SFJaykey

Great posts, Ligur! I hope this thread gets added to the "Anthology of Useful Posts" in Tips & Tricks. Looking forward to your humorous advice on other tactical problems!

If German long-range optics are only giving a 30% to-hit advantage over standard Allied optics at range, I think they are considerably undermodelled. This based on lots of personal, practical experience with optics of various types, including German and Russian optics of WWII (or shortly after) design. Just picking numbers, 50-70% seems more appropriate for shots over 1000m. (that's a 50-70% advantage over Russian optics, not a raw to-hit chance) I have no idea how to make a quantitative analysis of this, a la Rexford, but it is just sooo much easier to aim well with optics that offer higher contrast, less flare and more magnification. There should be an even greater advantage when shooting into the sun (except vs shilouetted targets), but I don't think the CMX1 engine is up to making that distinction...hopefully CMX2 will be. An addition to the engine that might improve modelling of armor duels would be an intermediate step between spotting and targeting: call it "target acquisition." Now, it's one thing for a TC with his head out of the hatch to spot an enemy w/ his binoculars. And another thing for the gunner to put the crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger. But in between there is an important phase during which the gunner traverses the turret and looks for the enemy in his sight, and this does not seem to be modelled in the current engine. If it were, German tanks with narrow optics might spot as well as they do now, but take longer to aim and fire the first shot at a given enemy, while having a larger to-hit bonus. The regular "good" German optics would offer advantages (over the Russian optics) in both acquistion and accuracy, but with a smaller accuracy bonus than the long-range types. The length of the "Acquistion" delay should depend, at least, on optical field of view, optical quality, crew quality, and degree of enclosure offered by the gun/vehicle. (A Marder gunner who could just peek over the gun shield would likely acquire his target faster than a Hetzer gunner who is glued to the eyecup of his sight.) Perhaps this intermediate step could be added to the gunnery model in CMX2. As has been said, the spotting ability of buttoned tanks, especially those w/ 2-man turrets and/or no cupola, seems to be significantly overmodelled, and this combined with borg spotting eliminates much of the German's historical advantage. Borg spotting will have to wait for CMX2, but perhaps the spotting ability of buttoned tanks can be tweaked for CMAK? Something else which has been posted before is that unmoving vehicles in cover are just too easy to spot, especially defending vehicles that have not moved since setup (where some kind of camouflage can be assumed). IMO a hulldown or dug-in Marder that has not moved since setup, assumed to be in ambush position w/ camouflage, should be little easier to spot than a 75/76mm ATG. Perhaps future CM versions could offer an "ambush" option for AFVs at setup, which would reduce their "spotability," in exchange for a delay penalty on their first movement order. On the issue of the accuracy of the 88L71, I have played the scenarios mentioned here and some other games where it figured, and don't think there's anything wrong with the modelling of this gun in particular. Most of the really off-base results reported here are probably the inevitable statistical anomalies, combined with the systemic flaws in the model mentioned above. PS: Having mentioned "systemic flaws" I think it's important to restate that CM is still the best wargame, ever, by far! As always, just trying to nudge it closer to perfection, and give the good folks at BFC some selling points for CMX2...

I have to wake up at 0450 to commute to work. I used to groan when the alarm sounded, and roll around in bed finding it difficult to get up. Now that I'm into CM I eagerly awake at 0430 to play turns against my European PBEM opponents before hitting the road!

Dunno what you mean with SP company....[/QB]

I am open to correction but I believe the Panzerjager ("Tank Hunter") battalions in infantry divisions were mostly Pak. Along with ith an SP company that was usually Marders, or Panzerjager Is early on. So still no "tanks."

Thanks for the feedback. The map is coming along, but I just found out I have to work overtime tomorrow, and this weekend. Promise it will be ready before the release of CMAK.

For those who were so kind to help with my research on this Operation Mars battle, I thought I'd update you on my progress (or lack thereof): I initially decided to try an operation to capture the entire early part of the action, from about Nov 27 > Dec 2, on a slightly reduced scale. I quickly realized that for it to be playable I would have to divide it into two operations, covering the North and South sides of the river. I got started on a 4x5 km map depicting the south side of the valley, and was optimistic until I looked at the historical forces more closely: The Germans in this sector essentially had a reinforced grenadier battalion, with heavy support weapons, AT etc....ok, that's quite manageable in an op. But according to my maps, On Nov 30 and Dec 1 the Russians threw at them 2 tank brigades, 2 motorized infantry brigades, and an additional tank regiment! :eek: I am having a little trouble scaling the action to something playable. I think I need to keep the German strength near a full battalion to cover the wide front, but if I use the historical ratio of forces the Soviet side will be unmanageably huge. Let me ask the forum: in historically based scenarios like this, are people more interested in keeping the historical force balance, or in maintaining playability, and some hope of victory for both sides? And more fundamentally: is anyone interested in playing an op of this size, at all? Due to the force balance issues I am considering breaking the action up into a few smaller scenarios (or ops) where the force balance might not be historical, but more playable. Perhaps the depiction of large battles like Luchesa Valley in their entirety will become more manageable when team play arrives with CMX2. I can imagine 4 Soviet players ganging up on one German in this one...

