DavidFields

If I am not mistaken, I believe there have been some very good threads which demonstrate that the tank losses from aircraft where....not nearly as impressive as is generally believed.

Which is why, in any CM-type simululation of a D-day beach, (or even a movie which focuses on one beach section) it is hard to get a feeling for the overall enormous scope of the operation. Here is a nightmare mission (dream about it), if one should choose to accept it: a bevy of computers running CM, where you have to move 90 battalions (oh...throw in the airborne/glider too), and the armored units, each over an 8 battle operation of 20 turns. That would sate...even the most hard-core CMer, I think.

The shoot and scoot point is a good one. For those of you who can make that technique work, I tip my hat to you. I can't imagine that hauling infanty/MGs is usually a good tactic for a TD. On typical CM maps--which are more 2 x 2 km than 20 x 20-open-top TDs would be vulnerable to being popped by AT, HE chuckers, and even heavy HMGs from over a kilometer away. Am I mistaken, or does the tacAI seem to favor targeting Firefly/Hellcats/Woverines?

My first experience with TDs were with units such as the Jagpanther--the german thick-metal-box-low-to-the-ground-no-turrent brand of a TD. I was really shocked when I went to the Allied TDs. "What the...." Open topped? Thin armor? A mortar can take them out? I find them very hard to use (ie, the CMBO scenario South of Sword). In most tactical situations, in CM, I would rather have an AT gun: Easier to hide, more likely to get a first shot off, more likely to stay unspotted, less vulnerable to random enemy AT fire. I have tried to imagine how the Allies used them, on the attack, in Normandy. My guess would be that they would be used in ways which are not easily modeled in CM.

Right, realest, if a unit is spotted, the enemy units do LOS calculations to see if they can actually shoot at it. (And TacAI calculations to see if firing actually seems to make sense) But as long as your unit is "spotted", an enemy unit which does not have LOS to it can move to where it does have LOS and fire--does not need to acquire individual "spotting". With FOW, and especially EFOW, infantry and [lower calibre] guns have a good chance of staying undetected. Armor, of course, still has a poor chance of remaining undetected-particularly if moving. So a TD moving forward, if there is any covering ground, risks getting hit with infantry (bazookas or equivalent), and guns, coming from seemingly nowhere. And, given a lack of turret, they are slow to even be able to turn to engage any threat. Hence, (and I admit I am a conservative player): infantry scouting ahead to uncover targets, tanks and indirect then engage, TDs to cover the flanks or be moved up later (along with halftracks and similar vehicles--also very vulnerable to close assault/AT) But.....the desert, and the open steppes, can make this difficult, because infantry is so incredibly vulnerable. I find those environments very difficult--probably because my armor tactics are not as well developed. (ie--hunting to find hull-down points, gauging what distance to engage at depending on relative armor types, and at what speed) Much to learn.

Napalm-type fuel sounds like a "maybe". But JasonC's request for a historical description of FT being used (in WW-2 Europe, I would like to see) to KO a tank still stands unchallanged. I don't think most soldiers were shy about claiming tank kills. Interesting, to me, is that when I played a bunch of early war QBs as Italy, in East Africa, I believe there were these 3 FT units which were available (prominent, because not many units are available for the Italians at that time). I thought it very odd, because I would think the desert would be a particularly poor place for FT units. Another thought: If I had a FT pack, and was on the second floor of a building, and a tank was rolling by me on the street, I think I would be tempted to strap a few hand grenades on the FT pack and throw it, rather than stand there and squirt the stuff from the window. Sort of a Grand Molotov Cocktail.

Michael Dorash: Your support of BFC is understood. They need more people like you. Let's support them doing so.

realist: the problem is that with the spotting algorithm used with CM, if anything spots the TD, everything spots it. So, even if you button up the tanks, if there is any infantry, say with binoculars, the tank spots it also. One of the primary issues with CM. Still, a great game.

Wonderful information John D Salt. And I ask this as a real question: Do we believe the German Flamethrower maunals about their non-combustibility?

And if BFC hasn't published a game I considered interesting in at least two years, why should I support them? Business, including the software business, is based on the principle of "what have you done for me lately?" [/QB]

the_enigma: If this question is to my statement of "infantry unfriendly" terrain, yes. Infantry in the desert, not dug in (as is the case with an ME), only bushes, no rocky terrain, is not, I think, going to do well (particularly if there are HT around!) My point, with regard to the TD topic?: Such terrain makes it unlikely infantry/guns will be a threat to to a TD, unlike more closed terrain. (In closed terrain, a TD rolling by a previously unspotted bazooka/gun then has to pivot its entire body to get a shot in--which is the handicap in using these things offensively) Rocky terrain, however, is fantastic, I think, for infantry in the desert.

