slysniper

Thanks for pulling up the old threads, Zveroboy

Great photo, Kingfish, I was wondering how well the scenario's had maped the area. The magazine I have, had a map, it conflicted with the game map. That photo is clear enough to make my own revised map. Thanks Interesting site also, has some interactive information on division operations in Normandy

In the last 6 to 7 years I have come across written material from publishers that state that much of what many of the earlier historians have written about Kursh is a myth. These newer accounts claim that Germany fielded less tanks than what older records show, but also that they lost less than what Russians claims were. In addition, Russian Armor losses were very high, some of this new history states the the Germans came very close to winning this operation and that there is source material showing they were there longer and did not retreat from the Prochorovka area as soon as what is reported in older accounts. Is this new infomation correct or is it just history being rewritten to someone's new fantasy.

I have just pulled out a old magazine and was reading about the action that happened there between june 6th to the 9th, 1944. I have found a scenario on the game disk for part of that action. Can anyone tell me has anyone done additional work on this battle that I might be able to find. I know of many of the sites, I would just like to know if anyone remembers any good work on these battles before I go hunting on my own.

How common was Tungsten ammo for the german army in the summer of 1942, I had done some game testing and found that PzIIIj's match up pretty evenly with the KV1's for this time period at the 200 to 400 meter range, but from other sources it appears it should not be such a even match. Then it dawned on me that the pz's might be using special ammo, with the Tungsten round it is a pretty even fight, especially since the PZIII rate of fire is so much faster. The game gives this ammo out pretty freely in the QB purchase to the panzers in this time period. Any insights as to this being correct as to what might have actually been at the real battles.

Auto pick sounds interesting, I have not played with that tool yet, might have to try that one out.

Some of us have lifes to live, so I don't have the chance to sit down and play for hours on end doing tcp/ip. But I can manage to keep 4 or 5 games going by sneaking in a turn or two each day by pbem. Pbem has given me the chance to play over the internet.

Col deadmarsh, You have me playing blind in the one we just started, funner for me, gives me more to test my game skills at. And may I mention, a hard one you appear to have chosen at that. I agree with treeburst, how many of these guys are really playing you blind, I read how some appear to have played every scenario ever created, so they cannot be playing blind. I haven't even play most of the scenario's on my original disk of the game, I am always blind. See you in our pbem

NS, seems like many other gamers who wants to have the fill of being one person within the game. I think this comes from the Role playing mind set that many games provide. So in cm you see all these units and maybe your dream is to be the commander or a tank commander or some grunt. Why not have a option in the game, that was a sort of game inside the game that the player does pick one unit and has total command of it. Maybe receiving a score for how well he did with that unit that is added into the rest of the scores in the game. Since I was a sniper, I would love to be one in the game and sneak behind enemy lines and place a bullet in the head of all these commander wantabee's and see how they enjoy that gaming experience.

Since I started this link, they have now set up a discussion forum set up for the game, this one can fade away. I thought it was funny that I found it first at a competitors site. Battlefront will be more than happy to give all the info you want, just wanted to help get it going.

Paul au, You mentioned that you enjoy the Qbs because of all the different matchup's you get. It seems just the opposite to me, most of the time I can quess what the opponent will have because of the settings, most players I have met do not want experiments in QBs, they are playing for wins. Thus always trying to get the most they can for the points. If I came across someone that really mixed it up, that would be more fun, because I would like to do that with my units also. So far I only get that result by creation of fictional scenario's

Bengal6, I like playing with what you could call weak units, its fun to see what you can do when you are outclassed as far as units, to play better with less, a real thrill if you succeed. If you can get both sides to play from a no knowledge situation, it can be fun. But many seem to think its wrong to play with knowledge of the board and units. Most real battles, the defending commander has a lot of knowledge of his terrian, and both sides have done everything they possably can to have a idea what they are up against. Dont want surprises in real life. [ February 18, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

tbroker, I agree with you that its a good test of a players ability, but is it showing the ability to direct all sorts of military units and tactics. That test to me shows the ability of the player to purchase well to the game point system, which can be set up in many interesting ways. In other words, victory between players will be determined many times by their purchasing skills. That is fine for gaming end, but is not proving to the player that he is winning by tactical skills. I just finished a match with a set up where I was on defense and my armor portion of my force consisted of 3 JSIII's, I stoped his assault that had me outnumbered 3 to 1 ratio, with king tigers, jag tigers and so forth. He lost 6 heavy tanks and one damaged and I only had lost one tank and one immobilized. I have played him many times and this was a exceptional victory. One I will not forget, because I won it by my play of tactics, not by good purchasing and then game play. When I was in the military, no one ever asked what armor units would you like for this battle, so for me, being a expert at buying the best units isnt all that exciting.

http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72 I just found out about this from another site. thought it might interest some of you that want to dream of being in russian armor.

