encounter is a case in point, 2/3 times, the allied troops will choose the woods on the right side of the map. #3. In a multi-victory flag game, When a VLocation is threatened, the AI will seek to defend the VL even if it means abandoning the current VL location.

hee hee, i am in awe of you folks who play 2000, 8000 and up points games. i tend to play 300 (yes!), 500 or 800 per side games. At this micro-level, several characteristics do happen: - a medium sized company would either have to be conscript or green. Platoons are regulars. - Light tanks become the rule, assets becomes very valuable. Every single element has to work together or else the mission is lost. - No need for hugh maps, byte-size maps means straight line movement, no need for too much maneuvering. - Reasonable compromise with the Missus.

CombinedArms, *Dang* I tried this evening with 2 SU-85M against 3 StuG III (long nose, the AI chose it). Well it was an unfair skirmish, each SU-85M engaged 1 on 1 with a StuG as it moved along the road to the VL. 2 SU vs 3 StuG 1 Vet + 1 Reg vs 3 Green result: 3 burning hulks of a StuG thing was, the SUs usually managed to fire first. A few StuG rounds shattered but did not penetrate the SU, this was at 450m. I am impressed, may have found my StuG replacement afterall... [ March 21, 2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: laxx ]

Hey Soddball, whatever happened to MasterGoodale ? last I heard was the discovery of some pre-war photos he got from his gramps. sorry for being totally off-topic. laxx

hi, thanks. especially to Jason on your comments. I did some more test, but realised, as one poster said, using tactics which I am familiar with playing german tanks isn't compatible with russian afv. I like the fact that Russian TDs move fast, but their optics is mostly Regular (if not all), I am trying out fast moving swarms against German tanks. But kinda hurts to see so many casualties littered on the battlefield, and by small light German tanks too.

regardless, I want to thanks "Wild" Bill Wilder for the document, this is a good overall perspective of the war at the eastern front. I wished I had read it when I first started playing CMBB. cheers!

also I would like to add that the maps doan have the enemy in the usual suspect positions; nothing is more terrorizing that having an enemy coming out from the flank areas where you least expect it..... certainly builds up the excitment level.

thanks for the reply, especially the bit on T34 chassis. IMHO, l like the StuG because of the strong frontal armor and low profile which suits the TD role, rather than thinking of it as a cheap Panzer (which is not). so in a pure armor role, l would usually buy a. StuG over say a IV or a late III. l will do more test tonite but l suspect there lsnt an equilvalent of the StuG in the russian armory. thanks, er, any comments on tungsten versus AP ?

hi, l am starting to play russians and l have a question on how to use russian TD properly. l was mucking around with lsu &su 85, 122, 152 with ap, tungsten and hc @ 1500 m with small panzer lll flamepanzers. well, accuracy did not lmprove until l moved them to the 800m range. how r u guys using russian td?

Saddam aims to drag allies into a new Stalingrad, says British forces' chief Richard Norton-Taylor in Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar Tuesday March 11, 2003 The Guardian Saddam Hussein is preparing for a "Stalingrad siege" of Baghdad against advancing Allied forces which could be slowed down by the capture of prisoners of war, a displaced population, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians, the commander of UK forces in the Gulf warned yesterday. ..... As for Iraq's military doctrine, he said it is based on the Soviet model of defence in depth. "[saddam] is going for a Stalingrad siege. He wants to entice us into urban warfare," said Air Marshal Burridge. But that, he added, made two assumptions: that it would lead to hand-to-hand fighting and Iraqi troops would want to engage in it. "There has to be doubts." Most military analysts agree that Baghdad is certain to be the most serious battleground of any war. Some experts suggest that it may provide the only real fighting of any note in the entire conflict. However, few analysts would go so far as to compare a war in Baghdad with the battle of Stalingrad, which lasted 200 days and cost almost 1 million Soviet and German casualties. Air Marshal Burridge said that Saddam had two options: to go or stand and fight."No one is suggesting a campaign will lay waste to Iraq. No one is suggesting it will be like Grozny [the capital of Chechnya]; postmodern warfare is not attritional. If they fight, we'll hit them hard". ... ------------------------- From military analyst James F. Dunnigan: 26 Jan 2003, Saddam's War Plan: Knowing his troops cannot defeat the US Army in an open field battle, Saddam has decided to dig his best units into and around Baghad and draw the US and British troops into a battle on his terms. Satellite photos show elaborate defense works being built around the Iraqi capital in two rings. These works include battle positions, obstacles, ditches, barriers, ammunition stockpiles, command bunkers, minefields, and other engineering works. Construction began last November and has included shifting troops from bases around the country. The outer ring will be held by the Republican Guard and the best of the Iraqi regular Army units. The inner ring will be held by the Special Republican Guard, the most fanatical of Saddam's followers. In theory, the outer ring would serve as a tripwire to force US and British troops to deploy into assault formations, and during the battle of this outer line the Special Republican Guard would bombard the invading armies with chemical and biological weapons. The Iraqis know that the US could not respond with tactical nuclear weapons (as it has threatened) because of the civilian population present in the area. As the zone between the two rings is urbanized, the US and British troops would have to slog through nasty block-by-block fighting before even reaching the main defensive line of the Special Republican Guard. The zone between the rings would be infested with tens of thousands of Saddam Fedayeen militia units, which Saddam would use as cannon fodder. Three smaller towns near Baghdad (Baiji in the north, Ramadi in the west, and Suweira-Kut in the south) are heavily fortified and would have to be reduced before serious attacks could begin on the main defenses of Baghdad itself.

