imported_no_one

Ps, You got screwed bad on the setup zones Psycho

Easy there Hoss,your "storing" of my KO'd tank crew behing your squad(?) in the trench prevented my armor from using their direct HE.IOW,it meant the survival of your squad(?) :mad: :mad: :madder: :madderstill: :veryangry: :freakingrampage: GGRRGHAHAHHGRGRGHAHAHARGRGHAHGRRGHA Squish 'em like bugs I say!! >

John, So I'm confused.If arty was "the big killer" in WWII,why are those numbers so low?Or am I misunderstanding? I guess my confusion is dealing with how many shells = a ton? [ March 23, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

Perhaps if I bold it it will make a difference. The apparent lack of "night time morale effects" on infantry in trenches is one of my main complaints The smallest amount of fire at night will "alert" ,and if prolonged,will quickly panic or rout infantry.Not to metnion the fact that infantry will be alerted,and often times,rotate to a friendly that isnt even firing at them. Even though I was firing around 2-3 times as many rounds per gun as your test did(minus the 210mm),not to mention the 105 and 2 81mm.If a 50mm main gun of a tank can suppress and panic units in a trench ,I would assume that 105 and 81mm indirect would as well,provided that it landed in or close enough to the trenches.Some or all of the infantry apparently had no lasting moarale effects when the second phase of my assualt hit them.Which,to clear up,was taking place as the arty barrage was coming to an end.So there was no rally time given.Even though some of the arty had a blast value of 452,I never expected to outright annihilate anything that was in the trenches,but instead to make them "less than willing" to fight(panicked/pinned atleast).Oddly it seemed to have the opposite effect.It seemed to make them more fanatical,especially when you consider that units in trenches,way away from the arty barrage,did indeed succumb to the direct fire HE(and in smaller amounts),as they should have. Your test results(and this is what I think of results gathered from editor tests )are rarely comparable to real CM combat conditions/situations.Much like tests and studies done in RL,it may work perfectly on paper,but simply will not work in RL. There was a situation where a ATR team was ID'd to the point that I knew what it was for atleast a few turns.It was fired on for atleast a few turns by tanks(Tiger,PzIII)infantry and HTs,and not only was it not quickly paniced/routed,but sporadically continued to fire at the tanks and HTs( :eek: )After I think a total of 4-5 turns(granted,it wasnt continous fire,but there were full turns where it was fired on non-stop,and when LOS contact was lost,it had indirect tank MG or 50mm HE fired "area target" on the trench under it)it finally succumbed to the hail of destruction that it had no trouble shrugging off. Another problem with your editor tests. Now I'm not 100% sure what you mean here,but I think your test was much more elaborate than what I actually launched the attack on.I think this is another of my main points.For the width and length of trenchline I attacked,it was almost over-kill considering the amount of arty,and or the total amount of fire,called on such a small area. I was hoping to get an idea of the total amount of forces my opponent had,but thanks to what looks like a generous screwing by the broken operation setup zones,I may not know until it is all said and done.I do know that he still had a good amount of forces left in the trenchlines in question though,as I found out the hard way(IOW,last ditch infantry assualt,on the trenchline,on the last turns =NO,NO!). Another thing that may be mis-leading us,and I'm sure I may be doing it too,the comparisons to RL info.This isnt RL,it is CM,and we are talking about the undermodeled night time effect of combat(or the lack thereof). Irregardless of all this,I appreciate the disscussion so far.This was without a doubt one of my most dissappointing CM moments,for whatever reason. Ps, Sorry for the numerous spelling and grammar errors,I got sick of proofreading Edit to add my closing statement(doh!): In conclusion,are CM trenches too effective?As compared to RL,no.Considering the time constraints in CM however,I say yes they are. [ March 23, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

Anyone?Anyone at all? Would it help if I started a new thread with these questions?

