Nolloff

CM MOD Database

Check this out. All the answers and more IS2 from Russian Battlefield site Multi-part loading (one shot consisted of two parts) and weight of shells might be the main points. Nolloff

I hope you´re right. Maybe asking him to marry me was a bit over the top. Forgive me Panzermartin. Nolloff

until 1.02 Nolloff

are you still there? Haven´t seen a new mod in DAYS. I´m getting frightened you might have found another hobby. :eek: Nolloff

Yes! Three Classics although I think JA2 was twice as good as the original JA. The only non open-ended single player game I completed 4 times. When it comes to turn based tactical combat on the level of individual soldiers I haven´t seen better. I´d add Diablo 1 to that list. My first online experience ever and boy was it great before all the kids and cheaters took over. Nolloff

Best wishes from Germany as well. Nolloff

Numbers do give an advantage although not in the sense of the individual tank feeling "stronger" or showing different behaviour compared to what it would do was it alone. Attacking with a greater number of units increases the number of tanks which individually do not become threatened directly. While some tanks might move to cover when receiving fire or getting targetted, others not receiving fire and not getting targetted will be able to engage the enemy and take advantage of the situation. So, the mechanisms on individual unit level to consider number of friendlies vs. number of foes are not there but the overall outcome is certainly more in favor of the side which can aim more guns on target. Nolloff

You addressed Steve but allow me to say that I don´t quite understand what you´re saying. What do you mean with advancing? Tank/turret front facing the enemy? When discussing this self-preservation mechanism we are talking about a couple of meters the tank might move backwards while it still faces the enemy not the fact if the operation/battle is a Russian advance or retreat. My IS2s dying in Jaegermeister die while moving into the direction of the enemy. I´m not sure how this contradicts the point you´re trying to make. Nolloff

Cpt., regarding the first comment I quoted above: I was referring to a situation where IS2s are facing Tigers which are partially hidden in trees over 600m of totally open ground. Both forces are on a ridge. Forcing the IS2s onto the ridge resulted in DEATH. The TACAIs decision was better than mine. In the end I killed all Tigers with a 1:1 kill ratio, on one occassion I killed 3 Tigers while losing 2 IS2s. This sounds like a pretty good result to me. I had to use shoot and scoot to achieve it. Bloody good command. Regarding the second comment I quoted above: You are wrong. SU76 will certainly NOT face a Panther in a head-on engagement. The chance of getting shot for cowering is probably lower than getting torn to shreds in a frontal engagement. It is still possible to ambush them. Please don´t get back to me, telling me it isn´t because I´ve just done it. Yes, one SU76 retreated AFTER IT REALIZED the Panther had sighted it and was turning into its direction. Damn clever behaviour. It disappeared out of sight to live and fight another turn. A second SU76 in ambush killed the Panther without retreating. Nolloff [ November 26, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

Yup, that seems to be in the game. 5 x T34/85 misidentifying one of two IVs as Panther were retreating, the last T34 stayed after identifying both enemy tanks as the IVJs they were. Nolloff [ November 26, 2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

As far as I understand it replaces a single "water" tile.

I´d bet on it. Nolloff

Hahaha, big brother is watching me. Honestly, I just zipped it and it´s on the way to that prison island of yours ... Btw: aren´t you concerned when seeing the "results"? You´ll have to cancel some TACAI retreat orders soon. Master_Goodale (light) Edit: My ISPs email functionality seems to have retreated as well. I´ll send asap. [ November 26, 2002, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

Well, I´ve got nothing better to do right now so I kept fiddling around ... Same "shooting range", August 44, Soviets have to move on top of a ridge from height 7 up to 8 to face two Tigers, approx. 1250m away. Regular troops on both sides, 6-8 Russian tanks vs. two Tigers (Pz VIE, late). T34/85s instantly retreat when spotting the Tigers. IS2 1944 (early macho) do not retreat at first but move fully onto the ridge to the end of their movement path. Start to shoot it out with the Tigers but individual tanks start to reverse when getting shot or aimed at by the Tigers. Non penetrating hits, close misses and sometimes a Tiger only aiming at a specific IS2 (establishing red line to it) leads to retreating of the targetted tank even before the Tiger fires. IS2s which are not getting shot at seem to keep their calm. I´m not saying that this is proof of something nor that anything is wrong with the game. Quite the contrary. I find it quite interesting. Might be useful to finetune tactics and avoid mistakes. Now if I only could get the macho list... Nolloff [ November 26, 2002, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

