KursruK

How is this game coming? I'm interested in how success there was in beating SMG squads in combined arms setup with heavy trees like this. It sounds impossible to me and I am not newbie. Main problem I see is russian infantries is so much cheaper than german, as well as more powerful. So how is this?

Thank you for the responses. Another question please, why is it that when flamethrowers start fires in buildings, sometimes infantry can still be in the building, and sometimes not?

Can some experts help me with a few questions about large town fights? I know how to use pioneer demo to blow buildings, but sometimes they don't throw it, even if it say "use explosives", and even if far enough away from friendly troops. Usually bottom floor throwing doesn't work? Not sure. Any other ideas for demo in large towns would be helpful. Also, what positions in large heavy buildings do you find works best? maybe defensively. I try to keep my squads very deep back, so they only have a blue line of sight immediately around the building. But, good players always get into the corners of the heavy building anyway, which is the weakest blue line for my infantry. If you are too far forward in the heavy building while defending them, you can be seen and take fire. So I'm not sure what is best. Any ideas on this? Also, is it just me or does small arms "area target" fire in buildings work very very well? Thank you for your help.

Nice ideas and explanations W.N. These things are already helping my attack. [ October 31, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: KursruK ]

wrong place. sorry

anyone up for a game?

so what's the deal with these guys and AP rounds? There doesn't seem to be a consistent way to guage whether they get AP rounds or not? It's fine for a scenario or something because the designer can give it what it needs. But for QBs, I can never buy these things because I don't know if they will get AP or not. Is there a golden rule or some trick I'm missing? Thanks for the help in advance. [ August 16, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: KursruK ]

*bump* Can anyone help on this?

I have had good success with pioneers "area targetting" buildings within 30m to "use explosives" and blow the building. But, sometimes it decides not to work. I know the game (cmbb) pretty well and don't think I'm pulling any obvious rookie moves on it (like friendly troops being too close, or my own units being "pinned", etc). It seems as though chucking demo from building to building, works better from the second floor. But, I just played a game where I had pioneers on the second floor of a heavy building, and there was an enemy occupied heavy building 30meters away. Perfect for demo right? well, I snuck to the second floor and to the edge of my building, area targetted the explosives, and they would NOT throw the demo. Why do they only throw the demo some of the time? Thanks for your help in advance.

Don't use arty. It's too unpredictable in CMBB to be worth it. That is, unless on defense with TRPs. [ April 21, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

The bogging usually occurs when the ground is "damp". Now you say, "well don't move 'fast' when the ground is damp". OK sure, but the bog rate for t34/85 is actually a bit worse than the Stug (mid) in "damp" conditions. That doesn't seem to account for the PSI ratings. I ran a test with damp ground. 12 stugs (mid), 12 t34/85s. I had them move "fast" on open ground for 7 turns. results: 3 t-34/85s immobile, 2 stugs immobile. I didn't clarify it when I originally posted, but this is where it feels unbalanced. When it snows, all cars are hindered to some effect, but some do better than others in it. Along the same lines, "damp" should yes, effect everyone . . . but shouldn't t34/85 do much better than Stug under these conditions? [ March 10, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

yes of course.

No offense, but it is not my job to substantiate your statements . . . .you said it is "proven fact" . . . I simply ask for you to substantiate that. What I do not understand is why the t34/85 has a tendency to bog, while moving "fast", in open terrain. I am critical to this tendency only relative to how often tanks with high PSIs bog. Of course, maybe no one else has had this experience. Just wondering if anyone else noticed this. It could just be really consistent bad luck. [ March 10, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

on open ground . . . .I find the t34/76 VERY reliable . .. . I'm talking t-34/85 specifically. I don't think I have ever (again in literally 100s of QBs) seen a t34/76 bogg.

well that's not in the manual (surprise surprise). So if it's been "proven", please provide this "proof". It happens to me over short distances and long. Seem wholly ridiculous to me. t-34 has nothing if it doesn't have a serious mobility advantage.

has anyone else noticed that the t-34/85, with it's very low 11.1 psi, boggs frequently? Yes, I have the latest patch. I have played 100s of QBs, so this post is not a whim. I seems to me the t34/85 boggs about a frequently as a stug. It is all while moving "fast". If the response is, well don't move the t34 "fast" then I say that is crap. if the t34 cannot move "fast" with comfort and ease in combat .. . then russian armor is truly worthless in cmbb.

I would rather play with rarity on. But under general circumstances (there are so many variables), the 4 tigers used properly will surely win.

Why don't you have that option? buy Stukas and 88s.

You must be in the country somewhere. I find myself doing this to great dysfunction when I visit my family in the mid-west.

How can the captured 76/L51 be so much more powerful than any of the russian 76mm AT guns? Did the Germans modify the captured gun to be more powerful?

Er... not correct. What is being discussed in this thread is almost certainly something different. Note that the bug I mentioned almost always struck the same exact spot. In the picture above it looks like the gun is "walking" the rounds to the target. That is something I don't think we have ever seen before. </font>

Is there anyone out there that has done a mod for "rocky" terrain? It's a pain to locate this terrain unless in view 3 or less. Thanks in advance.

I just read the "boot and tracks" February articles on what 1.02 updates. 1.01 had some wonderful upgrades and seemed to focus on important problems. 1.02 looks like and academic enhancer more than anything (very important to have those little details correct, sure), but it doesn't seem to address any of the still very troubling problems with cmbb like: arty spotting complications, tanks with clear LOS digging ditches with HE instead of hitting their targets, tanks retreating from "fear" right off the map (when close to the sides), unit movement speed in trenches, and blah blah flecking blah. All of these important issues have been a focus in the forum and (for the most part) have been confirmed by the battlefront ilk as problems! What happened to please fix or do somfink?

So what is the difference? The manual only gives an inappropriatly vague philosophical difference. In an assualt, the attacker gets a hefty point addition, while the defender gets fallback foxholes. This doesn't seem like a fair trade, as you can make fallback foxholes by splitting your squads anyway. I've had several people in here claim pillboxes are cheaper for the defender (in an assualt) but that is absolutly not the case. Flags appear to be a bit further back in an assualt, but that's it. So will someone explain to me, what am I missing here? I never defend in an assualt because it seems like a grossly unfair advantage for the assualter.

I think they're still scrambling with 1.03 Madmatt commented today that the patch is still really buggy.