Welcome back kitty I hope it wasnt a result of our battle that you went on hiatus :mad: :mad: :mad:

Looks awesome Keke! If the total points for this operation arent too high(IOW,if the PBEM files wont be gigantic),I'd be more than willing to help playtest it. This is,of course,assuming that it will be playable PBEM,which I hope it will

Danke! Some good stuff!

John(and everyone), ***more spoilers**** . . . . . .. . . . .. I fully understand what you are saying.If you have never played the operation in question,you should take a look at it from the russian side to see the trench network that I am attacking.It is the middle portion around the road.It is isolated and split down the middle by a road,though it is still some 250-500m in length.Now while I didnt surround it,I was/am attacking virtually ever portion of the front(the side opposing me)and the sides. I also did indeed see some of the heavy stuff fall into,or very near the edges of,the trenchline.Considering the amount that I fired,you could go out on a limb and say that somewhere around 5% of all the rounds should have fallen to full effect.Was there anything in that area of trenchline?I dont know. The main points that I am trying to get across,is the apparent lack of night time morale effects on the entrenched infantry.Believe me,I know it all to well.It was very difficult to get my own infantry to stop being pinned by my own armor that was mere meters away.Not to mention them constantly rotating to face my own armor even though it was firing at targets some 30-50m away.And anytime I mention my infantry,they were either in craters/foxholes,or HTs. The method that you used in the Sneak Preview would not work in my case.The flanks on both sides of the road were wheatfields that had many hidden sharpshooters,tank hunter teams,and squads(?)I tried to flush some of them out,but with cover panic being what it is,I had either entire platoons,of a few squads at a time suppressed by secondary fire from sharpshooter(ie pistols)If I had attempted your style of assualt,I may have been able to obscure the LOS of the infantry in the trenchline they were attacking,but would've taken cross fire from both flanks,and I dont even want to imagine what the result would've been.In addition,the enemy had arty too,and it was just as big and in similar abundance to mine. I was attempting something similar to what you propose in battle 2,but it was quickly halted by said arty.Since the arty for both sides can last for about half of a battle,it stopped me cold for the remainder of battle 2 by immobilizing and gun damaging the armor that I had in the are of effect.Extensive minefields and other trench networks(most of which were still not fully ID'd)prevented me from exploring the flanks,oh and so did the arty. So,do you blame me for trying the night assualt that I did?It allowed me to "roll up" my flanks by advancing and eliminating all the sharpshooters and tankhunters that were hiding there.I was also able to ID alot more of the trench networks and such. Perhaps it was more succesful than I realize,but when you are attacking in the style and scope that I did,atleast in CM,you/I would expect better results. Beats me :confused: Ps, Some more useful info.Battle one was dominated by fog,and I'm still not sure whom this benefitted.Also,yes it was EFOW.As always,its the only way to fly [ March 22, 2004, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

Just wanted to add some of my recent and ongoing experiences with trenches in CMBB. *****Possible spoilers for the operation Models Last Hope*********** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am playing the operation Models Last Hope PBEM,and in an attempt to accomplish a break through,I launched a massive assualt against around 250-500m of trenchline at night .It was preceded with what I consider to be an enourmus amount of artillery(105,120,150,158mm rkt,170mm,plus much less effective 81mm)I dont remember the exact HE loadouts,but suffice to say that the whole thing took atleast 5-8 turns(using fire plans for most of the heavy stuff).The arty was called on TRPs,which was still somehow ridiculously inaccurate,even though all the guns have the exact co-ordinates(but this is another rant that I am saving for some other time). I then launched phase two,which(and since this is an ongoing PBEM,I cant give indepth details)consisted of numerous Tigers,PzIIIs,PzIVs,HTs,and infantry. Now granted,FOW can be very misleading,but from what I can gather,the entire artillery bombardment was ridiculously ineffective(170mm =blast of 452!!!)Now,I dont give a rats ass,but at night,if one of those rounds landed anywhere near infantry,whether they're in craters,foxholes,or trenches,they should have been routed,panicked,or atleast taken casualties,and remained pinned for awhile. I understand about fanatical behaviour,but I have,for the past 4-5 turns,watched infantry in trenches at night,not only not be suppressed by MG fire from infantry,and HTs at a range of less that 50m,but also HE rounds from Tigers,PzIVs,and PzIIIs(which JasonC says is supposed to break units in trenches).I dont know for how many hours I am supposed to pound on them(i have 15 turns :eek: )to get them to break,but I(and I would think for good reason,considering the negative morale effects at night)am just not seeing the results that I should. In RL,this massive assualt should have far exceeded the results I am seeing in CMBB.So yes,I am begining to think trenches may be overmodeled,or something.If they're not,then I dont understand what else I am supposed to do,aside from having my Stukas drop nuclear ordinance [ March 22, 2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

