walpurgis nacht

I just tried a test with pzIVH, and I cannot get it do what you claim it can do. Was there a specific model IV you've been able to do this with? The most I could do is "pull" the waypoints into the woods the following turn. [ July 27, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

I was operating a Panzer IV in barbed wire in woods yesterday. It stooped just fine, both manually and from hunt and I could plot all the waypoints I wanted in the middle of the barbed wire. </font>

sure you don't accidently hit "caps lock"?

But what is the meaning of your posting? If I move armor on wire lanes through woods or other impassable terrain, I can of course order them to stop them in the middle of it. Did I get something wrong? </font>

You can argue as many esoteric historical possibilities/theories as you like, but if this were the intention of the designers, you would be able to give movement orders to your armor to stop somewhere in the woods on the wire. You cannot, you can only move through it. This is a bug.

Yeah, ok sure . . I wouldn't mind if you could purchase a special fortification "unit" to clear trees or make them passable or whatever, but I highly doubt it was Charles' intention that barbed wire be used for this. That's er . . . quite a bargain item at that whopping 5 points. [ July 27, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

It is random. However . . does seem that randomly the soviet HQs get better bonuses in general. One thing is for sure . . .you want better bonuses, buy better troops. Vets have a much better chance at getting better bonuses than regs, than greens, etc. [ July 25, 2003, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

It is not a dumb question. The manual is very misleading in this regard. Steppe will conceal nothing that is moving and in enemy LOS, save a sneaking sharpshooter that is really far away. [ July 07, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

I think perhaps you don't know what "command" bonus is supposed to be for Vanir. It does not effect command delay at all, it only effects command range. Moon, my question actually still stands. I understand what Charles said, now I'm just trying to line things up more specifically. When the bonus is even (+2), the better HQ is easy to discern because the experience level trumps all. So, is a +2 morale/combat bonus with a green HQ, better than say, a +1 morale/combat bonus with a veteran HQ? How exactly can we tell? [ June 28, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

Generally speaking: You must win the armor war if you are the attacker. If you have armor superiority, SMGs are cake. Only circumstance where they are going to be problematic is if they are in the deep middle of a woods patch that none of your HE chuckers can get LOS to from any angle. Use appropriate scouting techniques to find them with minimal loss. Then, out-flank the patch of woods (or whatever) that they are in so they cannot get away. Roll armor around on both flanks. Area fire the hell out of the suspected SMG positions, at least one full round. Second round, send in the "secondary" scouts to achieve contact. Blast away. Remember, infantry (save perhaps russian smg squads) are only for finding the enemy . . . .to act as eyes, HE is for killing him. [ June 28, 2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

OK, thank you again for confirming via Charles that experience DOES effect morale bonus (i.e. +2 morale is a better bonus in a vet HQ than a green one). Next question: During setup I organize all of my infantry forces based on HQ quality. I usually take the worst platoon's HQ and replace him with the CO HQ because he is usually better. Question is, how do we measure morale more specifically? Is a +2 morale "green" HQ better than a +1 morale "regular" HQ? Is there some sort of chart that could be posted so we could better understand this?

Trenches are useful in the open, mainly because you avoid treebursts and you can place units in the best positions, not being a slave to the natural cover. But, the main problem with this is once your squads and MGs in trenches are panicked, they "sneak" away into the open, to certain doom. Trenches in cover avoid this problem because you can hide to recover, or sneak around at will. The ideal situation is to place a trench in the open, but behind a "layer" of trees so you get the best of both worlds. I reserve trenches in the open for overwatch units like HMGS and ATGs. With HMGs, place them in positions that are close to cover . . . .close enough so that when the enemy gets sound contacts, he assumes they are in the trees and "area targets" the wrong place every time. I like to place trenches just cresting a hill, so that if your units in the trench panick, they will sneak back a few meters and be out of LOS. This can also be useful to relocate your HMGS once the enemy gets close enough to see the trench. Move a few meters, and you're safely behind a hill.

This is a mistake I see all too often. There is almost no reason ever to "hide" your units while defending. "Hiding" units cannot see. Keep absolutely all units up (AT guns . . everything), with short cover arcs if you don't want them to fire. This way, you can see the enemy approaching with many eyes (good intel is half the battle). You will remain out of sight, even if you are not "hiding" without exception, unless the enemy is within 10-15 meters. If you like, once he gets that close, go ahead and "hide", but by that time, you will likely want to open up anyway. If I have a tank hunter in enemy territory and enemy infantry are passing close . . .this is a good time to "hide" (if you don't want to hit him, you wanna wait for a tank). Otherwise, the only other use for this command on defense is to help your "pinned" or "panicked" troops recover more quickly. [ June 18, 2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

No way in hell. Forget about foxholes. Compared to woods they only give a few percentage points exposure bonus anyway. Use foxholes for "alamo" positions (for a last stand), but otherwise just forget about them. Ambush-fallback will win the game for you by using your advantage as the defender, over and over . . . .surprise/initiative. The absolute last thing you want is to go head to head with the attacker, square on, when he has numerical superiority. Against a good attacker there is no way to win by fortifying a line and staying put.