Well realest, we then speak the same language: if anything I write helps you, great. I have a feeling you will figure thinks out anyway.... Yes, the main shift, I think, that one has to go through is with the variable effects of terrain, depending on how far you are into it. Thus one is not "in" the woods, or "out" of it, or "in" an building or "out" of it--but variably protected by the terrain/building depending on how far you are from the edge. I still make the mistake of reflexively putting my squads at the edge of the building, thinking they are behind of wall, instead of placing them deeper in (in large buildings). When you start to see when putting a unit in the back corner of a building can be useful--that may be an "Aha" moment for you. The same with woods terrain, I tend to put my units on the edge, when sometimes a bit back would be better. Scattered woods tends to be the most complex for me, because of the issue of AFVs, and how far one can place them in that terrain for what protection. [bTW, I think it is an excellent system--though people can rip holes in it as far as reflecting reality. But I think it beats most of the alternatives.] I see, on this board, two approaches to the terrain/building situation. Some people seem to know the exact number of meters to place something for complete concealment--and I mean down to the meter. (Same people know exactly how much firepower for how long will pin or break an enemy unit) I....try to get the feel for it. As to pathing issues, I think that is the burden any of us have with any computer game. Can't think of one which has solved this problem. As to units moving, firing on their own--the beauty/frustration of this is part of the CM charm. Gives some sense that there are humans down there. (But this is at least familiar, from the CloseCombat series) And sometimes the units were right and I was wrong! Oh, and I suggest that you start, as you seem to be doing, with a small number of units: a platoon or two of infantry, a couple of AFVs, and a gun/morter or two. Otherwise, when just learning the system, the tedium level rises in plotting each turn. [ October 27, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

Personally, I think just about everyone who regular posts on these boards should buy TOW, just to support BFC. Think of it like.....Save the Children.....or, better, your local neighborhood institution, where you get something from it, even if it is not perfect. Where else are you going to get CM type products?--it is just being self-interested. The reason for being critical on these boards is, I think, to help BFC make the products better, or to help them sell more to the public--so they can make the products better. Isn't it? One can have legitimate reality/playability differences of opinion, or varying willingness to micromanage. But when I read this "I won't buy the game if..." stuff it sometimes reminds me of some guy holding a gun to his own head saying, "If you do not do exactly as I say, even if I am being a completely unpleasant, or I am going to pull the trigger." [i tried to go back to a RTS/find resouce/twitch game last weekend--Empire Earth-- But, try as I might, I...just...don't...enjoy...them..very much. Back to CM:AK tonight]

Well, sounds as though you are doing well. But as to your general question, TDs on the offensive, are very hard for me to use. Sounds as though you have it right though: use other assets to scout, then bring the TDs in at the last minute, when the enemy is already occupied. But the TDs are very vulnerable during movement. If your opponent has an AT gun, and the patience not to fire on your scouting units, your TD could be clobbered--maybe even without the offending unit being IDed. Since this is an ME, if I were your opponent, I would wait for you to come to me It sounds as though the map you are on is very infantry-unfriendly (no rocky terrain?)

Honestly, realest, I hope you stike with the game. It is marvelous. I don't know what you are used to: I was pushing little pieces of cardboard with tank pictures on them in the early 1970s, and there was much for me to learn, particularly with regard to LOS and concealment. The Nashorn/T-34 match-up may not go well unless the Nashorn was initially hidden in some way--such as back in scattered woods, and struck first. It is a defensive weapon, as you likely know. Not great armor. No turret. For the fun of it, consider taking the same situation, with you as the T-34s. (Ah...looks from the previous post you are practicing defensive stances: try the cross-covering, almost inward pointing AT gun defense (less than 88s)--screened by infantry or morters (to strip off any attacking infantry, or to "blind" (button) those T-34s.) And browse through all the old posts. (Although, is you start reading too much, you might enjoy the forum so much that it will distract you from actually playing the game.)

After reading threads on this board for many months, and playing CM, I have been drawn to the conclusion: Shermans where better, really better, than their reputation. "pathetic Sherman"--I think not. Indeed, I am even becoming impressed with Stuarts. As for Pz IV tanks, would I be wrong (don't throw anything at me please) to mainly see them as infantry support tanks--and used that way in real life? And, if one wants to continue to think that the German AFVs did very well against the Allies, at times, and if one wanted to be impressed by that, wouldn't it be better to take pride in the tactics, not the armor. Not the morale/experience even, but the doctrinaire training? (At least, when the Germans were not using Blitz tactics against a Kursk type defense) Would I be drawing reasonable conclusions with the above, from what I have read on these boards. And, lastly, a request for a prediction: someone who so abjectly thrills in taking 10 Tiger tanks and blowing up unlimited Shermans will last how long on these boards, either by jumping or being bounced? Not necessarily, but with what probability?

