Blackbear

In an own designed CMBB operation played head to head with a good friend, of a series of chronological ones that we play , as german player I overrun my foe´s mechanized forces, and in the very last battle, two german support aircrafts - I forgoted they were in the reinforcement schedule- came after MY forces and reduce them to ashes. A mixed panzer-motorized infantry column and almost half an infantry company were almost destroyed. Following that, it was quite easy for my foe´s last two T-34´s to counterattack and won the day. That was the worse but not the only time that I suffer such treatment from my comrades...

Allied: I vote for the Crusader series in the british OOB, Sherman M4A1 in the US, and T-34M42 in the soviet one. Axis: the sdkfz251/10 and PzkpfwIIIN.

Yes, I do all that stuff. But it is no much problem if you use a company size force. In any case, as a general campaing rule, your rules are perfect for most gamers. It is only a matter of taste I supose, aestetic effect.

Thank you very much Robert: I have used 1.0 and beta 2.0 versions for CMBB and was anxious to see the CMAK one. When you manage to use the Excel sheets correctly (especialy when you need to update units) this is an easy and very satisfactory tool. The only rule I don´t follow is the map generation one, I prefer to use own or 3rd party generated maps (with little modification), don´t like the editor auto generated ones. I´ll test this new CMAK sheets, thank you.

Hein Guderian, in his superb previous war studies about tank warfare, said that there is an ancient and endless competition of shield (armor) vs proyectile penetration. And so, it had no sense to try to produce indestructible tanks. The key of armor vehicles success in the first campaings of WWII was over all, the massive and coordinate attack of big armor units. He thought that good optics and wireless equipment fitted in a equilibrated machine, and good training of five men crews was much more important. Of course they knew about the advantages of slope armor, but apparently they had other priorities. To fit five men in tanks hull with slope armor was a dificult task to 1930´s german engeniers. And also existed some tecnical troubles in the factories. As the war evolutioned to a more static form, the advantages of better armor design arose. In XXI century H.Guderian statements are still alive.

One of the major obstacles I found in this linked battles system (apart from good rules to implement it), is the placement of the setup zones, as they will be the same in every next battle. This is specially true for de defender´s zone. For example, if you try to simulate a village defense and put the setup zone in the village, if the attacker enters that zone and stay there until the end of the battle, in the next battle it is posible to setup defender´s units to close and mixed with enemy ones. That´s only good if you try to simulate something like a night counterattack preceded by scout units infiltration or a similar situation. I don´t know if the use of different color setup zones would be the best way, I am just begining with this idea. Thanks for replaying.

During the last months, I have ended one Bilton Rules ´41 Campaing, several 3rd person´s good operations, my own designed semi-historical huge maps linked operations, and even a very large (180+ 25 turn Batlles)own 1941-45 Campaing (not ended). After all that experience, I have concluded wich is in my opinion the better battle type in playability and enjoiment terms: 1st- Customize with the editor a realistic medium map (there are many 3rd party ones in the maps database and other webs). You can even enlarge one that you like. Small maps are too limited to move AFVs, and large/huges ones needs too much turns to be ussefull and the PC may burn. Set the sides controled zones next to borders as they will be the initial placement zones to next continuation battles. 2nd- Go to the QB, and set the battle parameters (you can use your own rules if you want random battles, it easy to make some simple rules). I recomend to play 15, 20 or 30 turns battles even if you like large battles. 3rd- Import the edited map and purchase your units (you may let the AI to purchase its units or make that for it if you mind historical realism). 4th- Play the battle to the end and: a) If you or the computer/oponent achived a MAJOR or TOTAl VICTORY: The battle has finished. If it is a DRAW or MINOR VICTORY result you can play an inmediate next battle. You must save the battle result. In the Debriefing PUSH the "look map" button and save the game. Then, go to 2nd step, iniciate a new QB. Remenber, the date must be the same, weather, wind, temperature parameters should be the same as in the past battle but you can change that if you make some type of rule for that. Time of day should be the same to, or later. To fix the unit parameters and force size is ussefull to make some kind of rules (this force will act as a reinforcement force for the 1st battle force). Import the saved .cme archiv map WITH the old units and go to purchse the new force. In the purchase table I recomend to delete all the CREW units that could be present from previous battle. But DO NOT delete the other units even if you know they are dead or knoked out (in any case, never delete a AFV/vehicle that you know it was burning in the last battle). They will be in the same place and condition they were at the last battle. This will create a good feeling of fierce fighting enviroment. c) Place your new units and begin the battle. You can withdraw your past battle units to initial placement zones if you want, otherwise if they are outside that zone you only can change their orientation. You may play as many battles as you want untill someone obtains a MAJOR/TOTAL victory or when you or your oponent (if human) "surrends. I know that there are some little inconvenients in this sistem, and perhaps someone will ask me for wich are that "simple rules" I use to set the parameters and force sizes. Well, I had some inspiration in campaing rules for that and I think it is better to make simple ones. I call this sistem "Linked Battles". In my opinion it is better than the rigid reinforcement sistem of the Operations (even I like them too), much more inmersive that playing single battles (I dont like much), and I choose it recently instead of any campaing rules becouse it is posible to play many diferent battles with all the nationalities and unit tipes of the game without beeing unrealistic. It is Really an alternative kind of operations. Perhaps those who were ASL fans in the past will understand me.

