Ansbach

Thanks poppys and junk2drive. I wouldn't really call it a hijacking because I feel just like poppys and was expanding on it a bit - maybe more of a mugging? I meant it as more of a quick general comment looking for "the best of the best" type single player scenarios that stood out in peoples' minds and that I may have missed. I am more of a casual player who doesn't keep up with all of the latest mod happenings, but I have been playing since CMBO. I tend to be unreliable for PvP games so mostly stick to single player. I prefer smaller sized historical battles and don't usually mess with the AI adjustments unless it's mentioned in the briefing - theoretically if the TO&E is carefully researched, AI adjustments would just 'mess them up' wouldn't they!? Also, I wanted to throw the question out there for others benefit in case they have missed' some of the better scenarios as well. Maybe a new post on "what is your favorite scenario?". But you answered it just fine the first go-round. BTW - I downloaded "Hans' Small Operations" on your recommendation and am about to give it a go this evening. I also play the tabletop miniatures game Battlefront:WWII and use CM to create scenarios for BF sometimes, or vice-versa. Works great! [ November 30, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

Thanks, I'll check out those authors again. I've played a random handful of scenarios where the AI is supposed to be challenging and had mixed results - I was looking for anything that really stood out in someone's experience. But then again I guess even that is relative - I send my Churchill 20m to the left of where you sent yours and the entire AI 'plan of action' changes...

I think there's a bigger variation within America than between America and Canada! What if your "3" infantrymen are from Texas, Boston, and Brooklyn???

Along those lines, anyone have any scenarios vs. the AI that they would recommend as especially challenging?

I've been playing a great WW2 game that is like Ambush! - Silent Storm! It is turn-based squad level play: think of it as a WW2 Jagged Alliance, a turn-based Commandos, or a computer game version of Ambush!. It's not exactly historically accurate, but it's a lot of fun. It has gorgeous full 3-D graphics with 'real-world' rag-doll physics: I have done things like snipe a guy off a bridge and watch him flip over the railing to his death, shot an enemy soldier inside a house with a SMG at close range and watched him crash backwards through a stairwell banister down to the floor below - that kind of thing. It also plays a little like a role-playing game with different types of soldiers (medics, snipers, engineers etc.) that gain experience and new skills and abilities. I can not say enough good things about this game - it has great reviews all over the net and came out in January so you should find it for less than $20 now. Also, a sequel just came out where you belong to a post-war intelligence organization and do additional things like manage your finances, hire recruits, and fight the sinister Nazi-spy bad guys. Here is a link to an excellent review on Wargamer.com: http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/silent_storm/ [ November 28, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

Hi aviator99 - the way this game manages the control of your units can be a bit confusing at first. Hang in there and let us know how it's going...

Thanks everyone - easy enough, but I still have a (dumb?) question: what does 'borg' mean?

I've seen that mentioned in several threads but couldn't figure out what you guys are talking about...

There is a Find Opponent Forum: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24

Is it just me, or does armor come down to about 90% technology and 10% tactics? I understand the basics such as using hunt, finding hull down positions, flanking - that kind of thing - but it seems that regardless of actual maneuvering it always just comes down to who has the better tanks. Anyone have some intermediate/advanced tips for dealing with superior armor without superior numbers?

Question: in the real war, how much cover did a tank need to be considered hull down? 25%? 50%? Take a Sherman for example - they were just under 10ft high - how many feet?

doh! double post

That is my guess as well after doing a little research in the manual. It says binoculars "greatly enhance a unit's long range spotting and identifying abilities."

I have noticed the 'has binoculars', but how do you use them? I guess that just means they can spot easier or at longer range than units without? [ February 19, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

That's just the Quick Reference Guide. The 'real' manual is in .pdf format and is 200+ pages long! Check your install folder or Start Menu...

Don't qoute me without my ' ' at the end - that was meant as sarcastic but good-natured ribbing...

I believe the Vichy French never actually fought against the Allies... I'm sure the links will give the details - let me know if I'm wrong!

