SFJaykey

Based on this example photo, which is more or less what I had in mind, doesn't anybody like the idea of treating this environment with a terrain tile, rather than discrete buildings? Compared to woods, it would block LOS more effectively, provide better cover and concealment, fewer airbursts, and slower movement. The base could be dusty tan with some flagstones, topped by doodads resembling masonry walls and huts. By using terrain tiles, when a few are linked together you get the continuous-block effect as in the photo. In a large village setting a few large heavy buildings could be mixed in to provided elevated firing positions. There would be "alleys" at the sides of the heavy buildings but that would be semi-realistic, no? Admittedly this is a stopgap: hopefully CMX2 will treat this type of village environment more realistically but this seems a workable, if abstracted, solution for CMAK.

How about a new tile that depicted a 20m-square maze of small, 1-story high, stone walled rooms and courtyards, typical in the images I have seen of North African towns? Its effects on gameplay would be closer to a woods tile than a small heavy building. Place a few next to each other and I think you have the effect Theike is looking for.

There was a decent 3-d simulation of WWII surface combat sold for a while by SSI, called "Fighting Steel." Unfortunely the game was very unstable as released, and apparently pulled from the market rather than fixed. Luckily, some talented fans of the genre have written a series of patches for Fighting Steel that not only made the game stable (ok, almost stable) but improved the accuracy of the simulation. It's real time, not turn based, but with the stately pace of warship movement real time works fine. To check it out, go to: http://www.navalwarfare.org/ and click on the "Fighting Steel Project." There give instructions for where to find the (free) patches, and last I checked they still had some of the game CDs for sale at their "store" for $10.

Apparently there is no way to do it, I have tried myself and posted to the forum about it. An idiosyncracy of the editor, I guess....

As an alternative, now that CMBB is offically "finished" (no more patches), why not a "Gold Edition" CD or somesuch that offered all patches, some mods, other goodies, etc. For a small fee. Would be convenient for the dialup folks, and an opportunity for add-on sales for BFC. I believe wholeheartedly in giving artists a chance to make a living: the more BFC can earn from CMBB the more time they'll have to spend on CMAK and CMX2! I already have all the patches burned on backup CDs but if it were $15-20 I'd probably buy a "gold edition" upgrade CD just to support the makers. [ June 30, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Maybe if CM ever adopts an official campaign aspect, we can see dbriefings like Jack wants. Me, I'd be happy with medals awarded to units that performed remarkably. Maybe a nice screenshot of the unit, either in action or at game end, with some stats. I keep meaning to save such screenshots manually but once a game is done it's a PITA to go back and find the right PBEM file, etc....will be easier with full-game replay but game-generated "medals" would be fun.

Pavlov: They don't get it. I get it. As far as my wife is concerned, CMBB is a tactical freakin' simulator! Either that, or a powerful mental exercise that will help me analyze the terrain of an upcoming landscaping project, or plot more efficient....errr...waypoints on the kids' route to school, or a stimulating social interaction that serves as an alternative to nights spent at the local pub. Anything but a "Wargame." And Panzertruppe, tell me more about "GI Nurse" Barbie....

If you agree to play with Unrestricted force types, you open yourself up to situations like this. I hope that if/when CM adopts an overall "realism" setting, or somebody comes up with anequivalent Rule, that "unrestricted" force types are among the things banned at high realism levels.

Infantry definitely leads. But they don't do all the fighting....hopefully they just locate enemies for support weapons and tanks to blast. Redwolf is right on: position tanks and support weapons to fire down the streets, but outside the range of enemy's short-range AT.