what year, restrictions, terrain? everything just depends. Almost all russian infantry are superior to german infantry at 40 meters. Most players just fortify and stay put. . . this is always a mistake on defense. Ambush-fall back, ambush-fall back. . . .never let him setup and support his attack with HE, etc. Timing is everything . . .get good with the pause function, always anticipating enemy moves. Give your ambush infantry movement orders every turn, but make the command delay 60+ seconds, so they can move instantly if you need to. You can always cancel the orders beginning of next turn, or change the command from "sneak" to "assualt" for example, or drag the waypoint . . whatever. You have more options to act on things instantly this way. Generally, the best defense is layered. AT guns in depth. Preferably a mobile armor reserve to fill in where the main thrust(s) is. Russian pioneers are cheap. Split you pioneer squads, take the demo carrying halves, and hide them close to likely armor paths, but away from where enemy infantry might move through. Split squads have their morale decreased a bit, but they hide much better. Make sure to use hotkey "d" in the setup phase to get rid of foxholes for hiding pioneer squads. Otherwise, the enemy will likely see the foxhole and surprise is lost. Otherwise, more info is needed to answer this question. [ June 18, 2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

I noticed in a pure armor battle tonight, that tungsten bearing pzIII series fires it now well past 500 meters due to version 1.03. It took out a KV of mine at 552 meters. This is a helpful improvement.

Chad, it's all about the captured 76 AT gun. This gun is all around better than a pak40, the only disadvantage is it turns/moves a little more slowly than pak40. It's only 91 points standard rarity, march '42, and it makes short work of KVs at 600 meters+. other people may have other ways, but I avoid the pzIII series like the plague. The HE blast value just isn't enough "boom boom" for me. The early PzIV series is the way to go. The 75mmL24 doesn't have boat loads of velocity, but the great german optics make up for it. AND, if you're lucky, the HC with 82 penetrating value "can" take a KV from the flank at 100 meters. Other way to deal specifically with KV in early war. 20mm flak guns. keep them back and in cover and fire away. 2-20mm flak guns per KV, and you WILL get a track or gun hit . . .for sure before they spend all their ammo. Plus, these guys are small so you only get sound contacts if they're back far enough. Hope this helps. [ June 11, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

I have had no luck finding an official answer to this question . . .not even MadMatt knows! Does a veteran HQ with +2 morale, give a better morale bonus than a green HQ with +2 morale?

Chad, so much has been written on it you will likely find piles of info with a search on whatever you are specifically interested in. A couple things though: -HMGs will almost immediately drop any squad in the open. -infantry need to be supported with HE against all opposition. Unlike in CMBO, in CMBB infantry are for finding the enemy, HE is for killing him. The trick in BB is just getting your infantry close enough to identify enemy positions, and then to waste enemy squads once your HE chuckers have routed them. -armor superiority is key -loads of HE is key . . . if you run out of it, your attack is likely over this is a start, hope it helps.

Chad, happens to me all the time . . .it did with CMBO also. I know nothing when it comes to techy stuff, so I'll I'm doing is confirming what you said. It has happened to me on all types of systems, laptops, etc.

I assume you mean in a QB right? If so, it isn't lame because it's effective, it's lame because someone actually lost to this defense. Against a reasonable player, there is virtually no way this concept will work. to line a medium map with a trench wall is a crazy waste of points. If you're defending in an 800 point match with a medium map, you need roughly 30 trenches to cover the map with a complete trench line. That's 300 points, leaving you 500 to fill this line. That one CO and a few AT guns at best. Not to mention they have to cover the full length of the map. [ May 22, 2003, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

Hi Ken. Just go ahead and save it whenever you like during setup (alt-s). Then when you reload it, it should give you the option of playing "email". Just select "email", enter password and you'll have a bingo. You can do this as many times as you need.

Why do you assume in my example that the t34s initially have LOS? . . . . they do not. And at the moment of coming into LOS, they do not cower, as you suggest. What's not realistic about a tank charge on the flanks? The American Shermans took on tigers by shoot and scoot from the front (often losing their armor) to distract the tiger, while other armor rushed in on the flanks for a kill. Getting your t34s into position without getting killed often requires a great deal of "skill". Timing the flanking assualt correctly= skill. Grand strategic flanking manuevers . . .I'd say that's at the heart of what it means to use the t34 well . . . maximizing it's strengths. And what about it inspires you to call it a "mass suicide-exchange rush"? As I said, 1 or no t34s are killed. The example I setup is not only realistic (in CMBB terms), it works almost all the time, with no cowering. Of course, you're entitled to continue thinking your idea of skill is right and anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Just as, you're entitled to continue losing your t34s to tigers, while others succeed in killing them. [ May 11, 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

Apache, no reason to get worked up there buddy, I'm just trying to help. The reason I asked the specifics of the situation is because I have played 3-4 QBs a day since CMBB came out, quite literally, and I don't have these problems. If the window of your rush was too large, than they are being realistic. Just as infantry disobey your orders and drop when taking MG fire. There is often a better way. [ May 11, 2003, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

Well i guess we have a different idea of what are "sensible orders". Running LFVs through the path of a StuG may seem sensible to you, but quite obviously not to the LFVS. How far, specifically, was the "fire window" the Stug had on them? Also, which LFVs?