It is used to launch molotovs. They were some kind of house made artifact, very simple I supose, an little efective I think.

There are many comments in the Forum about missed models not included in the patch. Well, I wont mind to have more models that come with the game in the future, but if this will happen I think it will be necessary to make some priorities. 1st- Some people ask for large field and AA artillery models missing or shared from others. In my opinion that should be the last priority. Even althought has been reported that russian used them in direct fire often, that artillery batteries were placed far away from the 1st line, in advantage possitions. I used field Arty in CMBO custom battles and operations, and in a normal escenario size, they are mostly decoration. 2nd- I agree with those who claim for the T-28s, but I´m afraid that wont be done. Other models as the JS-II late, T-44 or JS-III would be great too, but the last two were very rare in the battlefield, they came too late in the war. The new models for the BT-5/7 and many others, especially the Axis minors ones, are good compensation for those missed. 3rd-A model that I would really like to be done with its proper model are - dont lauth those friends of the monster afvs- the PzI series (PzIF the "little tiger" would be funny). Well, in any case thank you a lot CMBB team for this supperb game and the patch.

Have you change the CMBB folder in the windows start shortcut menu? or installed the wron version of the patch? [ November 21, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Blackbear ]

I had the same question several times becouse in short length battles it´s easy to be stalled by the enemy defenses. I´ve tried diferent ways, and even I dont like much, my own conclusion is: concentrate your forces in a narrow front and "fly" to the exit whit almost all your forces -specialy afvs-and use a minimun force to entertain the foes. In experimental custom battles with afvs against infantry suported with AT guns and tank hunter teams, I had much more success in that way than in a carefull one. The problem is to know wich is the right path and have luck.

Thank you very very much Gordon, your work has added much sault to the game. We´ll miss your name in the CM mods.

Hello everybody! I am interested to learn some real IIWW recon tactics used in the eastern front to try them in CMBB. For example, I read that german armored recon units ussualy were very agresive in their missions. When they needed to explore a forest, the command vehicle (of a unit of 3 or 4 armored cars) advanced quikly to the tree line and them stop for a while to observe, after that the car reverse its movement atracting the enemy fire at it and so showing their placement. I tryed that in the game and had success whithout losses (just crews paniked). It suposed to work well whith reverse driver ACs. Please comment other ones. --------------------------------------------------By the way, I have read many critics in the forum about some CMBB engine features. Well, there is nothing perfect, but to those who had beeing playing CM since its begining in 2000, I will never forget the great shock and emotion that this superb game caused to me. For that ¡THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH CM TEAM!, veteran wargamers worldwide knows that this game was build from the gamers dreams.

I think planes are better modeled in CMBB and surely more usefull. Playing 21st Army Counterattacks operation as russian, I saw all my planed assault demolished by succesive german air attacks. I lost two T-26s (abandoned) and almost an infantry ¡company! in just one turn strike. It was quite frustraiting as a virtual comander but very chalenging too. I supose real russian officers of the time thought the same.