Thanks for all the replies. Unfortunately it seems like there is no "magic bullet" to deal with the SMGs. Here's a summary of what I've learned, both from posts here and from my own bloody experience: - When SMG squads are known or suspected to infest large swaths of wood....don't go in there! If there is a tactical need to traverse or clear the area, the best option is to blast it with lots of HE before moving infantry in. - if you must root SMGs out of deep woods, and don't have enough HE to slather over all their suspected hidey-holes, be advised that it is a dirty, nasty job and expect casualties. There are 2 approaches to using infantry against SMG infantry hiding in woods. The first is to use infantry to locate the SMGs for suppression/extermination by overwatching support weapons. Half squads or tank hunters can be marched into the woods alone to locate the SMGs, but they will die, often being immediately pinned and eliminated before firing a shot themselves. Full squads last longer, but can still be wiped out by an SMG squad at close range before the overwatching support weapons can bail them out. If I had to sacrifice infantry in order to pinpoint SMGs for my support weapons, I'd probably use half squads of my lowest quality troops, since full squads of better troops don't offer many advantages here and are better saved for other tasks. The second way is to use the infantry's own firepower to take out the SMGs. This is a last resort, only to be undertaken when 1) it is impossible to bypass the area, 2) there is insufficient artillery available to just blast the woods, and 3) effective overwatch by heavy support weapons or armor is impossible or too risky. An example of the latter would be woods that are too thick for support weapons to see into deeply, or where the flanks of the woods are too exposed for tanks or support weapons to get LOS into them. This is a job for full platoons of infantry, even if only individual squads of SMGs are likely to be encountered. At short range, in cover, the best troops to use against SMG infantry are probably other SMG infantry, if available. Pioneers with their demo charges and flamethrowers also work well, but don't think pioneers are supermen because they are still very vulnerable to the SMGs, and must be handled carefully to avoid unnecessary casualties. The FTs are especially vulnerable because they attract the SMG's fire and are slow to return fire themselves. The best way to get infantry moving through cover killed by SMGs is to use the "Move" command. Upon contact your lead squad will be quickly pinned, then destroyed, while their platoon mates walk on by. The second best way is to use the "Advance" command, which will cause the infantry to move even closer to the SMGs before stopping to return fire. The best command to use is "Move to Contact." Advance a platoon in line formation, about 15-20m apart depending on whether you're in Woods or Scattered Trees/Pines. A half squad or TH can lead, but keep them no more than 5-10m ahead of the main line. If flamethrowers are available, they should follow about 10m behind the main line. HQs are at least 10m back, only close enough to keep the entire platoon under command. Everybody uses "Move to contact," and it's important to pay attention to command delays and the Pause command to keep the formation in close order. If the lead units get too far ahead, they'll be severely hurt before their buddies can suppress the ambushing SMGs. When everything goes right, here's what happens: One squad moves into the SMG's ambush range, and gets hit hard. If it is a half-squad it is probably pinned immediately. But the fire of the SMG squad makes it visible to at least some of the other elements of the platoon. They stop and fire. Any trailing flamethrowers continue to move until they achieve LOS, then stop and hopefully fire before the SMGs draw a bead on them. If your FT can get a shot off you are in pretty good shape. SMG/FT exchanges are sometimes over before the end of the turn, but if it carries on till the next Orders phase and you have pioneers, have 1 squad throw demo charges. Throw them 2-3 meters behind the enemy SMGs, if you can see that far. This for 3 reasons: 1) to protect your own guys from the blast, 2) the SMGs may panic and start crawling away before the demo charges are thrown, and 3) where there is one SMG squad there are often others. Well, that's the best I've been able to come up with so far. Maybe it will be useful to any newbies who have been following the thread. If anybody has more ideas, I'd love to hear them. [ June 29, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