I demand immediate release of patch 1.02 with corrected unit designations - StuGIIIF (wimp) - StuGIIIF (late macho) Nolloff

hehe, that´s funny: Same situation, Stug IIIF retreat, Stug IIIF (late) do not. Multiple tries, same results. PzIV F2 retreat as well. Nolloff [ November 24, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

Okay, I did a test (did I see someone yawn??): 800m map, a ridge on the German side. German tanks behind the ridge. On the other side two regular KV 1 1941 on open terrain. 4 x Pz III H, regular crews, HQ with +2 Orders and morale retreat when moving onto the ridge and sighting the Russians. When ordered back onto the ridge they retreat every turn. 3 x Stug IIIF (late), same crews/HQ stats do not retreat. Russians are the same in both tests. There seems to be a tank vs. tank relationsship. The matrix of fear so to say. Before I get butchered. I do not hold a degree in Statistics. Cheers! Nolloff [ November 24, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

I don´t think this is new or got introduced with 1.01. The JSIIs did that in Jaegermeister, the second CD scenario I touched. They were facing Tigers, so it´s understandable to a certain degree. The only thing that helped was shoot and scoot. Looking at the carnage that resulted from the plain "move" orders during my first attempt I think those Russian tankers were quite clever. There seems to be some "his chances to kill me are higher than mine" consideration going on on behalf of the TacAI. I had German StuGIII Fs retreating from Russian KV1s in a long-range engagement as well. Higher experience levels should come to a more realistic assessment than "green" troops. Can anyone confirm this? Nolloff [ November 24, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

WWB, yes, I´ve noticed that fortifications stay in place. The problem I have is related to the map design. The strongpoint is meant to be inside a Balka which is in a right angle to the direction of the attack but does not cross the whole map. 2/3 of my infantry reinforcements meant to man the strongpoint get placed more or less where I´d like them to be but the rest is put on open steppe terrain somewhere in the middle of nowhere. I can use terrain tiles and height differences to direct the attackers where I want them to go but have not enough control over the defending force to make my design work. Well, I was stupid enough to spend quite some time on the map design etc. before taking a closer look at the force placement mechanisms. So to some degree I´m complaining about myself Cheers, Nolloff

You´ve ended up asking this question in a place where it´s pretty obvious what the majority of answers will look like If "which one is better" means "which is more fun" and not "which is more realistic" etc. etc., you´re probably the only one who can answer it. I´ve enjoyed playing the CC series tremendeously. I assume you can find them on eBay and maybe CC5 in the bargain bin. I think CC5 and CC2 are still worth getting. But I´d even buy CC6 would someone develop and release it (and before someone organizes a lynch mob: I´m not talking about GICombat). Nolloff

Xerxes, yes, setup-zones for the defender could certainly lead to clashes with the setup of the attacker. If activated padlock would mean no shifting of troops to the active map-zone that could cause similar problems. At least my understanding of the editor functions is improved and I see why it is made this way. Thanks to everybody who replied. Nolloff [ November 23, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

Thank you for the feedback Mercury. Yes, it seems I just wasted some hours trying to set something up which doesn´t work. All I´d need to make this operation work would be that the troops I place padlocked "on map" in areas reached at a later stage are not all teleported onto the first map or alternatively would arrive in the setup-zones. Now it seems it´s almost impossible to set up a strongpoint unless you have a huge town and/or lots of cover all over the place. Just a handful of additional options in the editor would dramatically improve the possiblities. Well, maybe in CM3 then. Cheers! Nolloff

Hi there, I´m having some problems while designing an operation. In the second battle I want some enemy tanks to join the battle coming from a specific map area, where a road enters the map. I´ve placed a setup zone there while the rest of this area of the map is neutral. The computer, when setting up the troops for this particular engagement totally ignores my setup zone and places the tanks where it finds it appopriate. Cover seems to play a role but then again not because while some tanks are put into more or less covered spots others appear on the plain steppe. Creating cover in the setup zone does not help at all. Darn, I wish there were some more features in the editor or at least some clearer instructions in the manual which would help me to avoid some of the pains of trial and error. Thanks Nolloff [ November 23, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

Welcome!