Jim Harrison

Well Freddie boy, I just downloaded your Goomerville senario and I can now see why your soooo upset about my remarks. This is typical of the overloaded unbalanced senarios I have seen in the past, picking a "regular" mix for the US forces results of course in half of them being "green", the wet ground prevents the tanks from taking any route after crossing the bridge except the road since the AI will bog any who go off road, the fog ensures that the US attacker has USELESS arty cover since his spotters cannot get more than 190 meter line of sight (while the German defender has the luxury of preplanned target hexs for his arty fire). I played the first couple of turns to see how much "extra advantage" the AI would give itself and of course with my men totally away from the fixed target hex's and its spotter unable to see my troops thru the fog it rained down accurate arty fire on the platoon causing all the "green" troops to become broken. IMO the US Troops have plenty to overcome without being "Green" troops so I would have eliminated any of the Green troops (which wouldn't take much away from the defender since he has the high ground and is hiding). I would for an AI game take away all the defenders arty since the AI uses "borg" spotting and ruins the senario. The turn limit is too short for any "proper" advance on the objective since the armour is limited to using the bridges and NO commander would send his armour over an unsecured bridge without proper recon. The map is well done and I like the concept but the balance is a very tuff row to hoe for the attacker. This is the old "hey you get alot more troops and tanks than the defender" ploy leaving out that these attackers must come thru a funnel, much like Burnsides Bridge in the Civil War. I am sure playing the German side would be tough against the AI since the AI would ignore the fog rule and rain down accurate arty on the AT guns (altho the one in the building might survive). This one is fixable for an AI game and is "probably" ok for a PBEM as it is sans the "green" troops.

Hey Freddie Boy I did just what you suggested since I find my own designs a heck of lot more fun to play, and if you think just reworking senario's is too easy why don't you try it, you might like it. As for mods I don't use em, too much work for "eye candy" which as one poster indicated should probably have been included in at least CMBB but wasn't perhaps CMAK will have it. Lee, I will be happy to take look but as you can see I don't really DL many senario's anymore. I just create my own and play from there.

All the research in the world is USELESS unless "properly" applied to the GAME MECHANICS. You not only have to know what units were there you need to know what advantages the GAME gives to vet vs reg troops, how the AI handles arty, etc etc..... I am soooo tired of guys making senario's with all kinds of work put in, but ignoring how the game handles things, thereby making what was great historic fight into a joke in the game. I am continually editing good senario ideas into a good fights in the game because the designer gave one side all vet troops and the other all reg troops (he did this cause that is what the history claimed was there). All the guys who have been in actual combat know that you become a "vet" in about 5 minutes in a fire fight or you become dead. The game makes a BIG destinction between vet and reg troops (much bigger IMHO than there really was in the battles). My point is always keep how the game handles things when making a design.

I suspect the secret lies in the "radius" that certain calibers fall in. I may be calling too large a caliber for the area and thereby producing "friendly fire", I noticed last night in a 3000 point QB defensive setup that I called in 4.2 mortar rounds and some fell short but most landed on the advancing enemy (by short I mean they fell in what I suspect is the radius for 4.2 and my men were too close to that radius).

LOL an evil sprit in my copy of CMBO, well I have heard it all now <G>. I have arty fall in uncalled areas all the time I guess it's time someone told me the secret rule LOL. I don't post things that don't happen so I wonder what the heck is going on since all of you have NEVER had this problem????? Senario depentant maybe??? I am really confused now

for a test just do a QB with flat terrain so things are easy and see what you get. Make your self the attacker and the AI dug in as defense. Have sparse tree cover so you can move your platoons in advance of the ordered fire. I have never been able to get my arty to behave the way I want it to.

OK JonS one more time, you are in the attack you are trying to make a rolling barrage in front of your MOVING troops (the FO has a clear field of vision for the mission) your leading platoons stop to wait for the incoming barrage to clear the entrenched enemy, the arty falls on your own troops who are 150 to 200 meters behind the called impact point. This only happens when your troops are advancing and have MOVED prior to the arty being called in (in any other static test the arty works just fine). Just one of the "many" features in CMBO (like constant gun hits on a tank by regular troops with a 20mm aa guns from 1200 meters). [ September 16, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Love your sig JonS you just made my list.

