SFJaykey

Glad somebody had the boards! I figured they'd be out there somewhere. I had some more thoughts since posting earlier....Hans, I don't know if you're a PB veteran who is just missing the maps, or have never played the game but come across a set of cards, so forgive if my comments are basic: Turns in PB, IIRC, represented 5 minutes of real time. So there is another scaling issue with conversion to CMBB - but not an insurmountable one. I'm thinking CMBB could actually handle the PB scenarios if they were cast as "Operations." That would open up access to larger maps (up to 24 sq km in CMBB I believe), longer time frames, and make the number of units more manageable by introducing some as reinforcements. As I recall setup in PB and PL would often place units well behind the action, representing reserves coming up as reinforcements. These would naturally translate as reserves arriving between battles of a CMBB operation. The map in PB (and even moreso in PL, which had 4 boards) covers a lot more territory than even the largest map allowable in CMBB operations, but as I recall most action was concentrated in the central area. The outer portions of the map were sometimes important for flanking actions, but more often the extra space merely added "travel time" to control the arrival of reinforcements. So with the reinforcement system in CMBB, if you put some thought into how you "crop" the PB maps to fit CMBB, the larger map shouldn't be missed too much. The other thing I forgot to mention was: if you do succeed in making some conversions that you're satisfied with, I hope you'll post them or email to me directly.....Seeing those familiar old situations in 3-D with CMBB's level of detail would be a blast! - Matt

Wow, bringing back memories....I played PB and its sequel, Panzer Leader, 20 years ago. Not to sound discouraging, but in PB and PL the units represented entire platoons, and as has been said the map scales were pretty large. Not sure it will convert directly to CMBB. I think that of the old Avalon Hill games, Squad Leader is the analog for CMBB in terms of scale. If you want to try a conversion I'd say start with the smaller PB scenarios, and purchase entire CMBB platoons (infantry and vehicles) for each of the PB units. Re: maps, the PB maps were supposed to represent "typical" terrain and were not historical, so I wouldn't be bound to them. The CMBB maps are far more detailed, so I would just use the random map generator (which seems to do a decent job of creating "typical" terrain, as long as you avoid the large hills). If I still had the old AH games I would scan the map boards for you, but I lost track of them years ago. Good luck - Matt

I thought the reason the Germans started using skirts was to protect the tracks from ATRs? And the effectiveness against HEAT was a happy side effect? Am I wrong again, or did they just overestimate the risk? - Matt

As a newbie with about a dozen batles (all vs AI) under my belt, I probably should just keep my mouth shut and listen, but I've learned a lot from following this thread and couldn't resist sharing my own impressions: I agree the FOs don't seem to earn their money. After selecting a target for a tank or ATG, the player is not asked to correct aim for each round: that's the gunner's job. So why should we be doing the FO's job by manually adjusting fire? If the FO has LOS when he calls the target, and a spotting round is dropped, shouldn't the battery just keep dropping spotting rounds until he has LOS to one? Is it realistic for the battery to FFE when the FO is still alive and hasn't seen the spotting round? Wouldn't the real-world assumption be that the unseen round was off target, and the _last_ thing they would do would be FFE? It seems unfair, and reduces the effectiveness of artillery considerably, to demand the FO maintain LOS to target throughout the entire delay period, which is how it seems to work currently. If he has LOS when he calls the fire, and LOS when the spotting round arrives, he should be considered to have LOS. He shouldn't even need to see the spotting round itself: if he can see the target but not the spotting round, wouldn't he figure out that it was off and ask for another? I'd like to see smoke, especially colored smoke, for spotting rounds, but that's an aesthetic issue and the mechanics a much higher priority. Regarding the cost of artillery: I also find it somewhat high. I'm sure some of that is due to my own lack of skill in using it; for people who are skillful with using FOs and artillery it might be a good deal. But in general it seems too expensive: in QBs even the AI doesn't seem to buy much. Maybe part of the cost problem is that (AFAIK) rarity and point values of artillery modules are dependent only on date (and maybe theater), and are the same for every type of scenario. Shouldn't it be much more likely for an attacker to get heavy artillery support in an assault scenario, compared to a ME for example? Maybe the _solution_ to the cost issue is to remove off-map artillery from the unit purchase screen entirely. (For QBs only....scenario designers should have access) Just assign it based on date, theater, scenario type and size, with a small random factor as well for variety. Players could still pick their on-map artillery, but off-map modules would be assigned. This might take a small part of the fun out of unit purchase, but likely add some realism to the engagements. Re: TRPs: they do seem like a great value now, but not quite as underpriced as Jason feels, since I find myself buying 4 or 5 in order to cover enough locations to have a good chance of actually using 1 or 2. Again, those more skilled at scoping the terrain probably get better value. And I agree, also, that in the interests of realism attackers should have access to TRPs, at least in Assault and Static situations. Though when one poster said that the battery would have a map, and they should just be able to fire at certain landmarks like crossroads, I don't think that's right: I'm sure the maps of rural Russia that were available to both sides in the 1940s were a lot less accurate than our maps today, and calling close artillery support based on them would have been a very risky proposition for frontline units. Actually, that is probably what the uselessly inaccurate fire out of LOS in CMBB is simulating: batteries firing blind based on inaccurate maps. Well that's my $.02, which is probably what it's worth. Any comments welcome, and if any Battlefront folks read this, I hope they take it as constructive and not a knock on their outstanding efforts. Thanks and can't wait for 1.02! - Matt

