JoMac

The ISU has 90mm Front & Lower Armor @30 degrees ( depending on exact location ), which is roughly 120mm effective armor. The Hetzer's 75mm is comparable to that of the Stug & PzIV. It should reliably penetrate the Upper & Lower Hull at short range within 30 degree off center, but with Medium-Long ranges no penetration. However, the Gun Mantlet ( about one third of the total front of the ISU 122/152 ) has about 120-140mm at 30 degrees ( depending on exact location ), and the Hetzer should not penetrate at any range.

Elvis, continue your Armor engagement with the Hetzers now and in near future. Use your Panther in Support of your Infantry, moving it in and out of cover. I'm afraid as time nears the Inf battle may still be in Bill's favor, and your Tank Support will be important. Joe

It's Ok, Steve...As long as you sneak in the 'SMG Reduced Accuracy Patch' before then, all will be ok :-) Joe

bobo, Just started playing with 'aleader', and still figuring out how to purchase units ( much easier in CMx1 ). We are playing a small QB, but most everything has to be purchased in Battalion size ( except Arty & Special units ), but I only want to purchase units by Platoon...Sigh. Althou, I do see the 'Suggestion' option and playing around with that. Anyways, once I finish this game, then, I will ask if your still interested.

Well, with the increased lethality of Automatic Small Arms that everyone wanted so badly in the following patch, it's ofcourse no wonder casualties are increased. Most fire now gets automagically directed to the same AS better ( since auto fire now has better aim, etc ) and thus a greater chance that Inf/exposed Personal in vehicles, etc become casualties If this scenario took place before that patch that increased the affects of Small Arms lethality, then you wouldn't have lost half those crew members in HT's... Please, and for the love of god, reduce the lethality of 'Small Arms' back to where it should be. Joe

Hey Russ, You have a PM...

I'm new to CMx2 with both CM:BN + CW module, and have v1.11 and v2.12 ( laptop has 1.11 and PC has 2.12 )...althou I prefer the former. I have played the Demo for a few months so have an idea how to play. I'm interested in small/tiny PBEM's, QB's or Scenario's, can do 1-2 turns a day ( or few turns a week ), and can play either Axis or Allies. Let me know if interested, and of which version and side you prefer, then go ahead and send over a file ( not sure how to do it yet, and prefer my opponent to handle it this go around ). Thanx, Joe

Thanx for the info, Womble. Now, I will start playtesting the game out more so then the Demo ( since the Demo had limited features for you to work with ).

Ok, I received the CD versions of CM:BN Base Game, Commonwealth and the 2.0 Upgrade all still shrinked-wrapped... Now, can I install them in both my PC and Laptop ? If so, would this also mean I would have to re-License the game everytime I want to switch playing between the PC and Laptop ? Any info would be appreciated.

BoBo, I'm not sure how this works...CM:BN base game only goes from June-Aug, so can Russ still play an Sept battle even if he doesn't own 'Market Garden' ( which is Sept ) ? And, if he is able to play, then he is limited to only Units that came out in Aug, but you can still get Units that came out in Sept...Alittle unfair, maybe ?...I don't know.

Hey Russ & BoBo, Are either of you interested in playing CM:BN @ v1.11 or the v2.0 Upgrade, using PBEM ( I also have the Commonwealth Module ), I only like playing small or tiny battles ( up to reinforced company strength ), and can play either Axis or Allies. If we do play v2.0, it has to be at 2.0 only and not patched to v2.12 ( At the moment, I'm not sure if I like the increased Small Arms Leathality ). I have been playing the Demo for awhile now, and will be ready to play the full version when the game comes in by mail later this week...I will also look-up how the PBEM system works. Joe

Yes, loosing half your squad in a turn due to short range auto fire by troops overrunning your position is one thing. However, in a standing firefight over time at moderate ranges ( and in good cover ) is where the problem stands...The MP-40 situation is a perfect example. I'm hoping a future patch or the v3.0 Engine would decrease the overall Ammo expenditure and or accuracy due to range. As a 'Work Around' I'm in the process of playtesting the idea of using the Game Editor and changing ( lowering ) the Moral or Motivation stats of troops...In theory, this should make troops cower and move less often, and thus reduce the exchange of fire over the course of the battle. This would bring the Casualty count down to more acceptable levels. On average and in a heavy firefight, you should loose around 2-3 men per squad at battles end...As it stands now, you're lucky to have 2-3 men left out of your squad. And you wonder why your battered troops don't carry over in a Campaign ( you always have different troop dispositions each battle )...Because, you don't have any troops left to carry on the next battle.

