moneymaxx

I'm no tech specialist and no modder but I'm pretty confident that you can't use the majority of CMBB mods for CMBO. It's because CMBB models of tanks etc. have much more polygons than their CMBO counterpart. Therfore the textures won't fit. I can't answer your specific question, since I don't know what you mean with "tank firing one". Moneymaxx

Ok, here goes my personal wishlist. a) A better modelling of the behaviour of broken units. I think that they should surrender more often, especially if running away means running over open ground. Higher buildings with more levels. c) A better modelling of destroyed houses. Until now they leave a plain rubble tile that doesn’t block LOS a lot. 3d-rubble would be a good solution, e.g. leaving some walls partially intact. d) Decreasing armour quality after several hits. IIRC, the way it is modelled until now shell hits don’t produce accumulating damage. After a non-lethal hit the armour is “as new” when the next shell arrives. While in real life even non penetrating hits could produce cracks in the armour plates or HE shells could rip off part of the protection. e) A preview of the calculated waypoints. In CM the AI sometimes re-plots waypoints to get a vehicle from point A to B. What looks to the player like a perfect straight movement through 2 wood-patches could easily result in a movement AROUND those patches with sometimes undesired results. This and other re-plot related problems could be easily solved if the waypoints were shown directly after the movement order has been given. f) I think the rarity cost system of CMBB is very good but should be extended to troop quality as well. Especially in the early months of the war regular or better Russian troops were very rare but that is not reflected in the point cost (only the combat performance is). E.G. everybody buys regular or veteran KV-1s in QBs while those crews were very difficult to find and handpicked. Those battles would be more balanced (realistic???) if those qualities weren’t readily available, therefore much more expensive. The same applies to infantry units. g) Area/knock-on effects. In real life I wouldn’t be to happy to stand 1 meter away from an exploding Flamethrower vehicle, though I wouldn’t have much time to be unhappy anyway :eek: . In CM nothing happens. Even a very simplified model could solve this, e.g. giving the exploding vehicle a blast value like a HE shell (If ripped of turrets flying through the air are modelled some destructive force good be assigned to them too). The same could apply to building simulating the effects of flying debris while collapsing. Another effect of collapsing buildings could be that adjacent roads are made impassable because they are blocked by rubble. And I’d like to repeat some suggestions that were already mentioned: a) Full movie replay with VCR function. assign support weapons to a HQ so that they don’t switch. c) Eye candy(dynamic lighting, (pseudo) physically correct effects of explosions, e.g. a flying jeep . d) Topographical maps e) Hard coded “Iron Man” rules. I’d like to try it with CMBB but my finger is always magically drawn to that ‘4’ key . That would include, not just blocking level 3 and up views, but actually a new option in the battle parameters like EFOW. The program then blocks certain keys depending on the unit and its position. E.g. a sharpshooter on the ground can only use level 1 (all other keys don’t work), while the same sharpshooter in a church tower can use level 1 to 3, a tank with good optics can use the magnifying keys etc.. So Charles, now go, through some caffeine into the fluid that nurtures your floating brain and PROGRAM!!!! [ June 13, 2003, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

I'm no expert on this subject but I've seen quite a lot of reports from the British and Russians about actually testing the performance of different guns on captured tanks. Didn't the Americans do the same ?

The USAAF was of course a major threat to the German tanks, but bad weather with low clouds(very common in West Europe where I used to live) were dangerous times because airplanes couldn't attack (wasn't that a major factor during the battle of the buldge?). It seems that the decision was more ideological to not equip the Sherman with a stronger gun. I stumbled over this site today by accident while searching information about the MBT70 program http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/ . Some quotes: "...the Lee's 75mm gun was retained on the Sherman. Even though it was designed as a weapon of exploitation, and not intended to fight enemy armor, the Sherman would always be able to handle the opposition's main medium tank, the Pz.Kpfw.IV.(28) The Army's tank destroyer doctrine, however, would impede the M4 from being upgunned sufficiently to easily handle heavier German tanks like Panther or Tiger." "This doctrine began in response to the German "blitzkrieg," and was based on the erroneous assumption that massed towed or self-propelled antitank guns would be able to defeat Germany's tank attacks.(29) The tank destroyers were to hold back if the enemy forces were accompanied by infantry or artillery fires, however, since the basis behind their creation was quite simply the destruction of hostile armor.(30) Unfortunately for the tank destroyers, the Germans were not so kind as to provide massed tank attacks, preferring instead to attack with concentrated combined arms forces.(31) This basic doctrinal flaw would preclude the tank destroyers from being employed as they were intended, but the error was not soon realized and tactical doctrine and equipment designs for the tank destroyers forged ahead. " "Indeed, the tank destroyer doctrine actually worked to prevent the tanks from getting more powerful armor-piercing guns." This information surprised me, what it's saying is, since your not supposed to kill tanks we don't give you the gun. Now if I was the person to make that decision I would say, if there is a better gun out there, if it doesn't cost much more, if it is comparibly effective against infantry then INSTALL IT G%D D&%&M IT, at least 1 per platoon for those chance encounters. What did those Sheman commanders say when they met a Tiger or a Panther, "Hello, Guten Tag, we are not supposed to fight you, so would you please go away until our TDs or planes arrive"? And yet another interesting quote from the site: "American tanks may have been doctrinally hampered during tank-versus-tank fighting, but they did possess a few advantages. Among these were gyrostabilized guns on the medium tanks M3 and M4, and light tanks M3, M5, and M24. This innovation allowed the tanks a modicum of fire on the move capability, while German tankers were instructed to fire from the halt.(33) Of course the stabilizers required proper training for effective use, and rather than try to exploit this feature many units simply disconnected the devices.(34)" Does anybody know if this is true?

