Champagne

Wow. Aptly named. SPOILERS I had no idea that the Germans lost the war because the T34/85 was superior to both the Panther and the Jpz IV, in a straight up, front to front fight. I've been wrong about this since 1973.

Repeat . . . The Sheep Have Left the Meadow.

I'm playing Counterattack at Son and noticed that the there's a slight "tick" when the AFVs in that long German column move over the stone bridge. What I mean is, even though an AFV will have a clear path over the bridge with no way points to cause hesitation, each AFV entering the bridge AS will "juke" a bit left, progress, and then "juke" back right before exiting the bridge AS. As I said, this happens despite the absence of any waypoints to cause the juking. Is this an intentional feature designed to simulate AFVs going more slowly over a bridge than they would roll down a road? After all, AFVs are not going to roll over a small stone bridge as quickly as they would blast down a clear road. Thanks.

I don't follow you, mirekm61. Could you elaborate, please?

12 HJ campaign is a great idea, mainly because of the unit history written by one of its officers. The details of its campaigns are there for the reading. 15 or more middle/huge battles for a campaign? IMHO, that's too many. Kampfgruppe Engle is large enough with only eight battles. Again, that's just my humble opinion.

Thanks, Schrull. I recall that being previously announced, so, I was surprised to find it in the 2.11 manual. I really like that method of interface. Any chance that it could return?

"Each key on the Number Pad is “hard-wired” to the Command Button that is in the same relative position in the currently active Command Panel. For example, with the Move Command Panel open, the top row of Commands (from left to right - Fast, Quick, Move) corresponds to the keys 7, 8, and 9. You can switch Command Panels to access other Commands with the / and * buttons." This portion of page 27 of the 2.11 Manual does not appear to have been implemented in the game. I have 2.11, but, I'm unable to use the Number Pad to issue Command Button orders. Is there an explanation for my trouble? Thanks.

I played this scenario vs. the British AI and I could not find a way to win in my first two tries. The Paras are just too tough and deadly.

I'm trying to find the manual section that discusses LOS visibility constraints imposed by low light conditions such as dawn and dusk. Many scenarios begin in low light conditions, and, it would be nice to know how far away the enemy can see me as I conduct recon. Thanks.

I gather that it's not that tough for a Tiger or Panther to lose its main gun to a 75mm hit.

I think this tactic works, but, I'm happy to be corrected. Use small-arms fire on enemy tanks before the main AFV fight. Small-arms will damage tank optics, so, when the main AFV fight happens, the tanks with undamaged optics will have the edge.

Is there some kind of fix that I could implement by editing the Saved Game? For example, is it easy to edit the Saved Game by changing the bridge tile into a land tile, so that I could continue the campaign?

Thanks for the info!

AFVs get on the bridge closest to the German set up areas and they can't get off ! They just move back and forth on the bridge, but, never complete the forward movement path. I have played this scenario before with no problem, but, that was way before I installed Market Garden. Help?

Defend is depth. Place a thin screen of one-man units in front to function as scouts. Keep a large reserve for counterattack. The bocage "box" to the rear of your position functions as your "Reserve Holding Area". Once you identify the Allied axes of attack, you can roll out your King Tiger and Panthers to block the advance of these enemy columns. The Reserve Holding Box is key, because the enemy Arty cannot smash it, I guess because it's out of Line of Sight view from the enemy front line.

Is there some way to turn off the background artillery and MG fire? Or, is there a mod that changes these background sounds to only bird and wind sounds? Thanks.

Thanks, Mr. Kettler, and every other erudite respondent in this thread. I like your example here, because it reminded me of similar events in naval gunnery. If a relatively small ship, such as a WW1 light cruiser, is fired on by a battleship's main guns, it is quite feasible for the round to pass right through the cruiser superstructure without causing great damage. My comment adds nothing to the substantive discussion here, but, it is a "fun fact." These "Gunnery vs. Armor" conversations are some of the most technical discussions one can have, when it comes to discussions about WW1 and WW2. Of course, before the advent of the "tank", the discussions were limited to Naval Warfare applications. Once tanks became common on the battlefield during WW2, the complexity of these conversations increased exponentially, because there so many more kinds of guns going against such different kinds of armor. Gunnery v. Armor discussions in 1914 involved far fewer kinds of guns and armor. My point is that this is highly technical and complex stuff AND the hard data is most often very difficult to obtain. It is completely to be expected that there will be disagreements within the conversations. Thanks very much to Battlefront for never fearing to weigh in on the conversation, despite the possibility of disagreements. As a loyal customer, and speaking for myself, I am glad to give Battlefront my full faith and confidence. They have earned that from me, over the years. Thanks, all.