As a newbie with about a dozen batles (all vs AI) under my belt, I probably should just keep my mouth shut and listen, but I've learned a lot from following this thread and couldn't resist sharing my own impressions: I agree the FOs don't seem to earn their money. After selecting a target for a tank or ATG, the player is not asked to correct aim for each round: that's the gunner's job. So why should we be doing the FO's job by manually adjusting fire? If the FO has LOS when he calls the target, and a spotting round is dropped, shouldn't the battery just keep dropping spotting rounds until he has LOS to one? Is it realistic for the battery to FFE when the FO is still alive and hasn't seen the spotting round? Wouldn't the real-world assumption be that the unseen round was off target, and the _last_ thing they would do would be FFE? It seems unfair, and reduces the effectiveness of artillery considerably, to demand the FO maintain LOS to target throughout the entire delay period, which is how it seems to work currently. If he has LOS when he calls the fire, and LOS when the spotting round arrives, he should be considered to have LOS. He shouldn't even need to see the spotting round itself: if he can see the target but not the spotting round, wouldn't he figure out that it was off and ask for another? I'd like to see smoke, especially colored smoke, for spotting rounds, but that's an aesthetic issue and the mechanics a much higher priority. Regarding the cost of artillery: I also find it somewhat high. I'm sure some of that is due to my own lack of skill in using it; for people who are skillful with using FOs and artillery it might be a good deal. But in general it seems too expensive: in QBs even the AI doesn't seem to buy much. Maybe part of the cost problem is that (AFAIK) rarity and point values of artillery modules are dependent only on date (and maybe theater), and are the same for every type of scenario. Shouldn't it be much more likely for an attacker to get heavy artillery support in an assault scenario, compared to a ME for example? Maybe the _solution_ to the cost issue is to remove off-map artillery from the unit purchase screen entirely. (For QBs only....scenario designers should have access) Just assign it based on date, theater, scenario type and size, with a small random factor as well for variety. Players could still pick their on-map artillery, but off-map modules would be assigned. This might take a small part of the fun out of unit purchase, but likely add some realism to the engagements. Re: TRPs: they do seem like a great value now, but not quite as underpriced as Jason feels, since I find myself buying 4 or 5 in order to cover enough locations to have a good chance of actually using 1 or 2. Again, those more skilled at scoping the terrain probably get better value. And I agree, also, that in the interests of realism attackers should have access to TRPs, at least in Assault and Static situations. Though when one poster said that the battery would have a map, and they should just be able to fire at certain landmarks like crossroads, I don't think that's right: I'm sure the maps of rural Russia that were available to both sides in the 1940s were a lot less accurate than our maps today, and calling close artillery support based on them would have been a very risky proposition for frontline units. Actually, that is probably what the uselessly inaccurate fire out of LOS in CMBB is simulating: batteries firing blind based on inaccurate maps. Well that's my $.02, which is probably what it's worth. Any comments welcome, and if any Battlefront folks read this, I hope they take it as constructive and not a knock on their outstanding efforts. Thanks and can't wait for 1.02! - Matt

I have played about a dozen games since getting CMBB, and the most frustrating problem I have with S&S is that often the tanks will not pause long enough in the firing position to get a shot off. I have watched with the units selected and they will advance, get LOS and spot a target, get a good red targeting bar, but start reversing and often be out of LOS before they can get the shot off. Have seen this with regular and veteran crews as well as green. Sometimes I try moving the second waypoint laterally, so the tank has to pivot slightly while in the firing position to buy more time for shooting....this sometimes works but I suspect that when the tank fires while pivoting I am paying the same gunnery penalty as if it were moving. (Right?) Any suggestions, either things I might be doing wrong or things to look for in terms of crew status and etc? Thanks, Matt

I've just been visiting the cmmods and Scenario Depot sites, and as a casual point'n'clicker still living in the dark ages of dial-up, am somewhat overwhelmed by the variety of mods and other add-ins available for CMBB. Anyone care to mention their favorite unit and terrain mods, maps etc? I thought of picking only the most-downloaded mods from cmmods, but that would disqualify any recent uploads. And so few of the maps at the Depot have been reviewed... Also, it seems most of the unit mods are quite specialized, for certain weather conditions, unit IDs, etc. Can the installation process be organized to allow an entire set of, say, "Central Region, Winter" mods to be imported at once, rather than importing a bunch of individual files for each scenario? SFJaykey

Thanks, I figured there was an easy answer! That helps explain why radio spotters are so much more expensive. Spools of wire??? I was wondering why spotters were so slow. It seemed like binos and a map case shouldn't be _that_ heavy. SFJaykey

Hi all....newbie here, have had CMBB a week or so and played about a half dozen battles. Honing my skills against the AI and will be looking for PBEM soon! Have to say thanks for all the great posts archived here which have cut the learning time considerably. Delurking now with a question/problem: I haven't been able to get my artillery spotters embarked as passengers. Neither in the setup phase nor during play. Last game I tried to embark a German 105 spotter, transport class 1, in a Kubelwagen, transport class 4 and supposedly able to carry a team, and could not issue the order. In earlier games I have tried to embark spotters in halftracks that have the capacity to carry full squads, with similar results. I have been able to embark squads and teams onto HTs and tanks, so I think I understand the basic process of embarkation. But when I try to issue a Move command to a spotter it will not let me set a vehicle as the waypoint, and the "Embark" waypoint label never appears onscreen as with squads. Is there some trick I am missing, or is this a glitch with the game or my installation? Thanks, SFJaykey