Jason- Agree with you totally on the need for a "Follow Road" or similar type of command. However one thing you've asked for is already in the game: vehicles underway do make small course corrections "at speed," without stopping to pivot. I'm not sure what the cutoff is in terms of turn angle but it seems like 10-15 degrees. Because of this it can sometimes be faster in terms of getting from A>B to plot an additional waypoint, in order to make smaller turns, rather than a more acute turn that requires a stop & pivot.

My CMX2 wishlist would have to start from the "ground" up: terrain. - Smaller tile sizes, 5m maybe? 10m at least. - Fences and hedges that divide tiles from one another, rather than occupying a full tile. This might enable better calculation of their effects on LOS, cover, and movement, as well as more aesthetic maps. - More specialized tiles: Orchard and garden tiles. Haystacks. Small creeks. - Fog of War applied to terrain: no more perfect maps. That should get us started.

Waiting for my PBEM turns but can't get CMBB off the brain, so thought I'd throw a few more out there. Some are completely new, while others have been mentioned before, but I figure it never hurts to restate and clarify. (Thought about posting these to the CMX2 wishlist, but maybe they can be applied to CMAK) 1) One-Click "Realism" Setting. A sliding scale, or set of check boxes, that would set many parameters and lock some interface settings with one click, including FOW, rarity, force mixes and troop quality, available view levels, etc. The left end of the scale would tailor the game for those who prefer what has been called "arcade-style," or as they put it, "fun," while the right end of the scale would be heaven for the "micromanagers" or "grogs." I'd love to see Franko's rules coded into the game via this scale, along with a BFC-official "Tournament" setting. Other settings could optimize the game for play vs AI, etc. Such a feature would make the game more accessible to new players, and reduce or eliminate "parameter negotiations" between pbem or TCP opponents. (There should still be a "Custom" setting that allows player selection of all parameters.) 2) Timed Victory Flags Scenario designers given the option to set expiration times for individual flags, to simulate phase lines. A large timed flag would display (to the attacking player only) the number of turns remaining till expiration. Upon expiration it would shrink to a small flag. This might encourage longer turn limits for games, while still providing incentive and reward for quick achievement of objectives. 3) "Advance" command tweaked so that it is more useful for bringing troops up under long-range fire. IMO it should be less tiring, with the tradeoff being less outgoing fire. 3a) Another tweak that could help with bringing troops forward under "nuisance" fire would be to change "Move to Contact" so that enemy contact triggers the next order/waypoint, rather than having units stop upon contact. Then we could order "Move to Contact & Advance," which would be a big energy-saver for infantry on the move: the tiring "Advance" order would not be triggered until necessary. 4) Intel available at setup. Perhaps vague spotting reports (eg: Light Armor? Infantry?) superimposed on the 2-d maps available at higher view levels? (I think this idea was originally SgtGoody's.) Ooh, I just heard the tone: "You have mail!"

Sounds like a compact and interesting scenario, especially with the accompanying narrative. I'll try it and report back. Is it designed for play between humans or vs tha AI? And if vs the AI, which sides, and should the computer stick to default?

Just completed "Belyi Road," the first of what I hope will be a series of scenarios based on Operation Mars, the Soviet winter offensive against the Rshev salient in 1942. This is only my second scenario overall, so I would like very much to get some feedback from playtesters before sending it to the Depot. If you enjoy the sight of multiple companies of T-34s rolling across deep snow, this one could be for you! Best as 2 player, or Allies vs AI, Computer stick to default setup. Don't even try it with AI as Allies! For the file email me at: sfjaykey48@yahoo.com Thanks, [ June 13, 2003, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Thanks, I do have Glantz's article and have extracted as much from the text and maps as I can. Andreas' post is also quite helpful, confirming and expanding on what I have inferred from studying the squiggly arrows and symbols on several maps. I think to do the Luchesa fight justice, even just the early part from November 26-30, I will have to cast it as an operation, and have started sketching maps and force mixes, but don't expect to see the "beta" for a couple of weeks. It will be my first operation and I am a little bit of a perfectionist... While waiting for the snail mail to bring me Kevin's photos (thanks again!), I have undertaken another scenario drawn from Glantz's history of Operation Mars, this one based on the Soviet attempt to cut the road southeast of Belyi on November 27-28. It is almost done but I am out of leisure time for a while; hope to offer it for playtesting Friday or early next week. [ June 09, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I am working on a couple of scenarios set during Operation Mars, which was November '42 in the Rshev salient (Central). My research puts the unit mix in the assaulting Soviet tank brigades at roughly 55% T-34, 40% T-70, and 5% KV. Can't say how each were used, though: if the T-70s were mostly out on the flanks your mix could sitll be close to realistic.

