David Chapuis

I am glad you pointed that out, because it seemed like some peiople were thinking that was 'less than' the number rather than 'greater than'. I dont think anybody is arguing against what you are saying here. But some people think the 'average' of 10m is a little steep. and they are basing that on their real world experiences. And I tend to agree. Tired after 10m of walking through snow that is 12" or higher is pretty steep. Now if deep snow was greater thatn 40", that would be another thing.

Are you joking? I can't really tell. But if you arent, then you are the doofus! And there aint nottin' wrong wit Okahoma!

Related to your sig line - I was reading an article about how you Canadians gave us Americans (only people from the US are Americans - right ) a sound whoooping in 1813 when we tried to seize Montreal. Seems like we never had much luck invading your country.

I agree with Michael on this one. Pay an extra $5 and let BFC get all the money. However, I will go ahead and buy the retail version. Not because it is cheaper, but because it is the 1.03 version and has an extra cd full of mods. If BFC would offer that, I would much rather pay the full price to them. But I will have to settle with letting CDV get part of the pie and saving $5 (I dont know where you are getting $15). However, I did go ahead and buy a couple of books from them as another menas of support.

M Emrys, So do you think it is worth trying to do deep enveloping maneuvers, as opposed to strong flanking moves? My recent experiences make me think that flanking moves will work better almost everytime. Actually, the first time I did that, it was just meant to be a flanking move, but since the enemy wasnt on that flank I just kept going until I got behind him.

I'm not just talking about inf. I am talking about enveloping his whole force and then attacking with a substancial size force from the rear. I did it on two separate occasions, and both were rather disappoiting (especially after taking so long being sneaky all the way around the map with a big force :mad: ). Both games, I was able to get behind his reserves (consisting of tanks and some support weapons), but it had little effect. The first time I had a platoon of inf about 20m from two tanks, but he had turned one facing each direction. He knew that I was sneaking somewhere because he had not seen enough of my force. Before I could get that slow piat within firing range he decided to retreat to the west (i was coming from the north). The second time, I had a zook and an entire platoon of US paratrooper attacking a stug and they just got slaughtered. Zooks suck anyway, and this guy couldnt hit a broadside, confused stug at 20m, and those ignorant VET paratroops let the stug drive right by them and shoot off his NGW without even throwing one gammom bomg. ARRG! I am aware that fire coming from two directions causes inf a morale hit. And that seems logical. However, and this is my main complaint, when your a force becomes envoloped, I think they should take an ever larger morale hit, but I dont think they do. Maybe I do misinterpret the real life effect. However, from what I have read & what I imagine, being enveloped by enemy, whether on the front line where CM battle does take place, or around the higher HQ's would still cause a lot of panic - in fact significantly more than just recieving cross-fire from separate directions would cause. I have read of more than just a couple accounts where units completely envoloped surrunder - both front line and rear units. And these are battalion size forces, sometimes in prepared defensive positions. So that is what makes me think companies/platoons actively engaged with a force in front of them, would have take severe morale hits if they discovered almost equal size force cresting a hill behind them, where their reserves should have been. and I am not saying it should be. I am mostly talking about being cut off. with no place to retreat. But it seems that there should be more of an advantage than just having improved firing positions. If that is the only benefit in CM, then there really isnt much point of doing what I did. And that is the point of what I am asking, and of this thread. I separated my forces into two groups, which has great risk, and proceed in a stealthy manner into the enemies rear. This long separation of forces meant that my one force that was engaged with the enemy took greater casualties than it would have if I had not separated my forces. The end result was no greater than if I had just flanked the enemy. Actually it was worse, because my forces were separated from each other. IMO, The effect should have been greater at least in a morale sense, because with a flanking move, the enemy still has a place to run to. With an enveloping move, he is trapped. But since CM doesnt really model 'trapped', as far as I can tell, and since the "all-knowing commander" problem prevents me from systematically destroying one group without the other knowing what is happening to its friends, I think that I will stop enveloping and just stick to flanking. That is, unless somebody can describe how an enveloping move has worked really well for them.

In two very recent CMBO games, I was able to sneak a large force (one time a third of my total force, the other time 2/3rds of my total force) into the rear of the enemy. However, neither time resulted in me getting a clear advantage, actually I think it ended up hurting me more since I was without a combined force for so long. The problem that I ran into both times, was that once I found the enemy, I merely engaged them from the rear just like I would have engaged him from the front. I was able to kill a few soft units both times, but the effect was not what I would consider to happen in real life. In real life, I would imagine the troops that were suddenly attacked from the rear would have an extreme morale hit, and many would just surrender, even to a smaller force (e.g. Rommel's great inf exploits in WWI - he captured a couple thousand troops with merely a company because he was in their rear and it shocked them so much they just surrendered). However, in CMBO, they just turn and start firing at you, like they arent too concerned about being surrounded. So do I just stink at sneak attacks, or have other people found similar results. Either way, I guess I am going to give it up, and just go back to convential engagements. Although I might try sneak attacks with a very small force, just to find some unsuspecting soft units.

I think that you have to read game maps in conjunction with your style of play. I have a very cautious style, based on infantry forward with tanks/guns in support. Then at time of engagement, I tend to fall back as much (and maybe more) than I go forward. However, when I do assualt, I like close quarters engagements, either with German Inf or Allied flamers. I rarely split my forces up evenly, tending to screen one side of the map with as little as possible, and then overload the assaulting side. So when I look at a map (this goes for ME or attacks), first I try to identify the high ground that I can take and hold where I can see as much of the map as possible. Then I try to find places to hide my support weapons (including AFVs) and look for the best approaches for inf. The best approaches do not always have the best cover (I only play CMBO right now - so that might have to change on Oct 7, when CMBB comes out on retail), but I look for places that have the best chance for my inf to reach the enemy with the fewest casualties. The approaches with the best cover, usually also have the best defenses, so often I look for secondary approaches. For example, I might choose an approach over open ground if I can engage any enemy units with my support units while keeping the danger to the support units at a minimum. To clarify, I just finished as attack PBEM, and I decided my first goal was to secure some woods on the enemies right flank. To do this, I had to charge over 250 m open ground (it had one light building in that great big expanse). I was able to support that charge with a panther and a wespe that was hidden behind a hill (and a 120m mortar battery and some LMG). The hill hid them from 3/4th of the enemy troops - the 3/4th that I wasnt conserned about at that time. (btw, they cleared the woods, and then got plastered by some 105 VT shells - it was an ugly sight). So that is basically it on my approach to map reading - find high ground I can keep, hide my support weapons, find the best approach. then when I fight, I get a foothold on the enemy side, bring the support weapons forward, and repeat the process. I guess it is fairly simple, but then I am not a grog. I welcome any criticism

I've been arguing for the addition of moose and dogs to CMBB for a long time. How can you have a realistic combat simulation without those? :confused: The Russians used dogs strapped with bombs against the Germans. The Finns used Moose on one occasion in the winter war.

So what is the CMAK release date? Have I missed an update about that? The FAQ says 4Q '03, but has anything more specific been announced?

This is definitely a different spin on the FOW. I tried to play one game at level 1/2, but also found it very frustrating. Another than almost impossible to give orders, another one of the worst things was trying to "look around" when selected on a unit. If this option was added, I think it would be good to have a way to view things from a unit perspective, eg once you get "locked on" a unit, have a button that rotates the view 45 degrees. But overall, although it would be an interesting option, I dont think I would play it that much. One reason is because it just takes sooooooo long to watch a fight from those views. Two, it really wouldnt be that effective of limiting the "all-knowing commander" option. That is because you could still easily make all of your other units react to what one unit saw, you would just have to flash back and forth from level 1 to level 4/8 to give the orders.

you should sign up at theblitz.org . There are always people there wanting to play. If you never found anybody else to play with you, email me at my listed email. I'll play a game.

Doesnt look too impressive to me. The graphics are nice, but you need more than graphics to have a good strategy game.

Well here is what I would do: First, I would only play one or two games against the comp (there is a scenario on the cd that is supposed to simulate a german company practicing an infantry assualt - I would do that against teh AI), and then start pbem or tcp/ip games. It is extremely easy to get a human opponent, and you will learn much better tactics from them. Second, I would find some AARs (there are some pretty good ones here (the 'sunken lane' is probably the best AAR I have ever read - and quite entertaining). Those really helped me learn some tactics. Third, you have to learn the advantages and disadvantages of the different units. This takes time, but it is a must. It was worse for me, becuase before I could even do that, I had to learn what the units were. Fourth, I cant remember where I got them, but there are some really good spreadsheets that break down firepower for inf/guns/art & maybe tanks. Those I really good for helping decide units for QBs - but I cant remember where I got them. Well, that is what I would do.

Modest change of topic, but is there a good AAR website? The only one I know of is CMHQ, and those AARs are just a couple Fionn Kelly ancient (but very good) AARs. I have seen a couple of other AARs scattered here and there on the internet, but nothing I would call a good collection. If I had more than a 24k connection :mad: I just might start one myself - unless there is one out there I just havent found.