Some of the "legends" about the 88mm could be because they might have been previously bore-sighted (the equivalent of having TRPs). Also, there was, perhaps, the habit of calling any incoming fire, murderous, fire an "88". I have had WW-2 vets mention them like it was almost a generic term (I can't remember anyone talking about a "75") Since they did not have "Borg spotting", it may have been exceedingly difficult to know what was actually shooting at them. Similar to "Tiger Tank". Makes a better story. And, no, I don't think they are "worth" it, except in certain circumstances. Too easy to spot in CM.

Actually, I am not sure who the is winking at, but I would have thought 20 turns (variable) is not a bad answer. That makes for a crisper, quicker game. Depends on what your mood is. Some people like long initial maneuver sequences, with cautious recon. Some people (or, the same people at different times) find that tedious. Certainly reducing the number of turns puts more pressure on the attacker, everthing else remaining equal--can essentially be used as a balancing/handicapping tool.

The information here is very, very useful. I would have expended a lot of HE in some scenarios uselessly. The reason I wondered about abandonment was from playing the CMBO scenario Crossing the River L'Elle (I believe that is the name). The Germans have about 4-5 MG wooden bunkers. The Allied have no armor, nor guns,but a couple of, IIRC, 125-150mm [something like that] spotters. I assumed that was my counter for the bunkers. Played the scenario a couple of times [very tough when playing it blind initially as Allied]. I believe I got at least one "abandon" the first time through. Though, my more successful second time I mostly knocked the bunkers out from the rear. But...the initial "abandoned" I remember eems to have given me the wrong mental framework for countering the bunkers--particularly anything like the concrete ones. But from the above: The smaller more accurate mortars did better???? Still, it took a lot of mortars, on conscript crews. Not very effective/reliable. [ October 24, 2006, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

Kill it, no. But how about making the crew abandon it? I doubt the small morter can cause that. But I would be interested if there is a non-zero probability.

I believe "reverse" is the command which takes advantage of the "alternate rear-facing driver" attribute. But I simply forget whether the subsequent advantage is either to reduce the delay in the onset of movement, or to increase the speed of the reverse.

It still taking me a bit to get the hang of the waypoints because even the speed of the vehicle can affect optimal way-points. "Fast" seems not always to be the fastest way to get through "s" curves, because (in CMBB/CMAK at least) if the vehicle is moving rapidly it may very well swing off the road--tnen try pivot and go back to the waypoint. Leaving you at the end of the turn with trying to figure out if it is better to replot and take the command delay, or let the TAC-AI figure it out. This occured with me on one CMAK scenario (Crete/airdrop on AA guns/Allied) where two Matildas I received late in the scenario almost were never in the battle because I goofed an "S" curve. In retrospect (though I did not test it), I probably should have done "fast" on the initial straight stretch, then "down-shifted" to "move" through the turns. (Also, keeping distance between the two tanks, so the second tank would not replot its waypoints when it bumped into the lead tank) Reminds me why I tend to like mostly-infantry battles........

Waypoints, unfortunately. And it takes a bit of practice to get optimal results from the TAC-AI even then.

It is hard for me to follow all the numbers, but I find JasonC's discussion of "runners" compelling, as is his discussion on the issue of timing for TWO calculation. Quick statements about "There were x losses of one tank for y losses of another" tend to imply what is happening is like a CM battlefield, rather than the complexity of the repair/maintenance/supply situation. It would be too wonky, but it would be interesting to have a game which predominately focused on the behind battlefield stuff (Patton would have been stopped in the breakthrough BUT I FOUND him the gasoline. Lee did not get embroiled at Gettysburg BECAUSE I SENT his armies with enough shoes. Sparta fails to take Athens BECAUSE I HAD instituted good infection control and sanitation standards in the town--down such a game would sell)

I guess I am not the only person who flips back and forth between Battlefront and Paradox forums. As additional evidence of this, Paradox makes reference to Battlefront without really giving much explanatory information about the company: as though most readers would sort of know. One of the least surprising surprises of the game world would be if these two operations merged. [Hmmm...how do I now make this non-OT?] Imagine if every HOI:Doomsday battle could be resolved at the TOW level?! Or, EU-III is expanded to modern times and now CMSF features a Americans and Syrians scenario with those two ganging up against a fantasy Methodist Kuwait?! (Because someone in the Paradox forums convinces their developers that by the 1990s there should be a Radical Protestant faction, and someone sticks a "MissionariesRevolt=RandomNation" script in the program without thinking it through.) Ok...not very practical. But we all get the possible ideas for the future.