Bone_Volture, I was not offended,I just mistook your comments for being snide,and that was me trying to side step you.I didnt realize you were joking around Other Means, I think you summed up my point perfectly. My point exactly!There is what,maybe a couple of accounts about MCs and their use/effectivness in WWII.Most,if not all of the arguments thus far have been based,atleast partly,on conjecture. To all, Ok,are Mcs less effective than grenades?Yes and no.While grenades do seem to have a higher success rate,they,for me anyhow,rarely accomplish anything other than an immobilization(and I'm talking about one or two squads close assualting a tank,in real CM combat situations,not some scenario editor test).With that in mind,MCs can either kill or do nothing,and I think that is where all the confusion is coming from.Grenades can both kill and immobilize,and that is why they seem to be more effective. I have seen grenades miss many a time(especially after the tank has been immobilized),and I have seen grenade bundles do nothing,heck I've seen demos do nothing.To me the reason as to why they use MCs first is simple,they have a better chance of geting a kill,if they score a direct hit.With grenades,it will often times take many to finally KO the beast.Add to this the realistic fact that most squads had 2-5 MCs and you can see that the odds of success are low.Not because its a game bug,but its just real world odds. Anyway,I've said my 2 cents worth,and until some hard evidence comes forward,I think the game is balanced enough,and there is no reason to go changing things simply based on conjecture.

The Soviet troops would constantly drink the AT weapons. </font>

LOL! Whatever... </font>

...and quit the game where I was winning. Oh how sweet it was! :mad: </font>

I'm on a roll!Who is next? :mad:

I think I am still able to dangle my victory,over your Uber Finns,over your head Oh how sweet it was!!! :mad:

Too bad you arent!! Ziiinnngggg!!! Burn!!!!!! Oh and whats it called? A rim shot?(you know,that drum thing that you hear after jokes by a comedian) You could have saved us both(or atleast me,and thats all thats important)alot of trouble, Maggot! :mad: :mad: I think this makes up for it though [ March 21, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

Axe Maggot.Sending me,the same turn I sent you,does not qualify as sending a turn :mad: :mad: :mad: Fix or do somefink!! Pseudo ,Uber twit Maggot .If you didnt get tha last turn I sent,go back to hibernating.I am sick of having to send every email 2-3 times.Plus,this last one was trully a very good and informative email(which I didnt save a copy of).It was long and had details about the "other" game I was sending you,as well as,alot of other cool stuff. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I'll help!Send turns!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Even better, why would any squad bother carrying MC's, if they were as pitiful in real life </font>

Rudy, I too am going to be playing this one PBEM with a buddy.I am Germans,and am in the setup process.I can already say that you are one fiendishly evil individual,as every setup I come up with seems to have about a 25% chance of succeding and a 75% chance of failing Nevertheless,I have already gotten my moneys worth just from the strategic depth of the defensive setup.Well done,and please reconsider calling it quits. ********SPOILERS*********** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The only complaint so far.Why are there no roadblocks?I would happily trade all the mines and wire for just 2-3 roadblocks,and I am considering using one or both of the trenches to this effect.

And where is proof that every squad member,in every platoon carried MCs?I think it is right in saying that there were 2-5 per squad.

You get my email?I sent it to your hotmail account. :mad: :mad:

Tell you what I really meant? </font>

Word nerds :mad: :mad: :mad: