Lt. Beavis

Ahh, that would be because a lot of stuff labeled metal isn't true metal...lots of kick ass traditional type stuff coming out of Europe and the American Underground...Seven Witches, Distant Thunder, Jag Panzer, Paragon, Iced Earth, Gamma Ray, Blind Guardian to name a VERY few. Great stuff! No radio play though...at least here. Let me guess? Cumberland County Civic Center, Portland, March 30th, 1989? I was there. I got stomped on so much I had foot prints on my jeans the next day...nice pit... No argument here. Mord. </font>

A little off topic, but the video got me thinking... How would the newest gen Bradley hold up to a hit over the frontal arc from an AT-4? Is that a death sentence for the guys inside? Or can the standard armor package handle something like that? I imagine that RPG hits probably wouldn't disable it from the front, at least without some effort... but the AT-4 is rather more powerful. Do the Abrams and Bradleys have any active or passive defense systems for top attack weapons like the Javelin?

I set up a quick battle with the AI as a defender, playing German SS Mech v.s. Guards Mech. The AI picked forces for both sides. I ended up with a sharpshooter, and placed him in the top level of a 2 level heavy building. During the battle, he took a shot at an OT-34... there was no other combat in the area at the time. I heard the sound of the shot hitting, a scream, and the hatch closed. Naturally, I assumed the TC was killed or wounded. My AT gun KOed the tank a couple turns later. However, at the end of the game, I checked the kill stats for the sharpshooter and he didn't have any tally. No kills. Obviously, this isn't a big deal or game altering bug, just an interesting little bit of trivia, I guess. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this. I never noticed 'til now. I thought I'd mention my 120 mm mortar spotter and Pz IVF2 as well. My spotter ended up with 162 casualties inflicted upon the enemy. Good God, it was so amazing, yet so horrible to watch. The AI had a bazillion squads on top of this hill, and I managed to pin them down with 2 50 mm mortar teams until the heavies came in. I think the SoundBlaster nearly got overloaded trying to register all the screams. hehe My PzIV managed to inflict 38 casualties, destroy another OT-34, a Stuart, and 4 T-70s. It was actually an exciting series of duels... I had the high ground on another little hill, but it was all at close range, with the enemy tanks grouped together...and a couple of the T-70s were engaged in close in fighting with an infantry platoon of mine that attempted to ambush them (my boys got hit awful hard (sniff)). The Pz took some penetrating hits from the Stuart and T-70s, and lost a man, but kept on going. One of the T-70s it was dueling with holed it 2 times, while my Pz missed no less than 7 times in a row over 2 turns at about 200 m! My veteran crew must have been getting nervous from the holes appearing in their armor Anyway, the game was pretty wild. Pretty amazing that a game that is years old is still so damn fun to play.

A while ago, while playing CMBO against the AI in a random scenario, I blew up a Hetzer with an 81 mm off board. I wasn't deliberately aiming for it, just the crunchies around the thing. Quite a surprise to see it blunder into the barrage and then blow up after a top penetration. But a welcome one

I don't think most people are arguing that the fear factor is a bad idea. The implementation is just a bit flawed, that's all. If 5 tanks on a large hill, most of them hull down, is a bad situation, what would be the situation where they'd actually take at least one shot? His T34s were in a textbook position, and they abandon it without even firing a shot? I don't think that's very sensible. And what exactly would they do, having left the hill? Hide behind it all during the game and do nothing?

In the original example, it's absolutely wrong that the T34s didn't fire their chambered round. All of them should have at least taken a shot. They had height advantage, and they were hull-down. There is no reason for them not to take their shots at the Panther, for they stood to obtain top deck penetrations. In addition, the higher elevation negates the front glacis slope of the Panther. The Panther is the one at a disadvantage in this scenario, not the T34s.

I usually don't play scenarios, just quick battles. My response to Bone_Vulture goes over fanaticism and morale influences, so you can read my viewpoint concerning them there. I think that when fanaticism is triggered, or when a unit has a +2 morale bonus, the implementation of effects stemming from those situations is a bit off.

