DavidFields

Thanks for the replies. I wonder how the victory points were counted with the self-loss of that M-10? Does the calculation of victory points look at relative "losses" or relative "kills"?

So...I have some german infantry directly--within 10 meters-- in front of an M-10 tank destroyer. I see the barrel of the gun move down to an extreme lowered position. Boom. A big crater in front of the AFV. (misses my infantry) The M-10 is immediately abandoned. Could it have caused its own abandonement? I could not find anything else shooting at the tank destroyer. Visibility was low--50 meters (Enough is Enough scenario). Could a big HE explosion cause a crew to leave their vehicle, even if it was their own shell? I realize I could probably test this, but I am at work, and I want to continue my current scenario when I get home (Hello 2nd Armored). I almost made the subject of this thread "Self-abandonement", but that just sounded too odd.

I am not only playing those scenarios, but I am reviewing them over at the Scenario Depot. I am generally very complimentary, because they are generally so good. I am overwhelmed, at times, with how much effort was clearly spent in designing them. I look at some of the less kind comments that sometimes went on in the scenario reviews at the Depot, and I wonder if the people really did not realize what good work was, and is, being done.

I have also begun to play the scenarios in date order. But to make it simple, I just open scenarios until I get to June, 1944 --will try to play all of those from that month, but will not try to order them with any more detail than that. A few quirks. First there are some North Africa scenarios (pre-CMAK adaptations of CMBO). Enough is Enough is one example (and a very nice scenario). And there are training scenarios. (I just finished Fire and Maneuver--very tough) Also, of course, there are the Operations. 29 Lets go is set in June 1944. I believe there is one that is earlier, however. I find the Scenario Depot web site a fun place to compare my experience with a scenario with what others have found. Since most of the old-hands have moved onto CMBB and CMAK, it is interesting to see their thoughts (and fights) when the CMBO world was still new.

Thank you for the detailed answers. My impression, perhaps unjustified, is that the Russians would be less adept at these subtle armor tactics. True? Your description, Michael Emrys, of the "rolling ambush" reminded me of the tank scene in Clancy's Red Storm Rising (I think his best book) where a line of West German tanks fire at the East Bloc invaders, then pulls back to prepared defense line, and repeats. I did not realize that the small unit tank tactics were so well developed in WWII. Indeed, I will now incorporate the tactic in my CM play. The idea of the enemy being very wary about a piece of terrain I have already vacated is very appealing. (If presented with the appropriate geography).

Is shoot and scoot based on widespread armor doctrine, or is it mostly a game-play convenience? The tactic of coming forward, shooting, scooting (thus breaking enemy spotting), repeat, repeat: it would seem that this relies a bit on Borg spotting (to know exactly where to break cover) and a game engine quirk with spotting (I would think that if an enemy unit saw you back into some woods they would zero in on that area to acquire you quickly in the case that you returned) to the advantage of the attacker. It is a friendly question--I enjoy CM a lot.

Very impressive AT gun performance--particularly since it was a meeting engagement and thus the gun was not dug in. I, too, have had surprisingly good results with relatively low calibre AT guns. (ie, as Allied in Enough is Enough) I think the difficulty for buttoned AFVs to see them in covered terrain is a help. Love those "hit weak area of armor" kills. Also, my expectations for them are low--so I tend to put them in ambush places with short fields of fire. The AI, in particular, tends to leave its infantry behind--which robs it of its best defense against AT guns. On the other hand, I tend to expect to much from big guns like 88 mm AT guns. I set them up with huge fields of fire. That, plus their size, tends to then make them too vulnerable to suppressing fire. It is sort of like being tempted to charge forward with Tiger tank, whereas when I have a MkIV tank I know to be much more cautious.

Well, clearly there are different audiences for these scenarios. Last night, my son played, with me helping, the Combat scenario from CMBO which is 8 turns long. We started after dinner and piano practice, and he finished just before bed-time. Perfect. And he/we had a great time. This is a long, long way from what is wanted by others who play the game. I drool when I see a long campaign for the Crimean penninsula--but the chances that I would actually be able to play/finish something like that are, regrettably, small. So variety, variety. I know there is the QB generator, but don't forget to make interesting tiny battles. Maybe I will show my son the Bruneval scenario next--or the one about a German paradrop in Italy at night.

That was an excellent explanation JasonC. I only own CMBO, and was getting very confused by some of the info on the Boards. Thank you.

I enjoyed both sides of this scenario, but enjoyed playing the Germans more. It helped my enjoyment, unfortunately for you, that I played the Germans first. I was, therefore, very tentative, and it was a close game. It is always hard to know which side to try out first, as many scenarios are best when playing blind to the exact forces.

Thank you very much for the prompt and curtious reply. Very helpful.