I mostly agree with you but the Hellcats aren't that good. I had this tactic used ONCE against me. It was very effective but since then I buy some 20mm flak guns and those stop the Hellcats very quickly at the same time they protect me from jeep rushes. From time to time I add a 250/9, 20mm gun, very cheap (only 37points) and a killer of HTs, Priests, Hellcats, jeeps .... Arty is the key to win a battle as the Allies, no doubt about it and the British get it much cheaper. I made a excel sheet to calculate the blast per point cost of the different arty modules. The Americans get 31 to 36 (exception the 75mm with 41) while the British get 35,5 to 40,9 (exception the 14 inch naval with 31). It's easy to see when you look at the 4.5 inch arty, the American module costs 144 the British module only 123. I have to admit though that I didn't calculate it for all months but I think the point cost of arty is always the same.

I posted this question on the CMBB boeard but it was kicked of the first page before a grog could take the bait, so I post it here. Any grogs out there? OK here is a question I always had about CM that wasn't really answered until now. Some tanks like the Hetzer are very difficult to destroy from the front because of their (front) armour at extreme angles. My question: Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances then at shorter distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the shell position on impact should result in a better impact angle (assuming that the fuse/tip of the shell impacts first)? I appreciate the answers in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007518 But a final answer is still missing.

I liked the thread about the 0.50 so much that I just copied the title . Being the Firefly, Challenger, Archer and Achilles real killers among the British tanks because of the 17-pounder gun I wonder why the Americans didn't copy the gun design to equip their own tanks with it. AFAIK the Firefly was a converted Sherman. Just asking .

Whatever you do, play British. They have way better weapons than the Americans except the infantry units. 1) Infantry -If your opponent doesn't mind, mix British Airborne with tanks and support weapons. If he does it gets harder but not impossible. 2) Support weapons -On farmland and rural maps I would buy extra 2 inch mortars. They are great to suppress. That way I once killed a Gebirgsjäger platoon in woods with my rifle platoon with only a few losses. -The 3 inch mortar is a real bargain 66 shells for only 36 points, that's even cheaper than the 3 inch mortar FO. -The 6 pdr ATG very often comes with tungsten rounds that can even take out a Tiger frontally. 3) Vehicles -If their are no AT assets then wasps rule. Before the arrival of 100m Panzerfausts you can take out any German platoon easily from 75m. A hint: wasps fire when buttoned so button them always. - Daimler AC have a very nasty 40mm gun that can take out a Panther with a flank shot. 4) Tanks -Many British tanks have the 17pdr gun which can take out nearly everything especially with tungsten. Those tanks are: -Archer, can only fire backwards and can be killed by 20mm shells but is very cheap -Firefly -Challenger, better turret armour than the Firefly but worse armour overall, fewer shells, cheaper. -Achilles, open top turret, even cheaper than the challenger. In early war all those tanks come without HE shells, a QB should tell you if they have HE or not. - There are great anti-infantry tanks too: Churchill VIII, extreme armour that can't be taken out frontally by the German 75mm gun, good anti-inf shell, good HC shell but usually gets only few. Churchill VII, same as above but with a 75mm gun, good against anything up to a Panzer IV / StuG, reasonable anti-inf shell. 5) Artillery All British arty is very cheap, much cheaper than the American. My favourites are 4.2 inch mortars and 4.5inch arty. VT is expensive but VERY deadly especially against open vehicles. Good luck in your next battle .

OK here is a question I always had about CM that wasn't really answered until now. Some tanks like the Hetzer are very difficult to destroy from the front because of their (front) armour at extreme angles. My question: Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances then at shorter distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the shell position on impact should result in a better impact angle (assuming that the fuse/tip of the shell impacts first)? I appreciate the answers in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=007518 But a final answer is still missing.

