GS_Guderian

It could be ok, if setup BEFORE the 1st turn. Sadly you have to do it once the game starts, on some maps you are able to see the enemy by then. Then it has a foul flavour, yes.

Ok, maybe my answer was to short. Among those Geo-specialists are Geographers as well as Geologists. The Geologists provide data about available drining water, building material, evaluate if digging is possible (before an engineer tries it out ) and if the terrain will be passable by vehicles.

The German Army still fields those specialists: The "Amt für Geoinformationswesen der Bundeswehr" is responsible for weather forcasts as well as supplying the armed forces with all kinds of maps, satelite photos etc. Actually that is quiet understandable I think.

Guys, nobody ever questioned the imortance of high ground. Nobody ever questioned the better performance from high grounds vs. lower grounds. BUT the author of the threat asked IF Combat Mission models an efficiency difference for two platoons of Inf shooting at each other, one from above, one from below. For this setup he asked to have ALL other circumstances equal, thus no weapon differences, no number adavantages, no moral or experience bonus. AND he wrote that LOS (Line-of-Sight) should be equal, therefore those things should be neglected in the answers. Now it is nice to know and surely true, that it is harder to attack uphill, than downhill, but that wasn´t asked. It is also true, that you can see more from above and thus negate any cover since the view angle changed. But this concerns LOS, and is not the answer. Code 13 has the idea that shooting down is easier than shooting upwards. I don´t know where he derrives that from, but I never experinced that. At least not with modern assault Rifles. It makes no difference. Unless you are talking about shooting streight up or streight down, it´s all rather the same. I don´t know, why my shots are more likely to strike upper body parts, when I am elevated either. I have a chance to strike any part I see. Since LOS was asked to be equal, this can´t be a solution. Both platoons are seeing the same. If not, your platoons do not fit in the question. Personally I said that I think this question is rather awkward from the first post, since the only big difference that comes with elevated Infantry positions is concerning LOS. And I think it´s funny to exclude it in the performance question.

I´ll try. Being exposed because of the better view angle top-down, no? Again, that is a LOS advantage! I know what you guys mean, but I since the Artist asked vey precisly to NOT inlcude LOS in the efficiency comparision I won´t use any advantages that derrive from the vision advantage. Tanks "may" have advantages other then LOS derrived ones, when sitting on top of a hill. Like Yankee and me described. For Infantry I can´t see any. PS: The Handgrenade range is a good point, but CM propably doesn´t model a difference in this case.

Cover blocks LOS. LOS wasn´t questioned, or rather excluded. I don´t think that is what he asked for. Again, height might help in medieval battles when you roll bolders downhill or throw stones down a wall, rather then up. But a K98 bullet won´t do more harm just because it was fired from an elevated postition.

Why would there be a difference other then LOS? Of course a steep hill could provide for enough height difference to hit the top of a tank, rather then it´s front/side, which in most cases will be better. (As long as your tank can actually aim enough into negative ° with it´s cannon, could be hard with turretless vehicles) But a soldier won´t shoot "better" just because he sits higher. He will propably have a better result because he SEES more, and thus is aple to bring some good shots on the enemy.

Of course you could order that guy to lead. Question is, does an Artillery Officer lead your Infantry anymore efficient then the Panzergrenadier Coporal?

Germany used to have Handflammpatronen in service, unil 5-10 years ago. Small tube filled with phosphor. You fire it and it spreads small dashes of fire up to 90m or so. Maybe neat to fire over a trench or to "blind" tanks. Spreads out after 50m with about 15m width. Anyway, not in our arsenal anymore. for more info: http://members.fortunecity.com/sni_tb/flecktarn-infwaffen011.htm

Never said anything else, then those guys sticking together. They won´t stay alone, if they see friendlies. That´s all.

So you actually think that soldiers rather stay alone and do not pair up, as soon as another guy struggles through the fire? I am not talking about Jimmy doing a full scale search and rescue action. I am talking about a look right and a look left. The guys inside a company and especially inside a platoon know each other. They won´t debate about the issue, that it is better to stay together until they made it out of trouble.