Whatever the specifics on this scenario, Runyan99 might have a generally good point. I think there may even be an explanation for what he sees: Many people play against the AI, when they do play against the AI they often take the role of the attacker, and the tilts he sees in the design may be a concious or unconcious bias because of that reality. I think the AI has a harder time the longer the scenario lasts. Since I generally play against the AI, it does not bother me. And I could be completely incorrect--but I think the above is plausible.

I have a habit after finishing a scenario of looking over the battlefield, and looking at the number of casualies individual units obtained. This helps me figure out what tactics were effective, and I mentally give out medals to units with impressive statistics. Now, I realize that during the scenario, the caualty total may not be complete, because a unit may hurt something it does not see. But I thought that after the scenario this was corrected? Am I wrong? I ask because I was looking at the casualties of a off-board 105 module, which had 90 rounds. I thought I clobbered the Germans with it--but the casualties were only 4. It makes a difference to me. If I only suppressed and demoralized the infantry, that is important in understanding with regards to the use of that artillery.

As an addendum, I figured out yesterday --yesterday-- how to actually make the SE mods functional. I had unzipped them, but did not notice that I did not put them in the bmp directory. Now, I think I am no dummy, and maybe all the regular CMBO players know the program so well that what I did (or, did not do) looks like a silly mistake. But, for those of us whose nerdy computer knowledge peaked with MS-Dos (ie: X-tree program), messing around with files can be a confusing and nerve-wracking experience. (Don't erase that critical .dll file!) Anyway, the higher resolution textures make me feel as though I bought a new game. And my son finally became interested with the better graphics and tried the tutorial. (A total victory as allies, with only a little help from me--why is it that his Shermans seem to do so much better against Panthers than my Shermans?) Edit: Answer--the tanks in the tutorial are, of course, not Panthers. [ January 30, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

Any of you purposely pull back a platoon HQ (ie-one that has no bonuses) so as to make certain platoons connect with a company HQ instead? I have done it, though it feels a little too micromanaging. I suppose, though, that in real life there were times when a company HQ basically had to run a poorly functioning platoon.

I know that CMBO is old stuff for most of the people in this forum, but, as a recent CMBO SE purchaser, I feel compelled to write about how pleased I am with my experience with the game. I figure that compliments never get old. I recently finished the Operation 29 Let's go. The map is, to me, utterly amazing. Again, the experienced players of this forum could probably point me to many other great maps. But that does not take away the fact that this one is so meticulous in detail. I presume it must have takes hours to design. The elevations roll gently. The terrain features present one tactical challenge after another. As the Allied attacker, I began getting the claustrophobic feeling after having to attack one hedgerow rectangle after another, separated at regular intervals by potentially lethal lines of woods. I was both relieved and saddened when the germans collapsed on the forth battle (another level of german reinforcements would have made the challenge complete). I went to the editor just to look at the last 500 meters of the map which had not been revealed yet. Then I played the scenario All or Nothing. Besides having an excellent map, the balance of forces and, again, the variety of tactical situations was marvelous. Again, it must have taken an immense amount of time to orchestrate the entire situation. The rain was a great touch (after a day of hearing the ambient sound in this scenario, my wife said, "Wow, they are having terrible weather in your game".) The AI was imaginative, agressive, and challenging. I know: it works best on defense, with intelligent default positions, when the human attacker has max FOW and does not know the scenario. And the FOW blinds the human to some of the less bright moves the AI makes. But, give it a break (or, give the programmers a break), I was challenged and exhausted until the german defense ran out of units in both scenarios. I didn't even have the guts to give the AI a bonus. The entertainment value is pulling off a victory and, frankly, the first run through these scenarios/operations I don't always do that even giving the AI even odds. (Despite myself, I was cranky for awhile when the AI punched me in the nose at points in those operations/scenarios). CMBO, to me, embodies the best of the user-driven computer games/simulations. The game was evidently functional when it appeared. (Unlike EU2 and similiar games--which is also favorite of mine). It is just adaptable. (Reminds me of Civilization II--a totally different genre, of course). I have no problem effusively praising a game like CMBO, because I know that, unfortunately, neither the designers nor the company is likely to get filthy rich. They have customers like me: who wait until prices come down and multiple enhancements are added before buying, then play the game for years. Whereas my son has consumed $50 PS2 games since Christmas as though they were meal-sized boxes of frosted cereal. It is not fair, but at least I feel better for giving a deserved pat on the back.

:eek: It is amazing how much information I have learned here--not exactly the average gaming forum. About the excerpt above: Were the recommendations adopted? And the recommendations regard defensive positions. I would imagine that offensive units would have a more difficult time having organized communications nets--even though they may have needed it more.

In another thread, some people were not happy with my use of Bazooka units as scouts/recon. (Even I was not too happy about my using them thus.) Can't imagine that using mortars will be too popular with some people. (I am not trying to cause a problem--it is just interesting how many ways one can approach playing CM)

Tell me, does anyone know if Bazooka teams have radios in real life? Other than when they were setting up for an ambush, did they often stray from their platoon, or did they generally stay wihin visual contact of it?

