Dr. Rosenrosen

Thanks for all the responses. Here's how things turned out: I had an anti-tank rifle pegging the turret and had the mortar harrassing the tank as well. Within one turn, the gun was damaged and the green crew bailed out shortly thereafter. My opponent says that he thinks the mortar is the one who damaged the gun. Based on the replies I've seen above, I'm thinking that this was not a gamey tactic, but a legitimate form of harassment combined with some luck in that I forced the crew to bail. Any dissenting opinions? Thanks again for all the feedback! Dr. Rosenrosen

Hi all, I'm playing a PBEM with a friend. It's a popular operation, but I won't name it to prevent minor spoilers. Anyhoo, it's early war, my Soviet opponent has 3 green KV2s. Although I have some early tanks and lots of infantry, I really have minimal odds of getting through that armor with even a side or rear shot. So I thought I'd harass the KV2 a little with my 50mm mortar. I figured I could at least keep him buttoned up, and if I got really lucky I might immobilize or panic him. My partner said that this was gamey, since this tactic would never be used in the real world. (Is this true?) My opinion of the matter is that gamey behavior is something that is not only unrealistic, but confers an advantage on the perpetrator. So if my mortar does no harm to the tank, I waste ammo and draw attention to my mortar guy, but I gain no advantage. And if I am lucky enough to immobilize or freak him out, then perhaps it is an effective strategy that should not be ruled out. However, I'm opinion to third party opinions. What do you think: is this tactic gamey, pointlessly stupid, or clever? (or some of each) Thanks, Dr. Rosenrosen

I second the nomination for smaller scenarios or ops. The big ones are definitely deeper strategically, but sometimes I don't have time to spend 20 minutes on each PBEM move. And when I do have time, I like to have 2 or 3 games going on, usually one big entree one with lots of troops, and one or two appetizers (desserts?) with fewer troops. Dr. Rosenrosen

Basically it's good for foot soldiers on routes where the entire route is in acceptable cover, such as woods, pine, and sometimes wheat fields or scattered trees. That way your troops aren't screwed by being caught in the open if they do contact the enemy and stop. Move to Contact can be useful for getting weapons into position at the edge of woods. You know that they don't need to be right at the edge of the woods to have LOS outside, but you don't always know just how far is acceptable. Use Move to Contact to have your HMG or panzerfaust stop and take a shot as soon as LOS outside of the woods is possible. With panzerfausts, use an armor only cover arc to ensure that they will only stop when they see a tank. You can also try "move to contact" and "hide" if you want to scout without engaging, but there is a risk that your troops will be spotted before they hide. Dr. Rosenrosen

You frighten me. </font>

This is a serious issue! The best game I ever played would have been even better if it weren't for that restrictive turn limit. Monstrously huge map, night, thick fog, heavy trees. My opponent and I each had a single unfit, conscript, tank hunter team with low ammo. After flailing about in the dark for 110 turns (4 and half months of PBEM!), we finally encounter each other and move in for the kill. Naturally before anyone gets a shot off, both our units hit the dirt and cower for the next 10 turns. Then that accursed turn limit kicks in and the game ends before we can finish each other off! Still the best game ever..... Dr. Rosenrosen

Alright, at the risk of highjacking the thread (or, more generously put, expanding the scope of the thread).... I don't use mods in CMBB, although I modded the heck out of CMBO. Actually the only CMBB mod I use is the gridded terrain which I find incredibly useful. So why did I mod CMBO and not CMBB? Well, first of all, I think that the CMBB default BMPs are pretty darn good. And second of all, I modded CMBO by finding a list of "essential" mods: the best sounds, vehicles, buildings, grasses, etc. I believe this was put together by Madmatt himself and posted on combatmission.com. (My apologies to the actual author if I'm mistaken.) So.... I would like to mod CMBB if there is a similar list of suggestions. It would be great to improve the look and sound of my game, but I really don't have time or interest to become a "mod grog". Any tips? Thanks, Dr. Rosenrosen [Edited to note that historical accuracy is not really critical for me, as long as it looks interesting.] [ September 23, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Rosenrosen ]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you develop the scenario yourself? Inspiration for a good matchup can be hard to come by, so take advantage of it while you have it! The scenario editor is easy to use and can be just as much fun as fighting the battle itself. Besides, you'll be much happier with the results. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Dr. Rosenrosen