I'll plug Jason's Tutorial in case you haven't seen it - good stuff! Click Here

Let's not degenerate this thread into what is basically a Historical vs. Quick Battle argument - two sides arguing two different things and both are right. The original information was for the benefit of those looking for historical accuracy in historical scenarios - any discussion of Quick Battles and 'scenario fairness' is irrelevant. As was pointed out earlier, historical battles were hardly ever fair. Not that your QB views are invalid, just keep in mind that we are discussing the duplication of historical events. As far as tank battles are concerned, I'd like to second what JasonC said: there is a common 'romantic' image of the typical African campaign battle being a highly maneuverable, pure armor tank duel in the desert - but in reality those types of engagements were few and far between, mainly due to supply limitations. The majority of battles were combined arms engagements that took place in and between habitations along the coast. I don't know the exact historical figures and I'm sure someone can help me out here, but I'd be suprised if much more than 25% of the forces in Africa were armored... However, that having been said - at the scale of CMAK, pure armor engagements would probably be more common than normal since they might represent a smaller subsection of a larger engagement. Besides, we all bought this game to play with the tanks, didn't we? [ February 18, 2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

I wish I could record a movie clip, because I had an awesome replay last night! I was watching from the perspective of a British infantry squad that was taking pot shots at an Italian armored car headed right for their position at full speed. The small arms fire was just ricocheting off the car when all of the sudden it EXPLODED into a huge fireball and rolled to a stop about 5 meters in front of them! I thought the infantry got lucky at first, but it turned out one of my Valentine's picked it off in mid-sprint with it's first shot. It may not sound like that much being descibed, but you had to see it. With the timing and camera angle it looked just like a scripted scene from a movie - I think I watched it about 20 times! [ February 16, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

I just finished the first battle of my East Africa campaign with v1.00b - I am really enjoying it so far, but I need to get deeper into the campaign to give any worthwhile feedback. A note to others who may take a look at this and be put off by the long rules: At first glance I was put off by the long, involved rules system and almost didn't give it a chance. I'm glad I did though because the programmed spreadsheet does 90% of the work for you! It's not nearly as much work as it first looks like. The rules are mostly just explaining what the spreadsheet does - it's an awesome tool!

I'm sure some of you Grognards are familiar with British tactics and can add to this discussion, but those who aren't may find this information helpful. It was briefly mentioned in another thread and I wanted to elaborate on the topic. You may find it interesting/entertaining to try and duplicate these tactics and see what kind of success you can have with them. Of course each situation is unique, but the British had two main plans of attack used by their Infantry Tank regiments, one for daylight attacks and one for night attacks. Daylight attacks started with an initial barrage of artillery on the objective, followed by two waves of tanks and then infantry. Timing was critical and was practiced since before the war had started. The first wave of tanks was to arrive while the artillery barrage was falling in an effort to overrun the initial opposition. The second wave of tanks would arrive a few minutes later, hopefully just as (before) the enemy was beginning to recover from the initial attack. The infantry would arrive right behind the second wave of tanks with the task of 'mopping up' any remaining opposition. The tanks would then remain with the infantry while the position was secured and the anti-tank guns were brought up, at which point they would advance to a "Forward Rally Point" for refueling and repairs. During night attacks the sequence was different. The infantry would lead the way, followed closely by tanks in direct support. If the objective was very far away, the infantry would ride on the tanks to a predetermined starting point and would then proceed on foot. The tanks would then once again stay with the infantry until the anti-tank guns could be brought up to form a defensive screen. This method was mainly used during the Second Battle of Alamein and was very effective - earning the respect of Rommel, who commented that "the British storming parties would work their way up to our positions, accompanied by tanks which acted as mobile artillery, and would force their way into the trenches at the point of the bayonet. Everything went methodically and according to drill." How effective these tactics would be in CMAK is debatable, but they are fun to duplicate from a historical perspective. Let us know what kind of success you have if you try them out! Source: British Tanks in North Africa 1940-42 by Bryan Perrett [ February 15, 2004, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Ansbach ]

When playing in North Africa I try to add more of the infantry manuevering aspect buy using the largest map size, relatively small forces, and then purchasing the transport for the infantry - even if it's just some extra trucks. Manuevering the infantry into position is always an interesting early challenge of the battles.

I think he meant 1 Ghz and my guess is it's a laptop... otherwise that's a very strange combination!

I just found a very cool website that I wanted to share with everyone - the Marine Corps Gazette: Tactical Decision Games. The archive is online with over 100 scenarios!! Each month they present a user-submitted combat scenario and the readers are supposed to come up with a plan to deal with the situation. I have been looking at a few of them and many could easily be converted to WW2 scenarios. They even include maps. Also, they usually don't specify the opposing forces, leaving plenty of room for creativity. If you like making scenarios, this link is a wellspring of ideas! http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/TDG.htm