My main goal was to increase the realism of the simulation. Speeding up the orders phase by penalizing (and thus discouraging) micromanagement would be a side benefit. Hat Trick will speak for himself; from reading his post I think he had similar ideas but with priorities reversed. I know BFC's vision of CM is that it is not intended to be a command game, and I don't want it to become one, myself. But when you have command delays, penalties for out-of-command status, making stressed units ignore orders, etc, you are already a little ways down the road to being a command game. The question is how far do you want to go. I think some limitation on number of orders per turn might increase overall realism without distancing the player excessively from the "men on the ground." BTW just because I don't want CM to become a true command game doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun to play such a game now and then. Your battalion level game sounds fun! It would enable simulation of much larger actions than CM. And I like the idea of having the option to go down to the front lines to see what's happening, while paying a penalty in terms of overall control. But such a game wouldn't replace CM. It would be fun either as an option built in, or as a completely different game. On a tangent, I agree about the unreality of the bird's-eye views of perfect maps that we enjoy currently, and don't think it's really appropriate at either the battalion or platoon level. I hope we see some "Fog of Terrain" in CMX2, maybe even CMAK? Coding something like Franko's rules into the game (as an option) would achieve that to a degree. Another option would be for the 3-d vieiwng levels to display only those parts of the map that are in LOS of friendly units. The full map might only be visible in 2-d at view level 9, with those parts of the map out of current LOS displayed at lower resolution, perhaps even with errors. [ June 28, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I'm just thinking: Redwolf has advocated introducing SOPs, and that would work nicely with a limited-orders scheme. I don't know if there's been a specific proposal, but perhaps it could be as simple as indicating a "posture" for your units that would bias the TacAI. Some choices under "Postures" might be Defensive (hold ground), Stealthy (make maximum use of cover, fire only when fired on or at short ranges), Aggressive (engage enemy when sighted, advance toward objective while balancing use of cover with speed of advance),and Skirmishing (engage enemy but withdraw in the face of superior firepower, w/o morale loss). Postures could be pre-set by the scenario designer (or via the QB paramter screen), and would be "sticky" until the player wanted to change them. Perhaps Panicked units would automatically switch to "stealthy" and would need to be re-postured upon rally. Under a limited orders scheme, changing a unit's posture might count as setting a waypoint. With player-controlled postures or SOPs, a limited orders scheme becomes more viable IMO, because the player would maintain indirect control over his troops even if unable to issue fresh orders. Another big benefit of postures would be the ability for scenario designers to guide the AI and make it a better opponent in single player games.

Well after being one of the initial proponents of limited orders/waypoints, as I said I'm having second thoughts. Not giving up on the idea but there are certainly "issues." The biggest of these that comes to mind is the question of what happens when HQs are knocked out or suffer casualties. The "realistic" thing would be for the player to lose their order/waypoint "credits," and thus lose considerable control over his troops. Since things are usually pretty hairy when HQs are getting killed, with many units pinned, broken, etc, the game might become completely unmanageable. Realistic, sure, but how much fun to play? [OTOH, if units are pinned or broken they can't receive orders anyway...maybe it would balance out?] Basing the number of orders allowed on the initial number of HQs solves this completely, but much of the added "realism" goes out the window. Another issue with limited orders is that it would interfere with the implementation of plans early in the game. On maps with decent cover the first turns in my games are usually marked by long movement orders with multiple waypoints, to bring the troops forward using cover. This rule would seem to hamper that, and unrealistically so: IRL all (good) commanders will have some kind of plan they've communicated to their troops before engagement. I suppose a fix for this would be to allow unlimited movement orders during the setup phase. Smarter route-finding by the TacAI would also make the scheme more playable: if units could be trusted to make proper use of cover and roads on their advance, it wouldn't be necessary to plot so many waypoints. For either my scheme or Hat Trick's to be playable, I think orders cannot be strictly limited. Rather, there might be a penalty for giving many complex orders/waypoints. Either the growing delays I suggested originally, or perhaps orders given after the limit is exceeded should not receive their HQs' bonuses, and pay the "out of command" delay penalty? A key difference between my "orders points" scheme and Hat Trick's original idea (if I understand it correctly) is that one limits the orders each HQ can give to units under its control, while the other limits the total number of orders a player can give. One is more realistic (IMO), the other more flexible. Which is preferable? Should Fire orders be restricted along with movement orders? I'm starting to think any limited-orders feature should be optional. I'd like to try playing with it, and it sounds like others are also interested, but many won't want to lose more control over their guys. Perhaps a limited-orders option could be part of a global "realism" scale that I'd like to see in CMX2: a single setting that would control many parameters and settings including troop quality, available view levels, force mix options, FOW, etc, enabling things like official "Tournament" parameters and Franko's Rules to be coded into the game. [ June 28, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I knew that. Thanks for reminding me. Still, troops need to be advanced. Advancing through cover is the only way to move troops up in the face of enemy support weapons. But SMG squads in that cover will paste the lead squads before my support weapons can be brought to bear. So, if I promise to avoid the temptation to "root out" SMG infantry from large tracts of wood when not tactically necessary, please tell me what's the best way to advance troops through woods (or other cover) when there is a risk of running into an SMG ambush? [ June 27, 2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Several times in recent games, I've suffered terrible casualties trying to clear woods and trees of SMG-armed Russian infantry. I've had support weapons at the ready but as soon as my scouting squads find the SMGs, they're dead. I've tried flamethrowers but they are slow to fire, and usually dead before they get the first shot off. Revenge is nice in the form of heavy support weapons blasting the Russian positions, once located, but I'd like to reduce the casualties. There's seldom enough arty to just blast all the suspicious pockets of woods blindly... What are the best tactics for attacking SMG armed infantry in cover?