I would love to take a look at it. Thanks! My email is btpfohl [at] adelphia.net. Dr. Rosenrosen

Oops! Seems my wording was off in my post. I didn't mean this as a criticism, so I'm sorry if you took offense. Allow me to explain: I liked A Battle of Minors, even though I got my ass kicked as the defender. There was lots of nice, up-close fire-fighting throughout the game. (Although I was a little grumpy that my AT assets were largely ineffective against the enemy tanks. Poor tactics on my part, I'm sure.) My PBEM partner and I speculated that the time limit was very deliberate because he felt that he needed to sprint for the flag, and I felt that simply delaying him would be an effective strategy. As it turns out, when we reached the last turn (25), I still had possession of the flag but didn't have much left to slow down his sizeable remaining force. Unfortunately (for me), it was a variable turn limit, not a static one. The few extra turns were enough for him to claim the flags before the game ended. So, in summary, I meant that the turn limit in this scenario seemed deliberate to motivate the attacker and change the dynamic for the defender. As you point out, this is a perfectly legit circumstance and worked in this setting. My comment about "lazy balancing" was not directed at "A Battle of Minors", although I grant that I didn't make that clear in my initial post. Even if I had had 50 turns, I was spent after 25, so the turn limit was right on in this case. In terms of my own scenarios, I have a few. Perhaps I should get them out there on some websites and get feedback for improving my own skills as a designer. Peace. Dr. Rosenrosen

If we get working tides in the CM engine, I can finally complete that Bay of Fundy battle that I've been working on. Dr. Rosenrosen

I just played "A Battle of Minors" from the CD as a PBEM. It has the unusual length of 24 turns. My impression is that the attacker has such an overwhelming force compared to the defender that the only way to balance it is to limit the number of turns. In this arrangement the strategy for the defender becomes more of a slowing-down-the-attacker game rather than actually trying to win outright. Time pressure can make for interesting variations in strategy, but I think it can also be a lazy way to balance an otherwise unbalanced scenario. Dr. Rosenrosen

Well, that question does surface on the Biltong thread periodically. BTS is quite tight-lipped about the specifics of future versions, which is understandable for software that's still very much in development. So nobody knows for sure. My best guess is that it will not be in future versions as this dramatically changes the original scope of the game, making it less tactical and more campaign. I do know that they are very supportive of third-party efforts like Biltong's and have even done some bug fixes specifically to accomodate BCR players. Sorry to hear that you are so busy. BCR can be time consuming at first, but it is worth it whenever you get a chance to try. Good luck! Dr. Rosenrosen

Surely you've checked out Biltong's Campaign Rules! It is a well-thought out campaign where you command an infantry company (and 3 tanks) starting in June 41. Some battles you get reinforcements and additional troops, some you don't. You track kills and casualties for each squad so that they can improve in experience over several battles. It's a fun way to play a lot of different types of battles against the AI. Having a vested interest in keeping your core company alive dramatically changing your strategy and priorities. Maybe it's better to piss off your CO and not take the flag, than to lose most of your men trying. There's always a biltong thread going on here somewhere. Check out http://home.swipnet.se/supersulo/biltong/ to download rules, spreadsheets, and additional maps. Dr. Rosenrosen

I think that the biggest limitation on longer games, even on bigger maps, is ammo load. Don't know about realism, but I would like to see either higher ammo loads and/or the ability to resupply mid-battle (not just between operation battles). I use every technique to minimize ammo use, but even so a point platoon can burn through most or all of their ammo in just a few minutes. In a company, I only have 3 platoons, so I really only get about 10 minutes (give or take) of intense fighting with them, less if I engage with more than one platoon at a time. Granted some of the battle time is scouting, advancing without firing, etc. I would love to play a 60, 90 or 120 minute battle, but I know that my ammo supply won't allow it. Dr. Rosenrosen

Do a search. Lots of interesting suggestions and even feedback from BTS on solutions for borg spotting. Dr. Rosenrosen