They aren't normally like that but I guess you hit a weak spot here, just like killing a King Tiger from the rear . CMBO and CMBB are great games, far the best on the subject with great customer support (not like other games out there) but it lacks all those fancy things like reassigning of keys, spectacular 3D-graphics, surround sound ....(like maaaaaaany other games out there which are still not worth a dollar). That doesn't mean that a lot of people wouldn't like to have those things, they just don't admit it . I guess with your question you hit the "mother instinct" of some of the members. If Charles (the programmer) ever needed an organ transplant he would find some donors here, or someone who gets a donor . To finally answer you questions, no. But you can mod your CMBO and CMBB, change the sound effects, the textures on the tank models and if you need music, you can run winamp in the background and listen to your MP3s in the game (at least with CMBO). Nothing better to keep you awake if you have to finish that set-up at 4am in the morning then listening to AC/DC's Thunderstruck. BTW, to play the demo first is a must. I would recommend you the CMBO demo, since the 2 included battles are very good and CMBO is a little bit easier to start with. You either hate CM or get assimilated and in the future you'll develop the same "mother instinct", LOL.

Congratulations Tools4fools, you have a perfect memory ( http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001561#000000 ). But in the end, it wasn't clarified if this is included in CM or not.

Thank you for your answer. Answer number 2 is especially interesting. Wouldn't that mean that HC shells should have LESS penetrating power at greater distances if they keep their angle of flight, since the angle of impact would be even worse? The angle of flight is actually another question I have. Shouldn't HE and HC shells from an infantry gun change it? Otherwise the fuse wouldn't impact if they landed on their base, or not? :confused: :confused:

I don't want to hijack this threat but it's a good opportunity to ask a question about the penetration system that I had since CMBO. Some tanks like the Hetzer are very difficult to destroy from the front because of their (front) armour at extreme angles. My questions: A) Does a shot down from the top of a hill at the front armour of a Hetzer have a higher penetration probability, since the angle of impact is better? Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the angle of impact should be better? (I'd like to post pictures but I don't know how :confused: )

First you have to tell me how you were able to post an answer to my post BEFORE I posted it (look at the forum time) ? I wouldn't want to play against someone with telepatic ability .

In a QB you can obviously see your points in the purchase screen. With this information and the type of battle you can calculate the points your opponent has. Examples: ME 1000 points: you 1000, your opponent 1000 Probe 1000 points: you 1000 (defender), your opponent 1250 Attack 1000 points: you 1000 (defender), your opponent 1500 Assault 1000 points: you 1000 (defender), your opponent 1750 If the computer picks your forces then you have to calculate adding the purchase cost for each unit. If it's a scenario, you can open the scenario file with the editor (after the battle if it's double blind) and look at the units screen to see the point total for both players (unless the scenario is a tournament scenario, that can't be opened with the editor). If one side plays with a bonus or malus, that information will appear in a black box during setup saying something like this "Force balance: Axis force has 90% force size". I hope this helps .

Pictures of the Panzer I Ausführung F can be found here: www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de/GermanTanks/PzI-03.htm

Here is a first rough translation, fine tuning is welcome: Unused, readied Dopp Z fuses must be reset to “K” (transport-setting). For close defence (up to 400m) the shrapnels can be fired with fuse setting “k” (kartasch). With this setting the fuse produces a bursting point about 10m to 20m in front of the muzzle. Dropped fuses must not be screwed on. The acceptable drop height isn’t mentioned in the Russian regulation. Therefore, caution! Dropped fuses and shells with fuses, if dropped from a height that exceeds 1.20m, are to be treated as dud shots and must be blown up. Some clarifications: - Dopp Z seems to be an abbreviation, that I can’t translate without knowing the context/more about shells. [ May 31, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

I don't claim to have understood everything that was said in this thread since I'm no weapons expert. But what I did understand is that the Russian canister-round in CMBB is in fact a shrapnel round with a special fuse setting. Now my question, doesn’t that mean that the shell would be very effective against infantry in foxholes IF the fuse was set right, letting the shell explode just above the foxhole? The same, but maybe to a lesser extent, would be true if a shrapnel-round, with the right fuse setting, exploded INSIDE a building or woods. I hope this question isn’t complete nonsense .

I'm a 100% FOW believer, no wait, that's not completely true. I like CMBB's EFOW even more .

Another possibility, is the commanding officer with LOS hiding? If so the mortar will not fire AFAIK.

Can you post a screenshot? What was the combined damage?

The Blitz is a very good place to play a ladder. I joined recently and I enjoyed my first battles a lot. If you post on the CM message board of the Blitz you'll quickly find some opponents (CMBB and still a lot of CMBO players). I don't know of any ongoing tournament though, I'd like to know too, but maybe the time of CMBO is nearing its end .