* bump *

Hi, fyi. as a somewhat newbie player learning to play meeting engagement in CMBB, I like scenarios which gives me good odds to win, without losing the element of randomness found in QB. What i did was play a QB on Axis assault, but used maps on based on meeting engagements. Ended up with 2x or 3x the troops, but still preserving the sanity of Meeting Engagements. Fresh approach I guess.

Hi, while creating the Blast values for tanks for UCMBBVDB (unofficial CMBB vehicle database), I have the following questions: Question a: Which of the following 76/L42 cannons best describe the AFV ? ---------- (1) T-34/76B M1941 (2) T-34/76C M1942 (3) T-34/76D M1943 (4) OT-34 M1942 Flame 90m (5) OT-34 M1943 Flame 100m (6) KV-1 M1941 (7) KV-1S (8) SU-76i (a) 76/L42 M1942 ZiS-3 ( 76/L42 M1939 F-22 USV © 76/L42 M1942 aka F-34, ZiS-5 ------------ Question B: the following vehicles spot 20/L65 cannons, which cannon does it use ? ---------- (1) Csaba (2) Carro Amato L.6/40 (a) 20/L65 Toldi gun ( 20/L65 Breda AA ------------

Francis, as english is not my native language, could you rephrase you comments again ? thanks ColumbusOHGamer: thanks! looks like the next major release will require some support. thanks!

thank you thank you!

Guys, this is seriously funny.... And we Thought we were Fanatics Part II Building your own Sherman Tank (1/5 scale) http://www.gizmology.net/tanks.htm Quote: "The track is modeled after the T-41 track used on the Shermans late in the war. (Okay, it's actually modeled after my watch band, but don't tell anyone.) Each track link consists of a pad, two links, four screws, and a bell (the thing on the inside of the track that keeps the bogies "on track".) Building the track is tedious as hell, as each link requires: * three cuts on the table saw, * five cuts on the band saw, * eight holes drilled on the drill press, * four corners rounded on my home-made disk sander, * four 2" wallboard screws driven, and * one glued surface. It takes about ten minutes per link, even though I'm doing them in batches - all the drill press work at once, for example - to make it go faster! I need 70 links, plus a few extras. And worst of all, I'm not entirely sure a wooden track will be strong enough - I may end up having to start over again with something stronger."

hi Mr.Noobie, can i have your permission to include your cmbb models in my UCMBBVDB database ? Thanks

this thread is very surreal. hmmm, gonna start experimenting with getting a captured unit to walk towards the enemy/minefields.

i know i am going to get flak for this, but sometimes, if the distance is around 50 m, fast would be good instead of advance, it gives the enemy little time to react. as for 200m, perhaps a combo of fast-rest-fast might help.

interesting comments, i think it is not accurate to compare tactical attributes(like armor, penetration, price, morale etc) to the outcome of the war. case in point, russia simply had more resources than germany, they sustained about 20m losses of life and still managed to come out tops. germany has better quality in the early part of the war but in the war of attrition, the last man standing wins. btw, i play germans too coz i am familiar with the make up of the forces. And I tend to win with a little luck. I think different tactics is required for Russian assets, eg. the IS-2 has low Rate of Fire, hence I will use it en mass and not as a lone "sniper". Have not played the T-34 enuff to comment but they are quite fast with good ROF.

hi. 1. Thanks to calvaryman for mirroring the download site. 2. I was thinking if there is any interest to provide CMBB vehicle images into the database ? If there is, we could use that database as the Reference Database for future releases. 3. Only challenge (besides capturing and importing the images), is that some of the vehicles, especially the early light tankettes and tanks all have the same cmbb images. anyway, pls post your comments and requests for change/enhancements, eg. I found the "Show all records icons" at the bottom to be irritating will probably move it to the top like the List-Mode.

doan mess with da man who owns his own military vehicle, armored or otherwise.

wel,, i would make sure 1.1 had an import facility for fear of the wrath of lots of grumpy old men who hang around cmbb forums... i found myself spending alot of time last nite just attaching logos, pix and Notes. I suspect that this is how most of us will be using the proggie, non ? cheers!