You have already gotten replies from more experienced folks than me, but here goes with some things I have learned about keeping my tanks and etc safe from AT guns: On-map mortars, as has been said, are the most effective weapons vs ATG. I make sure I have at least a couple of them in even the smallest battles, more in large battles, and I spend their ammo carefully when I expect to have to deal with ATGs. If you buy infantry in larger formations (company, batallion) you will often get mortars "included," but even more importantly you will get extra HQs which are very useful for spotting for the mortars. If you are on a fairly open map and expect ATGs, start by pushing some infantry and scouts forward, keeping in cover as much as possible, while your tanks stay out of sight. Check to see which units have binoculars: they are most effective at spotting. HQs, artillery FOs, sharpshooters, and HMGs all usually do. These are the units you want to have forward, in cover but not hiding (because that reduces spotting ability), with LOS to suspected gun locations. Sharpies are especially useful because they can Move fairly close to the enemy, even in open terrain, w/o being spotted. For the HMGs and FOs, your primary concern is moving them into places where they have LOS to support your infantry; their spotting of ATGs is a bonus. Also get your mortars into position...I like to use indirect fire so I keep them on the back sides of hills, behind thick patches of wood, etc. The HQ assigned to the mortars moves or sneaks forward until it has LOS to places you suspect ATG might be placed...check the red line to make sure it retains command of the mortars! If you don't have enough HQs to spot for all your mortars, move the mortar into LOS of the suspected target but keep it in cover and well back from the enemy, hundreds of meters. By the time all this is ready, my infantry advance will often have encountered the enemy and may need my tanks to come forward in support. If not, I will often "show" a tank to suspected ATG sites, if I can do so at ranges of several hundred meters where first-shot hits are unlikely. I "show" the tank by either moving fast from cover to cover, or moving into a hulldown position for about 1/2 a turn. Use Fast, or Seek Hulldown" and the "pause" key to time the movement and keep the tank from being exposed and vulnerable for a full turn. "Shoot and Scoot" doesn't work too well for this, as often the ATG cannot aim and fire before your tank reverses out of view...the point here is to draw a shot. This is risky, but if you can reveal the gun at long range you have better odds than if you are surprised by a gun at short range. If a gun fires while you have infantry, HQs, and other scouts forward, they are likely to spot it after a couple of shots and you can use your mortars to knock it out. If I have to move tanks forward before guns are discovered and dealt with, I make sure I have mortars, infantry guns, or other tanks on "overwatch," set up and ready to engage ATGs that might pop up. You never want to have everybody moving forward at once, or nobody will be ready to deal with surprise threats. When I started playing these games I tended to push my tanks forward first, and lost many of them to ATG. In fact, the longer you can keep them out of sight, and work over the enemy's AT network, the better chance you have of keeping them alive for when their mobile firepower will really be needed! Hope this helps! [ June 27, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Thanks for the reply, Louie. Tell you the truth, I had second thoughts about my "crazy idea" shortly after posting it. On the one hand it seemed like a good idea; OTOH added complexity is seldom a good thing. You really broke it down: CM is about both the art of tactics, and the men on the ground. Shouldn't let one get too far in front of the other.

