David Chapuis

I agree. In the context you were saying it, I agreed with you, but standing alone I thought you would want to qualify. And wow - that was quite a qualification.

I agree with everything Jason wrote, but this could use some qualifications. Securing real estate that dominates the CM battlefield is one of the biggest priorities (perhaps the biggest) of the game. HT are worth every point if used correctly within their limits, which is to move inf (or other units) through small arms fire very quickly from point A to point B. In fact, often the first units I try to kill are the opponents maneuver units.

Does anybody have a longer forum name?

I agree with this. On a scale of realism between 0 - 10, an ME with human picked forces is probably sitting at about .00002. Your much-more-realistic method is probably double that - but hardly anywhere close to being out of "arcade" status. You failed miserably at both.

And how could you play this game where 'arcade' does not come to mind?

fat finger

Please make the '60 seconds' and option that can be set before the game starts. 2 or 3 minute turn options I think would add to the game.

That is what I meant

did a quick little test. When the game ends, the flags push. For some reason while the game is going, axis tanks trump inf (didnt test to see if allies tanks do the same).

Why is this flag showing up as Axis controled? I have two units right on the flag with good morale. The closest axis units are these two tanks. Three turns now it has been like this. Why is this not a pushed flag?

I only played the demo for SC1, but I am very interested in SC2. I am not trying to be too critical, but this AAR tells me nothing. I was really hoping for much, much more. Not just saying what piece goes where, but something that explains what is going on - explain your grand strategy, and then why you are moving units/doing research/spending MPPs, and (IMO, most important) an attempt to show how the game can be exciting. [ November 04, 2005, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Are you offering a game? :confused: :confused: If so, I'm always game for a friendly CM battle. [ October 24, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

that is funny coming from someone who has left my little pixel men in bloody heaps more times than I care to remember. btw, did I ever tell you I am mad about the setup zones in the last scenario we finished. :mad: :mad: :mad: Anyways, in the game above - it was an ME, and in the end AAR he had 750 men and I had 1150. It wasnt fair.

Looks can be deceiving. He had a couple mortars over there.

Have you ever played a Russian vs Italian QB in CMBB? Not very fun as the Italians, even though the points are the same. And I'd be willing to be that 1942 Russian/Italians forces were closing to parity than Modern US v Syrian.

Carl, from your posts you seem like an experienced player. But I do have an issue with a "stug can stop a platoon" statement, which I still think should never happen. Now I dont claim to be any kind of CM Master, but I wonder if you are utilizing your inf in the best way possible. Four things that I dont see most CM players do with inf that really enhance their effectiveness are: 1)Using 'Fast' in open ground 2)Using half-squads 3)Good dispersement in order to fire from angels 4)Not firing when in LOS to enemy HE chuckers.

Well I agree. But it is also even more madness to allow enemy AFVs to target inf from 150m away, if it is possible to prevent. In the screenshots I posted earlier, my opponent pretty much had to use armor to advance on those flags because of how dispersed my inf was. I have been learning to put my inf in such positions, that enemy AFV's cannot target from long range and break inf. Also, varying inf that are firing and those that are on covered arcs. So basically without him getting close with his AFVs in order to have LOS angles, he would not even been able to advance his inf. Here is a screenshot that demostrates both points. Everybody without a target line has a covered arc that is keeping him from firing until his inf advance. the units with target lines dont have LOS to his AFVs. So when he is trying to push his inf out of cover (he has to because I own the flags), he is getting pinned. Or he has to advance his AFVs to get position - usually it is a bit of both. So from the pic above, I had been punishing his inf so bad, that he had to push up his hetzers. As seen here:

A man after my own heart.