I try to buy the infantry type with the best firepower/point-cost/flexibility combination. The database Masta_KFC mentioned helped me a lot to do this. Since most infantry battles (ME, Probe, Attack, Assault) are fought in a distance between 0m and 150m I mostly buy SS PzGren (Mot) (10). The platoon is reasonably cheap and has good firepower close range due to its 3 MP44 and 1 SMG while the 4 rifles and 2 LMGs give enough firepower up to 150m. Fallschirmjäger are even better but since I don’t want to mix force types I can only buy StuGs as armour support and there are no useful vehicles to choose from. In a more specialized role I buy normal rifle squads as scouts, they can fight back and don’t burn their ammo as quickly as the squads with a lot of automatic weapons. For a defence battle or to protect a flank I buy some SMG squads (not too many because a high percentage of SMG squads of the total infantry force is considered gamey due to a game bug), they are very cheap and have awesome firepower at close range. They are very useful in an ambush but they can’t fight at longer ranges. GROGS PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I EXPLAIN THIS WRONGLY . (AFAIK) With the development of the Blitzkrieg tactics the need arose to make the infantry and artillery more mobile. Without transport they would quickly fall behind the tanks. Therefore you find self-propelled arty like the Wespe and motorized infantry in CMBO. They are called motorized because the infantry was transported in trucks, while armoured infantry was transported in lightly armoured HTs (but I read that there never were sufficient HTs, so some platoons of an “armoured infantry” battalion were transported in trucks). Since transport in CMBO is rarely an issue most people don’t buy the respective transport vehicles for their infantry, though some super-grogs would tell you that this is “gamey” but I doubt that they play QBs anyway.

I use this tactic sometimes (I’m playing only CMBO at the moment) so I think it's time to bring some arguments forward, some of course only apply to CMBO and not to CMBB but this is a general discussion: First I want to focus on the “but in real life......” argument. Of course in real life the attacker has more options but the defender even more and more important ones! (IRL= in real life) - IRL the defender would choose the location where he wants to defend and wouldn’t have to deal with a randomly generated map, which only in very rare cases would resemble a perfect location for a real life defence. - IRL there would be no VLs placed in totally useless locations, which give the attacker points. One should look at the scoring system here. A big flag is 300pts worth. That means if the defender is forced to leave it undefended he must destroy 300pts of the attackers forces to level the loss. That’s 2 whole infantry companies + some support weapons! - IRL the defender wouldn’t have to “buy” TRPs or at least not so many of them. 2 or 3 TRPs should cover quite some area. Because IRL the FO could just direct the fire at some distance from the TRP like 300 south, so the defender wouldn’t have to place it directly on the VL, that’s why it’s called a reference point. In CM you can’t walk arty from a TRP, totally unrealistic. CMBO arguments: - IRL MGs have a devastating effect, so that infantry swarming isn’t possible, attackers in CMBO always use that tactic because of the low lethality of MGs. I would rather buy some cheap CMBB MGs then a clumsy expensive arty module. - IRL there are trenches and dugouts, so that you can defend a location against some limited arty attacks, in CMBO arty attacks by the attacker are very effective. And now some tactical arguments: - If it was not allowed to place TRPs on VLs, it would create a safe haven for attacking troops. - I don’t only place TRPs on VLs but on possible jump of points for the attackers infantry too and I’d rather use my arty there. - That leads to another very important argument. Arty is scarce unless someone chooses to play with an “unrestricted” setting. To take out as many forces as to compensate for a lost VL is almost impossible unless the attacker really concentrated a lot of forces on a VL. But why should he do that unless he wants to use that VL a) as a jump off point or tried the unrealistic infantry swarm mentioned above. If it’s a) then that’s what a TRP is about and if it’s then it’s the only effective defence against that tactic in CMBO. To conclude this, I’d say it’s a perfectly valid tactic IMO, and a very desperate one, the defender comes out loosing most of the times because he can’t regain the lost points. And yes, if I have a lot of arty left 5 turns before the end of the battle I of course will use it on likely jump off points, even move the target line a little every turn so that the shells fall some more time, because IRL I could just tell my arty to lower the firing rate and I can't in CMBO. And I will move my infantry up to previously undefended VLs 5 turns before the end of the game, if the attacker hasn't taken them by now. I can't see why the defender isn't allowed to do what the attacker is planning to do. Retaking a occupied VL is almost impossible for the defender, since he can either spend his money on arty or infantry but not on both, so you either pound VLs or you try to retake them (which is quite unrealistic in most of the cases).

No chance ......I'll have my copy long before Christmas !! </font>