Just posted my first "real" scenario at The Proving Grounds. http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/scenarios/Belyi Road2.cme Upload seemed to work OK. The general briefing is pasted below....hope you enjoy it! As this is my first real attempt at a semi-historical scenario, I would value any feedback! (This has also been submitted to the Depot but not hosted yet...) Title: Belyi Road Type: Allied Assault Date: November 27, 1942 Location: Rshev salient, west of Moscow Region: Central Size: Large Weather: Snowing Terrain: Hilly, forests, frozen river, deep snow Wind: Still Turns: 45+ Best Played As: Human vs Human 2nd Best: Allies vs AI Computer Should: Stick to Scenario Default. Author: Matt Tarlach "SFJaykey" Background: In late 1942 the German Ninth Army occupied the Rshev salient, a 150km square expanse of swamps and hilly forests protruding northwards from their main line, only 200km from Moscow. Marshal Zhukov, at this time Russian commander on the Moscow axis, saw the salient as both a threat to Moscow, and as an opportunity to cut off and destroy Ninth Army. He waited until late November, when the rivers and swamps of the Rshev salient had frozen, and struck with the full force of six Soviet armies and over 3000 tanks. The key to the western side of the salient was the town of Belyi, where the Germans had built strong fortifications and quartered several regiments for the Winter. Early on the 25th of November, following a massive artillery barrage, Soviet troops overran the German lines south of Belyi. The next day, the 1st Soviet Mechanized Corps drove into the breach, battling through the snow-choked forests in an attempt to sever the single graded road that linked Belyi to the German rear... [Designer's notes: My main source for this scenario is the article "Counterpoint to Stalingrad" by David Glanz. The map is based on line maps in Glanz' article, and on verbal descriptions of the terrain and conditions. Units identified in the scenario were active in the area on this date, though I don't claim true historicity of the force mix.]

Yes there must be...I downloaded both the first and second versions of the scenario (not the third, with the altered map.) Thought I had played the first version but with similar filenames who knows. A second LMG would be helpful but with hindsight I wouldn't trade the second ATR for it...

Another great post, Ligur! Fun and informative! BFC, why don't you get this guy busy on a CMAK tutorial and/or Strat Guide, now! I'll pre-order!

Shift-Q affects some play aids, including bases, but not arcs, nor trees, roofs, weather, etc. The trees are the main reason I think it should be configurable: I like to turn trees off during orders phase, but I'm sure some others don't...

Unless I am playing TCP, I watch nearly every CM action phase at least twice. Once for the thrill of the action, then again to figure out WTH happened to my guys and plan my next moves. I find myself toggling things like trees, arcs, and unit bases on and off a lot . It would be neat to have a player-configurable hotkey to toggle many of the interface settings at once, from the most aesthetic "Movie" mode for the initial viewing, capturing cool screenshots, etc, to a micro-management mode with trees off, arcs on, etc. Oh, and in movie mode I'd activate the English subtitles.

What typo?

For those who haven't found them already, English translations of the various exclamations may be found here: http://www.hulldown.org/kilroy/specialrules.htm I'd still like to see an English voice option. With accents to maintain a little atmosphere, if it can be done well. No offense intended to the German or Russian peoples....if the rules of political correctness are considered, we probably shouldn't be playing with our virtual toy guns at all!

Thanks, great test! Qs follow: So, if you can, please clarify: did the tanks using CA open up on haltracks that can hurt them, like the 75mm halftracks or the flametracks? IOW, is it a matter of whether the ambushed vehicles can hurt the overwatch AFV, or just that halftracks are not "Armor?" In the second case, are you sure the overwatch platoon had LOS to the enemy? The woods they are hidden in themselves reduce their own LOS considerably...I can see where the scout might have LOS to the enemy but the firebase would not. Thanks for the effort, it is already quite helpful...if your test didn't look at these additional things don't worry about it, I'll go on learning the hard (but fun!) way!