Max BrauHaus

Are you sure you aren't just seeing teams rejoining? When you get 1/2 squad teams near one another, they will rejoin into a single squad. As I recall from playing A Walk in The Sun, there are teams involved at setup.

Re: Placing historical outcome in the Scenario briefings I am all for this with the current structure. However, when CM2 comes out, I'd like to see scenarios designers have the option of adding a AAR briefing, if you will, that would display along with the AAR results screen. This would be the perfect place to include the historical outcome, and you could compare your results to the historical.

The second part of the AAR is up. Just go to the Part 1 link, change the 1 to a 2, and start reading. I'd post the link, but don't know how, and am too busy reading.

If the above information is to be believed (that the CMBB/CMAK bundle will go on sale November 15), and since Moon said in another thread that the CMBB/CMAK bundle will go on sale simultaneously with the sale of CMAK, I would venture a guess that CMAK will go on sale on or abouts the 15th of November.

Yeah, but its his wife! That ought to count for something.

It seems to me that the "movie" file that is sent between players is always the same size, so I assume it has enough information in it to display both player's movies depending on which player it is. For us slow-poke modem users, I'd like to see (if it is truly possible) one user just have to send back a password to the other user to allow them to view the movie, withouth sending the whole file. Work like this: player 1: plot #1 player 2: plot #1, movie file created, sends to player #1 player 1: Enter personal password, view movie #1, receive one-time turn password, sends one-time turn password to player 2. player 2: Enter personal password and one-time turn password, views movie #2, plots #2 player 1: plot #2, movie file created, send to player #2 etc. This may only be a small improvement to the current slow process, but could possibly be used in combination with another suggestion?

One thing I'd like to see more developers of historical "unbalanced" scenarios do is use the optional points setting to try to balance the point outcome. I forget what it is called, but there is a setting in the scenario design that can be used to automatically give the underdog side additional victory points automatically. I'd also like to see an addition to the scenario format to have a "historical outcome" description displayed after the game has been played. That would allow you to compare your outcome to the historical outcome. I think it would result in fewer complaints about unbalanced scenarios.

I would like to see BFC chime in on this one. Treeburst, I have see what you are talking about in the CD scenario Royal Opponent (I posted in another thread about Hull Down). Spolier Alert: + + + + + + + + + + + + Basically, the Axis has a number of King Tigers and the Allies have many T-34. Basically, T-34s that won't fire Tungsten cannot penetrate a KTs turret from any range - front side or back. About the only place they can penetrate is the side hull armor at a nearly perfect 90 degree shot. Royal Opponent has many wheatfields on a very flat (pool table) map. To ambush the KTs you have to use the obstructed view of the wheatfields. However, if a KT is in a wheatfield, the TacAI sees them as Hull Down to the attacking T-34 and the T-34 only ever shoots at the turret! And then retreats or usually gets pasted. However, as you say, there is a difference between Hull Down Cover and Hull Down Concealment. The TacAI should be smart enough to know the difference and also know they need to fire below the visible line of the wheatfield to strike the tank's hull. I think this is a limitation of the Hull Down designation that needs to be reviewed.

My question is one of LOS vs. LOF. Wheatfield should not block me from firing at the lower hull of a tank, but being able to see it. But a smart TC (Regular +?) should know enough to be able to target the turret, lower the barrel, and fire. But the TacAI seems to assume that if the tank is Hull Down (LOS) that it must be behind an impenetrable object, and therefore fires (with futility) at the turrent, or wholesale gives up and retreats.

I understand an agree with the second part of your comment, but there has to be some sort of obstruction between point A and point B for the Hull Down condition to occur, right? The example I am stating is a completely flat (pool table!) wheatfield. Two tanks in this wheatfield are considered hull down to one another (or so I experienced in Royal Opponent). Check out the map to see what I am talking about.

I'd like to add to this question: Why is a tank considered hull down (when firing at it) when it is in a summer wheat field? I can understand that you've lost some visibility to the hull, but an attacking tank can still hit the hull with AP through the wheat (and should be able to aim at the hull - aim at turret and drop gun 5 degrees or whatever). My problem with wheat listing a tank as hull down in summer wheat is that the TacAI then seems to believe that it cannot engage the tank's hull. Example: {Spoiler} + + + + + + + + + + + + Playing Royal Opponent (excellent fun in a PBEM game as long as you like applying hit and run tank tactics by the Russians) there is a lot of flat terrain, and much of it is covered by wheatfields. Axis has many (10+) King Tigers and the Soviets have probably equal amount of IS-2 and 3 times as many T-34 43s. At least twice I got the drop on a lone KT from the 90 degree side with 4-6 T-34s. However the KT was in wheat and therefore the AI believe the KT to be hull down. The result? The T-34s attempt to fire at the KTs side turret armor which cannot be penetrated by the 76mm (as well as the turret slowly turning toward the firing tanks). However if they were smartly firing at the upper or lower hull through the wheat, then penetrations could be very possible. Therefore, does there need to be a Hull Down for visibility separate from a Hull Down for cover?

This looks to be a Night battle. Regardless of the terrain and how it would affect LOS, weather and low light (night) will affect LOS in a pretty standard manner. I think clear night time is like 70m max visibility. Looking though terrain will affect this to a greater extent.

My suggestion was to revert to most of those items that give a squad experience in the 1.3 rules - namely infantry casualties, mortars, etc. BUT, I like the simplification Biltong built in by making individual kills less important. I wouldn't suggest +1 for every casualty caused, but +1 if any casualties are caused, regardless of number. This makes squad experience growth more predictable; easier to manage.

Eden, I am leaning to agree with you on this point as you've described it. Although I still think the 1.3 experience could be tweaked, it should definitely include for infantry kills. Maybe if any infantry casualties are caused or recieved it should be +1. That would separate out the troops that sit through a battle without making contact with the enemy from those who were on the front lines. The Favor calc. you suggest is very simple. With that -50 to +50 spread per battle, we would just need to make sure the "cost" of using that Favor is balanced. On another note, I think if players believe the Force Multiplier calcs make the BCR too easy, either the Handicap modifiers should be looked at (again), or some people should start playing at a higher Player Experience rating. As an apparently crappy player, the rules need to be usable for a range of capabilities, and I haven't seen that the current rules in this area make it too difficult. I am still playing in July, so I should be able to get some wins under my belt - I'll wait for the winter to get my arse handed to me.

I had a "BCR Experience" today that you wouldn't normally have in a standard 30+ QB. I rolled a 40+ ME that the Soviets just wouldn't give up on. They streamed down Manstien's dry riverbed in the Fork and I beat them back with arty and MGs. I moved up and took the VL, but by turn 35 was basically out of ammo. By turn 40 the Soviets were encroaching again, and the battle eventually extended out to 49 turns. From turns 25 to 42 I had firm control of the major VL, and would have ended with a Major Victory. 43 to 47 or so it would have been contested, but still could have been a Major Victory (I caused many casualties). At turn 49 the Soviets had beaten back my ammo-less men and they took the VL, leaving me with only a Tactical Victory. Lets see a standard 30+ QB out of the box result in that kind of swing. Cheers!