My usual technique for advancing infantry to contact is to send half squads forward under "Move to Contact," followed by the rest of the platoon under "Move." Doesn't work so well when you run into a body of SMG infantry hidden in woods... :eek: The SMG devils pop up when the half squads are ~20m out, and annihilate them, then I get to watch the rest of my platoon trudging mindlessly toward their doom... :mad:

Troll. I hope.

Thanks guys!

I think the Sealion planning assumed Germany would win the Battle of Britain, and the invasion would be conducted under skies controlled by the Luftwaffe. When Germany shifted from targeting the RAF to targeting British cities, any possibility of Sealion being successful evaporated. And I will agree to disagree on the likely involvement of RN heavy units in the Channel.

Just wondering how you experienced scenario designers manipulate things like map design, setup locations, victory conditions, etc. to guide the AI on attack and defense. I've certainly seen very strange AI behavior, but also seen it act reasonably and am sure scenario design figures in this heavily. Thanks,

But that was to preserve them against need. Had Sealion been launched, that need would be present. Surely in a do-or-die situation like that, the Royal Navy would have thrown everything necessary into the battle. That's always been their tradition and I can't see them changing it here.... </font>

I am late here and fear the thread may be too far gone for comment on the viability of Sealion, but here goes: Germany was certainly not doing "nothing" to actually prepare for Sealion. Their huge and costly effort to knock out the RAF would gain air superiority, which could cover a possible invasion. The conscription of cargo barges, tugs, and even fishing vessels from Germany, and holding them on the French coast for several months as potential landing craft put a very heavy strain on German industry that relied on these vessels for merchant transport. The Royal Navy might not have presented the great obstacle many seem to think it would have. The Admiralty had already issued an edict that no vessels larger than a destroyer were to enter Channel waters, and none of the accounts I've read of Royal Navy planning allow for using larger vessels. And the Royal Navy was running very short of destroyers. The main reason Churchill asked Roosevelt for the old US destroyers provided under Lend-Lease was "to combat invasion." But only a handful of those destroyers were available before Summer '41, IIRC. To compare the preparations needed for Sealion with those for Normandy is apples and oranges. Germany in Spetember '40 would have been invading an isolated, largely unfortified Britain almost entirely bereft of heavy military equipment. The Allies in '44 were storming Hitler's Atlantic Wall into continental Europe, where Germany had all its mechanized might at its disposal....at least all that could be spared from the Eastern Front. Could Sealion have actually worked? I don't know; it would have been touch and go. I think the 1977 Sandhurst wargame resulted in a decisive German defeat, but then, it was held at Sandhurst. Many German officers, especially in the navy, were pessimistic, but then many German officers were pessimistic about Barbarossa, and the war in general, and that didn't affect Hitler's decisions. To state definitively that Sealion was a hoax from the outset is to read too much into Hitler's warped mind. I'm not sure, but I believe that he was serious about it, at least for a while and as a last resort. (Source for most of this is the Sealion article in "No End Save Victory.") [ June 04, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Ultimate, except for one thing: when actually employed against US aircraft, at Leyte and Okinawa IIRC, the effect was nil. I'm sure that watching the Helldivers fly through it took the wind out of many an Imperial sailor. Which raises a question: the Soviet artilleryman who commented on the devastating effect of cannister admitted, if I'm reading correctly, that he had never fired the round in combat. Perhaps the "devastating" effects were played up in training, to instill some confidence in artillerymen facing an infantry charge...just as the Sanshiki shell bouyed Japanese naval hopes.

That's what "Ceasefire" is for. There's no dishonor in it! I think if the games were longer, people would pay more attention to limiting ammo consumption by setting arcs, and by keeping some troops in reserve for the later turns. The AI (and trigger-happy players) could be "helped" in this regard by having more forces arrive as reinforcements.

I don't think a "follow" command need add any steering problems. Here's how it would work: Movement orders issued to lead unit. Second unit has "Follow" waypoint placed on lead unit, third unit has "Follow" waypoint placed on 2nd unit, etc. The first unit moves out, the second moves to the spot it occupied then follows the same waypoints as the lead unit. A pause of a few seconds could be built into the Follow order to avoid pileups at the start or in turns, and the speed of a following unit would be limited to that of the unit ahead of it. Following units would stop just before colliding with the unit ahead. Or, heck, let them collide, it doesn't hurt anything. For game-engine purposes the "Following" units are actually following the lead unit's waypoints, not the leader itself. If the lead unit is knocked out or bogs, and becomes an obstacle, the AI route-finding will automatically plot a course around it en route to the final waypoint. There might be a brief traffic jam, but there were lots of traffic jams in WWII...don't drive your convoys under the enemy guns, or through swamps!

Why not offer both CD and DVD versions of the game? The CD would have all the basic bmps, and the DVD would be the same game but chock full of mods, open tank hatches, etc. And maybe the campaign feature. CD and DVD owners should be able to play each other in battles and ops. Nice little add-on sale for BFC. Would give me a good excuse to buy a DVD drive... [ June 03, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]