Well, maybe not genius... I am advancing Allied infantry across a map which is all city terrain. A German machine gun opens up at long distance to one of my platoons--giving me only a very low ID icon. Next turn: A run two squads into the back of the building which has the enemy ID icon--they arrive simultaneously, and in command. They instantly clobber what (turns out to be) a HMG. Later in the turn, another of my platoons runs in the front of the building, and all 3 platoons fire at the HMG and an HQ unit on the second floor. Result: Dead enemy HMG and HQ, no Allied casualties. It looked beautiful. (Too bad I mishandled my tank destroyers later in the battle)

So, if I understand those ratios correctly, the only time that neither side would recieve reserves is if the ratio of attacker to defender was almost exactly 1.9. Now, one more question--which I realize may not be able to be answered easily? Are the ratios for possible reserves calculated simultaneously, or are they calculated for one side and then the reserve forces awarded are taken into account for the ratio calculation for the other side? I would have thought that the former (simultaneously). But I have recently had an instance where, as attacker in an op where I was crushing the defender, I recieved regimental reserves. The only way I could figure out why I received those reserves was that the defender just received reserves.

Yes, I am not defending my act of using Bazookas as recon, but condemning it. But now I will feel better about using Bazookas in other non-armor busting roles. I guess for the frontline troops if they had a weapon and a target then they did not worry about what the weapon "was supposed to be used for". I also presume that the Allies, at least, did not have such a major supply problem that the Zooks had to have major fire control. Were the Germans as varied in their use of their, more expensive, Schreks? The information about the relative costs of Bazookas and 1/2 squads is interesting, and may push me back to using 1/2 squads. I just find that if one 1/2 squad gets clobbered, the other 1/2 squad is not very useful (except also as recon). Thus my company seems significantly damaged. I had been playing several battles were I was advancing infantry across a broad front in hedgerow country over several kilometers of distance. I think you all know the tactical problem: You have many fields to cross, or hedgerows to get through. You can not prep fire all the possible locations. When you advance your first unit, if there is something on the other side, and if that something holds its fire appropriately until your unit is at a lethal range, your unit is dead--Bazooka, 1/2 squad, whatever. (Then your overwatch kills the ambushing unit/s) I am not sure how they did it in real life (recon by fire?), but the Bazooka units seem like a way--gamey, no doubt, to spare the platoons from bleeding too fast.

Thanks for the replies. JasonC, the idea of using the Bazookas against buildings is particularly clever--the Zooks could be out of sight from the enemy unit and still cause injuries. But is there any comment from the Grognards as to whether Bazookas were used this way in practice? We are using them as though they were rocket-propelled grenades. But were the Bazooka teams trained to do anything other than shoot at tanks? Was even shooting at pillboxes--a fairly gutsy move--even in their training? My background in this area is limited, but I don't remember reading any stories about Zooks as portable HE pieces.

Interesting how the issue of bogging can cause so many topic threads. I only have CMBO, but my observations are as follows: 1. I have not had much trouble with bogging. Granted, I stay on the roads in poor weather. Or, I move as little as possible--that is simply part of the tactical challange. When I look out my window in RL on a rainy day, I have no doubt that a hunk of steel rolling across a muddy field could end up bogged (especially in combination with some ditch or obstuction too small to be modeled on CM maps). 2. After seeing many discussions about bogging and speed, I just go the speed most appropriate with the situation. The association must not be obvious or overwhelming, so other considerations take precedence. It may be a quirk of CMBO, but I find the Move command to be very useful. Given the closed in tactical situation of many of the battles, and the need to keep infantry in front of me, Fast often does not seem the right command when near the enemy. I want the tankers to take as much time as they need to scan for enemy units. I probably underuse Hunt, but I often seem to want to slowly move down a road, for example, blasting infantry units way ahead of me (with my own infantry ahead flanking the road) and do not want the tank to stop when it sees the first target. Or, I have a specific enemy unit targeted, and want to move slowly toward it--blasting away. And if I need a tank somewhere -fast-, then I just have to go Fast.

I mean me misusing Bazooka units--or, using them in a non-historical way. I have played a few scenario/operations lately as the Allied, where I had a lot of infantry and was attacking a mostly infantry force. As you all know, the Allied infantry forces have a plethora of Bazooka units. They are a bit annoying, in this case, to be moving around for no good purpose. So, I find myself using them as cheap recon units (I dislike splitting platoons, anyway), and as spotting units on my flanks. But I can't imagine that is in anyway a historic use of them--running a bazooka unit down a road to see if it will draw fire. Or sending one up a hill as a lookout.(Gee--how about in CM2 if a unit can only spot for other units if it is radio contact of a HQ?) Do other people find themselves doing such things? It almost makes me think that, for more realistic functional purposes, they should be stuffed into one of the infantry platoons. I am not being critical. I am just having fun thinking about the issue.