Don't know if it's been suggested in all of the lengthy discussions of borg spotting, but I have the perfect solution. Since in any solution to borg-spotting, it's likely that the player himself (herself? ) knows more than any actual commander would, we must reduce the information the player has. In order to do this, the player should be required to take an enormous bong hit and a shot of tequila after each minute of game time. Preliminary testing shows that this really eliminates that player-omniscience problem which is the root cause of all borg-spotting evils. Just trying to make the world a better place. Dr. Rosenrosen

I'm not sure exactly how this is quantified either. (Perhaps you can tell us!) Obviously if the enemy keeps hitting your tank, it tends to freak the crew out a little, even if the shots don't penetrate. The game also takes into account the success that your tank has had in damaging the enemy. If the kill likelihood is low, or they have had several direct shots richochet, your crew is more likely to bail. This is to simulate the impression that the enemy may be invulnerable and that retreating or bailing out is the only option for your crew's survival. Dr. Rosenrosen

That's why this forum is so much fun. A guy named Hans discussing a game about the Germans and the Russians IN SPANISH! Viel Spass.... Dr. Rosenrosen

One last question sort of on topic: Can I take a map that I made as a battle and turn into an operation or vice versa? I think I already know the answer (nein), but it doesn't hurt to ask. Dr. Rosenrosen

Thanks for the suggestion, Martin. I set up a test operation like you suggested and things are much clearer to me now. One thing that I'm still a little hazy on is determining the final victor. I played through two static operations quickly against the AI. I understand how the posiiton of the troops at the end of each battle determines the set up zone for the next battle. One thing that surprised me is that even though my "no man's land" was 400m, the enemy units set up much closer than that to my own set up zones. An even bigger question is what do the flags do? After the last battle, the points section in the end screen was blank. No points were calculated for holding flags, causing casualties, etc. And no final percentages had been calculated. Yet I was told that I'd won a total victory (on my own test operation, of course). The manual says that these are taken into account for operations as well as battles, but I don't understand why it wasn't displayed. Can anyone help me understand this better? Thanks, Dr. Rosenrosen

I have a question about scenario design: I'm trying to create a Meeting Engagement that has some of the benefits of an operation, such as the ability to resupply ammo, the changes in time of day, dynamic reinforcements, etc. However, I was hoping to create a meeting engagement for easier balancing and a more static front line geographically. My idea was that there would be a nice map with quite a few buildings that would be compact (800m x 800m perhaps) and allow for intense firefights. The reinforcements for each battle would up the ante and provide a new means of destroying the map. For Battle 1, each side gets a basic infantry company and perhaps some SMGs. Battle 2, motorized infantry and some medium-sized arty spotters. Battle 3, night falls and the flamethrowers get to torch some buildings. Battle 4, send in the heavy arty and tanks. Battle 5, heavy anti-tanks, laser-equipped ninjas, and so forth. It would not only be fun to reduce the pleasant little landscape to flaming rubble pockmarked by craters, but it could be tactically interesting to see how different elements of the same map become important depending on conditions and troop types. The problem with most scenarios is that the scope is not long enough. Most scenarios have given up the reinforcements before turn 10, when the initial units are still just figuring out how the land lays and counting on reinforcements to help them. I would like each wave to play a more-or-less realized battle before the next wave comes in to help. On the other hand, in a scenario, there is no option to resupply the units and ammo will certain become an issue. In an operation, it seems that one side must be the defender, changing the numerical balance of troops, and that the same chunk of map would not continue to be the focal point throughout the game. Any suggestions on how I can create this type of siutation in a scenario or an operation? Thanks, Dr. Rosenrosen

What strategic purpose would basements serve? Dr. Rosenrosen

We started Blitzkrieg after such a positive response. I'll let you know how it goes, but by all means keep those suggestions coming. We're always interested in having more options once we're done with this game (or perhaps having a couple going at once). I was looking at one called Mobile Defense, which I also believe is on the CD. Anyone tried that one? Dr. Rosenrosen

My PBEM friend and I have played lots of scenarios and QBs, but for some reason never an operation. I'm curious to see how reserves and a potentially shifting map change the strategy. What's a good operation for first-timer operation players (but veteran CMBBers) and why? I guess I've always been wary of the scale of operations and don't want to put that much energy into an operation that turns out to be poorly balanced or something. Suggestions? Dr. Rosenrosen