Since this thread seems to have run its course, I will change the topic. mr Spkr How 'bout them Sooners?!

i think an import/export function would be fantastic. The possible uses are huge.

is that something you could mod and turn invisible?

First, after I posted my post about the superiority of FJ's, I did think about the ammo issue. I agree that Mot Pz Grd do beat them there. There were a couple of things in your post concerning the FJ vs Mot Pz Grd that i kind of question, but since you're a grog and im not, I figure I just need some enlightening. The FJ do have a firepower advantage at ranges < 100m, albeit small over the SS ones, and i really like that. At ranges under 40m, the firepower advantage is over 10%. This seems a little more than just trivial to me, but that is because I really prefer close quarters inf assualts. Longer range assaults seem to take too long, and rarely succeed in getting the enemy to surrender a position. Since you always have to assualt people on attack, that makes me wonder about this statement: In attacking, you eventually have to send in the infantry to clear out a position, and that 1 SMG (compared to SS) or 2SMG(compared to heer) addition seems to be a significant advantage - well at least I have to. Am I just using bad tactics (those will be explained further below)? At the company level, FJ still seem like a better buy than the mot Pz Grd. The on map mortars that you get with the Pz Grd are much more expensive, and present less tactical options than the off map spotter. I really like the 81 mm off map spotter for his high ammo load. I use it as my primary gun killer, and for suppression before an infantry assualt - not the lone method of suppression, but in conjuction with AFV's usually. (I have read where you prefer art that will kill people, but I just find that too expensive to buy - I play smaller QB's 1500 points or less). Admittedly, the on map mortar will suppress a single unit better than the off map, but suppressing one unit doesnt help a whole lot when assaulting a platoon - and most people keep their platoons together. Three on map mortars would do the job, but they are more expensive than one off map, and have half the ammo load. Concerning the schreks, in most cases I would prefer having to purchase 3 schreks than 4 HMG's, except on a map with little tree cover. But maybe that is because I am just not very good with MG's in general. I have never found them effective enough to justify their price, especially the HMG (i do buy LMG occasionally - they are cheap). But this might all go back to poor tactics on my part - especially regarding long range fire. [ September 06, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

oops - double post when trying to edit [ September 06, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]

EB games has release date of 10/7/03. I cant wait. I cant wait. I cait wait. I assume that it will be version 1.03. Is that correct?

Probably. In another thread KipAnderson was mentioning how great it will be to have another player on your side that doesnt do exactly what you want. He used the example of one player controlling tanks and another player controlling infantry. And I cant agree more - that will be unbelievably exciting. But will that be the best thing about multiplay? I think maybe no. I am wondering if the best thing about multiplayer CM will be being able to share the battle with another person. Right now, if I do a great tactical move, the only person I can share it with is my enemy. And I, for one, really dont like talking about how bad I get whooped, and I dont like seeming like I am bragging either. So the only medium for sharing is usually through AARs - which isnt that great. I play team board games/comp games/cards from time to time with friends, and the best part is talking later about how we whooped, or got whooped, by somebody. We can talk for hours about that. Oh for the days when that will be possible with CM. I cant wait!!!

MikeD, I didnt realize you were so goofy. lol But seriously, I would like to see some what-if campaigns. (And no, dont stop developing other more important things - this is just a wish list). For example, the campaign series put out an operation sea lion game. that would be a cool CMx2 game. So would an "on to france" game, where the ruskies try to keep on driving right through the allied lines and take over all of Europe. Those two in particular would be exciting and not too far-fetched (at least in my mind) scenarios. A couple other pre-WWII games that would be good are the spanish civil war & the Finnish winter war (id really like to see a game about this after reading "A Frozen Hell" - great book). I'm sure there are more, but I dont know my history well enough. If BFC would want to triple their staff to make these games, I'd be glad to go work for them. I'd much rather program and test war games than financial software. Oh well, I better get back to checking my depriciation adjustments on loans that terminate early

Any enhancement that would limit the amount of info "lone-wolf" units pass on to every other unit through the "all-knowing commander" is a plus in my book.

I really like the idea of being able to play an operational level game around a battle (like Normandy, the Bulge, Tobruk Spring of 42, etc), and being able to control some details specifically. But, wow :eek: , that would be a major change. Seems like an entirely new game, rather than a CMx2. But I would like the it to be a We-GO game at the company or platoon level. Turn based games just dont have much appeal to me. I could also go for an RTS game if you did much more thinking than clicking. Maybe one day.