Thanks for the offer, Sanok. I am doing better at finding games here than in the "opponent finder". But I have one too many games going at the moment already. But I couldn't pass on at least getting one person to play me cmbo, since all my play since starting on this site has been cmbb. Mrcobbler beat you to the offer. I will be looking again someday in the future, will try to keep you in mind.

Thanks for the offer Mrcobbler, sent you a email. Well, so far scenario's are getting a few voices, but no one really wanting to speak up for Qb's. Except Cannon Fodder Interesting, especially since many of the Pbem that I have been offered are Qb's

Now out of over 16,000 members am I going to get any more comments on what they prefer. Scenario's or QBs

Sorry, only have cmbb and cmbo. I might make a good playtester, I seem to have a talent at it, I can normally just look at the map, study the units in play and come close to figuring how it will play out. A gift I guess from playing war games for the last 30 years. But I still am not interested in playtesting. Decided not to get cmak, just will wait until CMx2 comes. Well, I will correct that statement, I might pick up cmak if I find it at walmart or something. It didn't seem to improve anything much or add to the gaming experence for me. I do like early north africa battles, so it is sad that I will not part with my money to get it. I will just load panzer elite and add the desert mods, you might want to whip me for that statement, but they were pretty good at giving the feel for the desert battles. To show you how crazy I am, I like the fact that cmbo and cmbb play different, it is sad that I cannot find pbem players for cmbo now, because of this attitude that many have, they will play only what they deem to be the most realistic game. meaning cmak over cmbo. Oh well, to each his own, for me I like all the forms of play & gamemanship I find in this hobby and just smile at how hard headed and one sided some of you are in what matters to you in this game.

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/main.html Here is the home page to that site, see if you think this research is good or if this is not correct information. I just thought the site seemed to be done by someone that has a good amount of knowledge for this period.

GJK, Thanks for the offer. Have thought about joining one of the groups but have held off. There is a part of me that wants to compete with some of these players that are very good. More to see just how bad or good I am. For the moment though I am fine with playing those that I can pick up from this site. I do like to create and modify scenario's. But do it for personal enjoyment, doing it for others might become to much like a job.

Junk2drive. I might enjoy both, the first would play to my love of history, but I also always want a challenge, so in the first, if you have designed it well you should have a written victory condition saying something like I win a tactical victory at a score 90 or better, a score of 75 or less is a tactical loss because of heavy losses or something like that. I am amazed more designers just don't put in written victory conditions to help bring life to the one sided battles. The second example also is good, there are plenty of players that want to face the AI and have a blind battle as too what to expect. If on the last turn I am still wondering if its me or the machine that will end with the score advantage, then you have done a fantastic job in designing a game. As I side note, AI balanced games are much harder to achieve as far as I am concerned. Let me ask you, if you saw one of scenario's being played and noticed that it had been modified from how you had designed it, does that bother you. You know it is going to happen, it is part of the hobby. Or does it make you happy just to see someone getting enjoyment out of a game you helped to create. I hope you feel the second, but as I mentioned earlier, I feel like I am taking someone elses work and am disgracing it when I change a scenario without talking to the designer. [ February 16, 2005, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm This is one site that seems to have a lot of information about battalion dates and when tigers were received or lost. This is a site I had not seen before.

Thanks David, I have a book with some accounts from the 502, but it has been awhile since I read it. I was interested in how many might be in North Africa, 20, thanks for the tip, I need to learn more about this, always learning.

I just came across a site that stated only 40 tiger tanks had been produced by Nov of 42. Does anyone know in what theaters these would have been serving in at the time. I would think north africa and northern part of russia, but if someone knows more about this I would like to know possible locations they would have been at and quantities. I found this on tiger 131 history notes.

Cannon fodder, I have played some scenario's that as you mention are somewhat one sided, I like to go in and modify them and try to create a more balanced and playable game for both players. But in so doing I feel like I Have sinned, because some here feel so strong about the design accuracy or not touching someone elses work. But some of the funniest scenario's I have are modified ones that I have off the disk or that I have downloaded from the internet and have adjusted for play balance.