I agree. Suppression in general should require a fair amount of effort, especially dealing with a full squad. The game seems pretty reasonable when it comes to suppressing a full squad most of the time, although they too can exhibit super unsuppressed, unkillable, returning fire madness. Mostly though, it seems that platoon HQs are far more likely to go Rambo. An apt description, for Rambo also never gets suppressed by enemy fire or killed

This is the general situation I'm talking about. Multiple squads targeting one HQ unit, which remains unsuppressed and returning fire. They were helped out a great deal by the trench in which they were residing, true. But I have seen this happen where the unit in question is occupying open ground, rocky terrain, all kinds of places. Non-fortified places.

I have thought about this, and I believe that the problem involves fanaticism/morale bonuses and the resultant effect that a person sees in the game. I am in total agreement with the fanaticism possibility, or morale bonuses. They should be in the game. I am thinking, though, that all of the incoming fire I direct at a group of fanatics will cause a particular event to occur (see below, #1). Here, fanatic means suicidal, uncaring, merciless, totally devoted to the cause. Death is perfectly acceptable. I think a group of non-fanatics with high experience and morale bonuses will implement option #2. 1) They will recklessly expose themselves to the overwhelming return fire, toss grenades, whatever it is that they're doing. Think Totenkopf during the invasion of France. Their technique sucked, from a tactical standpoint, but they got the job done (and with lots of casualties). 2) They will take cover, but remain unbroken where a unit with less experience/morale bonus would take cover from a huge volume of fire and pee their pants, becoming ineffective until they are able to rally. Now, thinking about option 1...well, they're gonna start dying if they are exposed and returning fire. They may die to a man, and if they are fanatic, elite, have a great HQ morale bonus...that's fine. It happened. But in the game, I constantly see them being exposed, returning fire, and not dying. Considering option 2, they would be safer to some extent, depending on the terrain and incoming fire directed at them. But they wouldn't be providing effective return fire, and they would also end up taking casualties due to massive incoming fire (if they're in what CM calls a trench, then obviously things would be different). Just that the infliction of casualties would be at a lesser rate versus the exposed, super gung-ho fanatics. Basically, I think that the fanaticism and morale bonuses modify the chance to inflict a casualty, along with giving units...morale staying power, if you want to think of it that way. If I can't suppress them, fine, but if they aren't suppressed then that means they are vulnerable to my fire, since they need to see me to fire at me and that means I can hit them (in most situations). This problem seems to occur more often in platoon HQs. I'll also ask a question for others who read this thread... Have you seen this happen, where a platoon HQ will be the only unbroken, fighting unit the AI has in an area? And that you just can't seem to suppress or kill them? There are a few responses, and it seems others have noticed this too.

I would like to know if this little bit of..."charm" factor in CMBO and CMBB is going to be eliminated in the next game engine. There is a consistent bias in favor of platoon HQs within the game. They don't suppress as easily as other units, and it is harder to kill them. Sometimes. This phenomenon does not happen ALWAYS. But it happens often enough to become annoying. Regularly, against the AI, I see the following general happenings: 1) All other enemy units are dead or far away 2) Enemy platoon HQ is the only opposition in the area that is unbroken 3) It takes an incredible amount of firepower from multiple full squads of infantry at 100m range to suppress 4 guys, and even then they will pop up multiple times to return fire. Seems like they never break or take casualties, even with hundreds of bullets sent in their direction. 4) This has happened in open ground. The enemy doesn't surrender, run away, or simply go to ground and stay there. They merrily pop up, return fire, and don't break unless I close assault with a squad and cut their heads off. Of course, in doing so, they pop up one last time to kill 1 or two more guys in a blaze of glory. Please don't tell me to just ignore them once they are suppressed. They recover quickly and begin firing at my troops again. The suppression model is better in CMBB than CMBO, but there are still times where things go awry. Super unsuppressed troop formations also include infantry squads, but the problem is worse with platoon HQs.