Ummm, No...After a prolonged 15 minute to an hour firefight suppressing the enemy ( and hoping to cause some casualties ), you retire or replenish your Ammo, then attack or defend the next objective.

The Leathality of Automatics were relatively lethal in 1.0 Game Engine ( especially short range ) and now even more so in patch 2.12. I could understand the possibility of lossing half your squad or more if your position is being over-run or flanked by two sides in a desperate close range firefight. However, in an overall running battle, you should loose maybe 2-3 men in a squad by Battles End...Not have 2-3 men left. Even with these lower losses ( 2-3 casualties per squad per battle ), you would be hard pressed to sustain a running Campaign...Maybe why CMx2 Campaigns don't have troops carried over from battle to battle, because there would be no one left by the 2nd battle of a Campaign.

Actually, It's already tough in the 1.0 Game Engine, but with the newest 2.0 ( patched to v2.12 ) the increased Lethality of Small Arms in general ( especially Automatic Fire ) has really made it difficult to even breath without loosing half your squad in one minute of Combat. Joe

I think the SMG ammo expenditure per turn seems to high and maybe why it causes more casualties then it should. Reducing the Ammo expenditure per turn should eliviate the problem of running out to soon, and at same time reducing the casualites abit. Joe

I agree with Vark along with JK ( who also mentioned it awhile ago ) in that SMG fire is alittle to effective. I have been playing v1.0 ( patched ), and think Small Arms in general is lethal enough, and from what I understand it's even more so in v2.0 Many players can loose upwards of %50 during a scenario, and think nothing of it...I can't pin-point why, but I think it has something to do with Units Spotting or Reacting to quickly, or the Suppression to Casualty ratio differences, or Firefights just develope to quickly, etc. I can see why in a CMx2 'Campaigns' troops dont carry over from battle to battle ( instead you get different troop dispositions each scenario ), because there wouldn't be anyone left to carry over. Joe

I think it's best if Russian Units are not allowed to split, unless if Vet Inf, Special Units like Recon or SMG Squads...All German Inf Units will be allowed to split. Joe

To answer one of your questions: To simulate that realistic feel for battle, then give each Unit a 'Firing Arc' range as it will help eleviate wastful ammo expenditure. In addition, you can issue your units a 'Light Target' Order as this will also help. ie, give your units armed with mostly SMG's; a 50 meter or less 'Firing Arc', mostly Rifles or LMG's; 100 meter or less, MMG's; 250 meters or less...Atleast, that's what I tend to do. Joe

Hello, Question: I'm about to finally purchase these products via Mail Order ( after several months of playtesting the Demos ). If I order this bundle with the v2.0 upgrade added ( $10 ) will the upgrade be hard-coded to the disks ( disks will say v2.0 on them ), or are the disks still v1.0 ( and the 2.0 upgrade needs to be downloaded into the appropriate folder ) ? edit: Ok, after further reading it appears that CM:BN disks are still using the v1.0 engine and that the v2.0 engine upgrade comes in the download form. This then means I will need the 1.11 all-inclusive download first, followed by the v2.0 download, then finally the 2.12 all-inclusive. Thanx for any info... Joe

'Red Storm', 'Red Orchestra' ( altho that name is already taken ), 'Red Blitz', I think are better title names then 'Red Thunder'...Ofcourse there still several other East Front titles to come. Can you think of other title suggestions for this and other upcoming East Front games & modules ? Joe

Yeah, I figured as much, and i'm sure the game engine does have it's limitations. I'm still playing with the Demos ( 1.10 ) before deciding on a purchase. I already know that the Casualties are potentially even higher ( later patches ) due to increase in Small Arms lethality, and that may bother me some. Well, if I just tell myself that say 1 in 4 are casualties ( or 1 min equals 5 ) then the rest I can chulk-up as Moral Loss for a Unit. If the game as a whole is flowing realistically enough in representing battles ( aside from casualties ), then I may be fine with it.

Unfortunately, Casualties in CM:BN/FI are far higher then they were in RL...One Hour of causualties in CM equals about a whole days fighting for the same unit. Joe

This is disconcerting...You would think if your Hull-Down the Ranging Optics especially at longer ranges ( 1000+ ) would yield better probabilities in spotting vs. extra Crew members...Sigh :-( Ranging Optics are located in the Turret or upper superstructure of Armored Vehicles and that alone should prove superior in spotting over having a couple extra hull crew members looking w/out optics ( once again, we are talking about 1000+ meters where optics are most important ). If it was under 1000 meter ranges ( more like 500-600 meters ), then this is where extra crew members looking around at shorter ranges becomes more important. Joe

I agree with Rocket, and think the 'Hunt' Command speed is alittle to fast, and should be same speed as 'Slow' Command. Joe