And thanks back to you - I especially appreciate the calm tone of your thread. And I dont dispute that. My difference of opinion is in their range of effectiveness. A stug has to keep enemies directly in front. To do this against a platoon of inf, it has to withdraw or it will be KO'd. I agree with all the specifics, but not the application. Priests are fragile (as are most ETO allied tanks), so you have to use them at what they are good at. Killing inf. Outside of that role, they dont have much utility. But since, IMO, that is the priority #2 in any game I play (priority #1 being seize "high" ground) - they are my favorite AFVs. Well I am not a big SMG squad fan (ammo counts too low), but irregardless of that, I again find another major difference. AFVs are good at breaking troops, but if you want them actually 'eliminated' inf is the unit of choice. Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are some screen shots from a 5000 pt CMBB QB that I think show different. I would describe the cover here as light/moderate. 1. We Meet The action shown was isolated from the rest of the battle because it was in a valley. I have 13 squads (not couting HQs) and 5 MGs. I also had a crack pioneer platoon and 2 81mm (circled in yellow) mortar modules that I was keeping for a counter-attack. I also had 2 more platoons in the direction of the red arrow, that I tried to maneveur on his flank, but he had some Volks squads prevent that. In the picture he has 18 units, and 2 mortars and 2 mgs in support in the blue. Plus he has 4 hetzers and a KT. I had no AT guns that had LOS here, and only one functioning T34/85 on the map. The unit I have selected in this pic is a crack pioneer squad that I was sneaking to the edge of woods to try to KO a hetzer. However, he is a good player, and didnt get that close. 2. He advances We had equal inf and he had tanks, so there was no way I was going to hold that position. But I figured after he beat me back, I could strip off the inf and then KO the tanks. (However, I think it is relevent to this topic to note that without his inf, he would not have even been able to even contend for the flags.) Also notice, he sent one hetzer to fight my T34/85, but my inf got it before it got to my AFV. 3. The counter attack My crack pioneers two SMG squads (not platoons) and three 81 mm mortars go on the counter attack. Notice another hetzer already bit the dust. 4. End Result 5 German tanks KO'd and Russians own the field. All done with inf, and inf support weapons. I did bring over my T34-85, but it missed three side shots on a hetzer, and then the hetzer bounced two tungsten rounds from 175m. Then his KT killed my T34, so it had no effect on the scene here. He gets no flags. If the game hadnt of stopped, I would have had the last one too. This is but one of many examples where inf wins games, not AFVs. And so do I. [ October 20, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

as do I. However, from my experience most people put too large a value on AFVs and too small on inf. Any unit will beat inf in the open. Mgs, flak guns, sIGs. But given at least modest cover, inf should rule the field. Actually, concentrated small arms fire will eliminate a platoon faster than HE. Even faster than 150 HE, because the ROF is so slow. The best inf killing HE is 105s (Priests/StuH). The Russian 122mm/85mm is pretty effective as well. Even without good cover, this should never happen. Given even light tree cover and regular troops, a Stug can not hold back a platoon of well led troops. Especially against inf with zooks/shreks. Stugs dont have enough MG ammo to keep inf from moving, and their turn rate is just way too slow. A stug alone against inf should be a dead stug. IMO, this is the primary advantage of AFVs- quick maneuver. But I would rather have universal carriers and inf than similar points worth of StuGs if I had to only chose one or the other. well no. You can use them without armor superiority, you just have to be selective about where you go Well we definitely have a major difference of opinion on the effectiveness of the stug. I consider them highly over-rated. They have horrible turn rates and their lack of turret makes them easy targets. Of course they are excellent long range key-hole killers. But outside that role, I find them not very effective. Again, I just completely disagree. There is no chance that a platoon of slow-firing Russian AFVs should be able to stop a company of german inf in a modest trees map.

So what happens if we make a CMBB map with flags in other spots than in the middle of each tile? Does CMC override the flag placement?

But what keeps a player from perpetually exiting turn 1? I think vincere brings up a good question.

I took this response to mean that battle dont have to be 60 minutes. </font>

So a cmbb battle ends. What are the possible placement outcomes for the units that were in the CMC 'square' I'm hoping all the following are all possible: 1)Both sides still occupy square (the cmbb was a draw) 2) One side is pushed out of square 3) One side is captured 4) One side is partially destroyed (for example if you have a battalion of inf and a tank company) 5) One side is completely destroyed Also, how 'damaged' does an inf battalion need to get before it is eliminated from CMC map?

So CMC will not random generate any maps? EDIt: (found my answer in another thread - CMC does not generate maps) [ October 14, 2005, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]