Thanks! I really like his mods. Don't the game patches clash with the mods and cause problems?

Yes, thanks for the response. I've been reading WW2 books and playing WW2 board wargames since 1974. I've never conducted the kind of detailed research and analysis that was done to perfect CMBN and all of its progeny. With regard to anti-armor vs. armor ballistics, I'm telling myself that I have to be prepared to learn new things and to "unlearn" some things that I thought were true. The research done by Battlefront in The Computer Era is superior to what I first learned over the years. I don't know the details of the exact M10 projectile type that defeated the front armor of the Tiger I. I did not note, nor do I remember whether the hit occurred on the turret front or front glacis of the Tiger I. As such, I hope that nobody interprets my post as some kind of complaint. If I wanted to complain, I would conduct my own research and tests before complaining. All I want to do is learn about ballistics and how the game models the ballistics. I know that Battlefront's intent is to be as accurate as possible. My thread here is inspired by the scenario "Forest of Wild Beasts". It's been frustrating as German vs. the AI, as I try to break through the US Army defenses. I brought some assumptions about AT vs. Armor ballistics that are being proved wrong in this scenario, so, I'm trying to learn more about this stuff. There are probably some great threads on these "AT vs Armor Ballistics" issues, so, I'll Search for them. If anybody has some good links to such threads, please post.

Yes, I agree that the peace and quiet is a good indication that the armor modeling must be pretty good. No, I did not know that an M10 could take out a Tiger I's frontal armor from 800 meters. I never read anything about that being the case in my 40 years of reading WW2 books.

57mm AT guns knocking out Tiger I. All against frontal armor of the Tiger I. I used to think that the German AFVs were more resistant to the US 75mm, 76mm and 57mm anti-armor rounds. CMFI and CMBN have taught me differently. The US anti-armor projectiles were much more effective than I had previously thought. No wonder why none of the German attacks/counterattacks vs US forces went very far (except for Kasserine).

I'll learn to live with it.

I have a new monitor whose default resolution is 1920x1080. CMBB is running on my Windows 7 machine, but, the 3D vehicles look a bit stretched out. I there some way to change the resolution to something better for CMBB? How is that done? Thanks.

I've taken the time to play through this great scenario a few times. It really is a perfect size, not too small, not too large. Great force mix for both sides. Both sides have the opportunity to use combined arms tactics. *SPOILERS FOLLOW* The setting is Sicily, July 43. What strikes me most about my study is that the German Pzkw IV G (Late) and (Latest) cannot stand up to the British armor mix of Sextons, Sherman IIs and Stuart/Honeys. The Honey's 37mm can penetrate and destroy the Pzkw IV's frontal armor at 300m range. The Sherman II's 75mm gun can penetrate and destroy Pzkw IV's frontal armor at all scenario ranged, usually on the first shot. The Pzkw IV's long 75mm gun usually hits on the first shot, but, many hits neither penetrate nor destroy the Sherman II's armor. I was quite surprised by these revelations. I knew that the Pzkw IV was rather obsolete by Summer 1944, but, I was not prepared to learn that the Pzkw IV was quite inferior even in the Summer 1943. In this scenario, the Sherman II is a superior AFV to the Pzkw IV G. The Honey can be more deadly and accurate at 300m and less. The Sexton is just as accurate as the Pzkw IVG at 300m and greater ranges. I had no idea that the Pzkw IV, even in its later versions was such an inferior main battle tank. The German player will lose the scenario, if he tries to "tank duel" the AI British.

. . . and I know what you mean by needing a hotkey for Cancel Target. It used to be "J" but that is now cancelled.