OK MDA put troops 200 meters in front of your spotter who HAS los to his target which is ANOTHER 200 meters in front of your troops and make the spotter a regular troop, ALL the rounds will drop (or most of em) on YOUR troops. I have tested this over and over and ANYONE who sez it doesn't happen is living in la la land.

LOL unless your spotter is elite all his rounds will land 100's of meters short and left or right depending where it can hit YOUR troops. Arty in CMBO is a MAJOR joke.

OK Sgt Thanks, I think their exact words were "the germans could start firing at us from 1500 meters and we had to wait till they were at 800 meters", so from that I must agree that CMBB must use the "textbook" numbers not actual "field numbers"

It seems to me that just recently on the History Channel I saw a bunch of ex T-34 tankers from WWII stating that the only drawback to the T-34 was that they had to wait till the target was within 800 meters to be effective??? That doesn't seem to be the case in CMBB ( I have had NUMEROUS assets destroyed at over 1100 meters). [ August 17, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

One wonders how to dipict history and NOT use the symbols of that history in the graphic presentation of it????? Perhaps every game maker should consult the Zealots Vs History Association to get the "acceptable method". BTW Rien you and Adolp both hated homo's (hmmm maybe a budding neo-nazi at heart???) [ August 17, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

I would REALLY like to know the stats on this one, in one recent battle I had 33% of tanks suffer this fate, which I think is rediculous especailly when these hits were coming from Russian tanks 1200 meters away.

Hi, I tried it vs the AI as the axis and won a major victory but think I would have had a much tougher time vs a human. The map is great and the fight is intense I don't think you need to change much for a 2 player game.

I am wondering if anyone knows the number of times a harden bunker was taken out like this??? I have Russians taking out Bunkers with this shot at over 600 meters, and the Bunker is in the WOODS. I wonder if it is some sort of abstraction for "other" damage or are the Russian gunners just that good with their optics?? [ May 31, 2003, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

heheh Chad you have a great last name, but as far as "soft" vehicles in this game, I find they last as long as ice cream in the desert when exposed I just think either a mine clearing tank as suggested or the stop a turn and wait might be the ticket, of course opinions vary but as a former military type I can tell you that suspected area's were checked if possible (I believe that engineers underfire would lose the ability to search). I have several issues with some of the senario builders who setup an ambush and then limit the turns so badly that a "proper" approach cannot be made to discover them, but that is a different issue I guess. [ May 23, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

I STILL have a problem with engineers not being able to "search" for mines. They can only remove discovered mines and those are "discovered" by loosing a tank to the minefield. This seems silly to me since combat engineers "regularly" cleared or checked suspected areas of mine fields, ESPECIALLY roads.

Thanks I figured it out after I posted LOL what a nimrod I am.

I am wondering how you can edit operations I have been trying B&T Seelow operation, but I feel it needs work since in my mind it doesn't depict the defensive preparations that were at the battle. The Germans while down to poor quality troops did have MANY harden emplacements which I don't see in this operation, I don't mind the 20 to 1 tank imblance as much I do not having the harden emplacements.

LOL ok thanks for the explanation I figured it was just something I didn't quite understand. To me a "breakdown" is much more plausable than bogged and the visual the game gives is the AFV sinking into the ground (which further confuses my already feeble mind LOL)

I am interested in knowing what causes a wide tracked AFV like a King Tiger to bog in VERY DRY conditions???? It seems almost as if the AI is using this tactic to "even" the game???

hmmmm try the operations side from the CD you see PLENTY of no/low ammo Germans

Did the Germans bring any amounts of ammo to the eastern front??? All the senario's I have tried (with a few exceptions) all depict the German almost out of ammo. In fact the MO of most of the designers seems to be overwhelming Russians vs low or no ammo Germans. I am sure this did happen, but ALL the time???

LOLOL I can hear the bugles blowing the charge in the background as the "fanboys" line up for individual swings.