walpurgis nacht

As I said, "Everyone got a feel for how tough trenches were through the painful lessons of scenarios like _Hill 312_." I want to know specifics. I.E. The trench gives you .02% exposure, while the foxhole gives you .30% exposure. I realize terrain would effect this, but what exclusively does the trench do?

Everyone got a feel for how tough trenches were through the painful lessons of scenarios like _Hill 312_. But, I would like to understand the effectiveness of trenches (vs. foxhole, vs natural terrain) in more specific terms. The manual is, as always, appropriately vague. What specifically does the computer consider when trenches enhance the defense of a unit? General answers such as: "It gives you the best C & C" are not needed. I'm looking for the *math*. Anyone? Thanks, j

Including a suppression rate with units seems a little overkill. With small arms fire, there is MG suppression and non-MG suppression. This is not a lot to intuitively learn. Suppression ratings for armor and HE-chuckers is more or less covered vicariously in the blast value, so I don't think it would be overall very usefull there either.

I don't mind that the manual is useless in terms of tactics . . . that makes the game discovery more exciting, but being able to roughly calculate when the tungsten will be used is required to make sound tactical decisions. There has to be a specific equation used to calculate this "exclusive-to-tungsten" decrease in velocity, and it should be in the manual! Creating your own tactics is one thing, telepathy is quite another.

I didn't know the "hit chance" decreased disproportionately with the use of tungsten!? Did I miss that in the manual? If it is, we should have some rough way to calculate it so we can use the tungsten more effectively (or rather know when it's best to expect it will be used).

With any tank ammo, the tools to asses the decrease in velocity are writen into the AP-table, so this is definitely not the problem. I have had hundreds of experiences with AT guns and tanks where they don't use tungsten when it would CLEARLY but in their best interest to do so. . . at least not for several shots.

*bump* It is a good question. I'd like to know these parameters as well. I will say that I just finished a game with a T-70, and I fired tungsten after the 1st wasted HE shot. So it doesn't always wait. But knowing the criteria would be very useful.

Biltong: What a great idea this "expansion" of the game is! Now, would someone do me the favor of explaining in simple 'stupid' terms how to set it up? I've downloaded all the zip files, but I don't know if I need all of them to play, and I don't know where to put these new "folders" anyway. Someone help a computer rookie!! Thanks

This of course is what I do, but it makes for micro-management overkill. It seems like it would be a simple thing to tweak, AND it would enhance the realism.

It isn't bad idea, just not the best one. Nice. What else is there to say about this entire thread?

Hmmm . . . I still must not be communicating the problem because of the solution you suggest. What I meant to describe was a computer initiated action AFTER moving with a combined function like "sneak +hide". I don't know how better to describe this. How about extreme for simplicity: If I have 100 squads, I give them all the command "move+hide", I direct all of them with this command to the exact same point in a large patch of woods. When all 100 of them reach this point they cannot all be there because there isn't enough room, so the AI takes over and automatically has 99 of them sneak to the front and sides to give them their own space. When they have reach their "new" space, they just stand idle, not hiding as you originally assigned them to do.

No, you misunderstood me. I mean this happens specifically when have used any "command + hide" (i.e. "fast + hide"). If the end points are too close, the computer chooses to "sneak" a few units off to the sides. Once this computer initiated "sneak" finds its endpoint, it unhides. That's the problem.

Say you use the "move + hide" command for 3 squads and an HQ. You move them into a large patch of woods, but there endpoints are too close together, so that when they reach that point, some of the squads have to sneak a bit to the right or left. That's great, seems realistic. But, once the squads that sneak to the right or left reach a comfortable position, they unhide. That does not seem realistic. So you can say well, don't move the squads so close together to begin with. Sure. But what if you want them to be as close as possible? You can't gauge precisely from a distance. It seems realistic to me that once these crowded squads spread out a bit (still in the woods), they should follow through on the hide command given to them. It's difficult to describe this but I'm sure you all know what I mean. It happens all the time. Seems like a reasonable tweak to me. Where am I wrong?

I suppose it is too late to throw something so drastic into a game like CMBB, and I'm not in expert in how these were used (if at all) on the eastern front, but I can see flares being useful in SO many ways in night-fighting. Maybe even in fog and light snow. I have to read up on this.

I just ran a series of tests with the sIGIB. I chose 1943 as the date to give this little guy a wide array of superior armored opponents, and I have to say I found the sIGs behavior very consistant with that of the IS-2 in all of the cases (Where, when, and how fast it reverses). I think the problem here is that someone playing with the IS-2 sees a big, bulky-bully and expects it to behave like one. It is not, and I stand corrected (previous post). Too bad this has all become so personal. We are all detail-nazis, that is why we play a game like CMBB, and that is why this game is so vastly superior to all other games, that it feels assinine to even state it. Could you imagine having such discussions over _Panzer General_, or Sid Meier's _Gettysburg_? Tame the egos and keep it real.

I watched the _Band of Brothers_ series over the holiday, and noticed the use of flares at night by the 101st/Krauts at Bastogne. Flares might be a really interesting addition to a game that emphasizes small tactical battles like CMBB. Any thoughts?

Just finished a 104 sample test of a Pz IVH vs ISU-122 one-on-one battle at 500m, with terrain conditions to simulate similar hit probablilities from redwolf's test file. (approx 25-30%). Terrain desinged on the ISU-122 side to prevent possible avenues of retreat. Overall results were 82 dead ISU-122 vs 23 dead PzIVH. (Note 1 battle resulted in a simultanius kill, so numbers don't add to 104) QB]</font>

Just finished a 104 sample test of a Pz IVH vs ISU-122 one-on-one battle at 500m, with terrain conditions to simulate similar hit probablilities from redwolf's test file. (approx 25-30%). Terrain desinged on the ISU-122 side to prevent possible avenues of retreat. Overall results were 82 dead ISU-122 vs 23 dead PzIVH. (Note 1 battle resulted in a simultanius kill, so numbers don't add to 104) QB]</font>

The patch makes ALL the difference with the infantry. "The suppression thresholds for panicking, breaking and routing are a bit higher", yet the conceptual integrity of the "new" CMBB tactics remain. This was a perfect compromise. The fun-factor just went WAY up. Bravo.

[/qb]

Yes, but come on, the vast majority of Russian and German casualties throughout the war were from arty---period. This "tweak" is not reasonable.

This must be a bug. Very few people seem to understand it unless it has happened to them. It DOES happan, albeit rarely. My story in shorthand: 105mm, no LOS, very concentrated barrage about 500 meters off from the target area. Tried to retarget with no success. It has not happened to me again, but it does happen.

More options are better--period. That doesn't mean you always have to use them. In reality most WWII engagements were not balanced. This is something CMBB can simulate well, but just as it sucked to be the Krauts defending Berlin, it sucks to play a heavily imbalanced CMBB QB. My only balance complaint is that, as an attacker in a QB, you are at a serious DISADVANTAGE in open terrain, when the historical reality was that the attacker prayed for open terrain to aid the lightning/mobile strike. If the attacker were given a higher % of points relative to the defender, this might be alright, because you could buy halftracks for all of your squads (or at least a good portion of them), OR purchase so much armor that you really could clear out the front, but otherwise you are screwed. It is impossible to purchase enough smoke to get your boys all the way to engagement. blah blah . . . you get my point.