Actually it´s even easier in hectic. You scattered men will simply follow the neighboring seargent anyway. (Suming he is from the same platoon/Company and known)

This is a eligible question, but I´d like to remind you, that we tend to think to much in game terms here. Just because some soldier is a "lieutenant" doesn´t mean he is actually good at leading a platoon of infantry. Best example might be the section leader of infantry guns. His job is to lead those guns, and he is trained for that task. Just because his guns are seperated and under command of some company HQ´s to benefit from their extra values, doesn´t mean that he is free do to something else. The game implies that, but in reality he is still in charge of those IGs. And he won´t do a counterattack with totaly foreign Panzergrenadiers about 2.000 meters away. Same goes for Company HQs. Since the game works with "borg-spotting" you don´t need those HQs in their natural role as a filter for info and orders. Each sighting reaches you in the instant it is made. No official channel needed, no soldier-group leader-platoon leader-company leader chain. And no communication between Btl. and company either. But that is a game flaw, that allows you to use Captain miller as a front line hero, while as in reality he would be sitting in the rear of his platoons, coordinating the action. Of course sometimes HQs did fight, especially to encounter the breaching of forward lines, but their job is to lead the platoon leaders and heavy weapons, not to lead a platoon by them selves. Imho the game makes it very easy as it is, and even though it might be inconsistent with other games features to not allow all kinds of regrouping, I still wouldn´t like to see a change here. I love the fact that the game recognises leaders at all, and I don´t want to perforate the hierarchy even more.

To be honest, this doesn´t take more then 3 minutes in reality. Platoon leader: Hey Jones, where is your group leader? Privat Jones: He is dead, only me and Jenkins survived. Platoon leader: Dam! Ok, SMITH!!! SMITH!!!! Corporal Smith: Ay! Platoon leader: You take care of Jones and Jenkins now, let´s move we need to get outta here! .... that´s it. Can be done even on the run. But I guess in game terms it is rather hard to be represented.

Never questioned it is. I even said I do the same. But 2-3 planes in one turn are still enough circumvent this setup, and sometimes new planes appear before the turn ended. Thus you had no time to re-adjust them. No big deal, cheer up.

well, as soon as the first plane flew over the whole "trick" is for naught, aynway. I do that with mobile AA, since they shoot only backwards (at least it is said in the info text). Of course you are right if the first attacker is a lonly plane. I am used to play high budget games though, and my rule is one plane is no plane. Same with AA, one gun can never be enough. Thus there will be at least 3-5 planes in my games, rather 10-15 (Love those cheap Henschels).

Yep, I was much more afraid about the group system in CM before I started playing it anyway. I guess much of the trouble emerges from me being a Panzergrenadier platoon leader. And I must say it feels really, really bad to order my Pixel Soldiers into a position I know they will never come out again. I want hope for survival, because the hope to get away with your life is what keeps your moral high. Unless we are talking about highly fanatic and fearless fighters. Maybe CMX2 will have a better way to enable simple and streight runs. Maybe a new Command for "Sammelpunkte" is needed. Points you declare as gathering points in defense and especially in offense, fall back positions everyone knows. Could be to much fiddling for regiments attacking, though

Well, unfortunately there is no "global" morale in real-Life. Running away, again I mean LITERALLY running away, for your life to be precise is an individual thing. All you here is MOVE, MOVE, MOVE and the shots around you. Of course Mike might be daring enough to help wounded Gerome up and Franz might be so scared that Hans starts a discussion with him about running, but this is the exception, not the rule. But the whole action of running is a very personal thing, you don´t need a platoon leader nor a group leader to run. You need Adrenalin and stamina. You are propably faster with a rifle, and slower with a MG, but you don´t turn back much to notice that somebody else has gotten behind. All you try is finding the dam way out, especially hard in the dark. To use an allegory: If five men run away from a horde of lions in desperate fear, do they all turn around because one guy fell? Do they all stop because they lost contact to each other? I doubt it. As much as I like the concept of the groups in CM, the bondage is to close in certain situations. Appllied to WWII I come to think that CM Soldiers would have died in the very first battle, sitting in their position forever. In reality the VERY SAME SOLDIER ran off a position and retook it, and got driven off again several times a day. Impossible in CM. The casualties are much higher for several reasons, but one reason is the more than hard, virtually non existing option for short retreats in the game.

If you are defending in deep woods, it is possible to rush you mean out after the first encounter. But I guess you are talking about the more common small stripes of scattred trees and bushes you are sitting in. Generally I try to not place my men in those wood islands with the next cover more then 50m away. You have to defend and die there. You men will have no chance to escape during an attack of at least 3:1 strength. My impression is, that compared to Close-Combat this is an area where the CM-Engine fails to reflect the reality. As a platoon leader you give your men a point of retreat before the attack. And when you order your men to run, I literally mean RUN back to that spot, they will run. Some will stay, some will get shot, but they will run there individually. CM doesn´t allow that. If one guy is pinned, unanxious to run, cowered, out of breath or whatever he costs the live of the whole group. In CC he just stayed back, gave up, died or whatever. The rest of the group made it back, in bad shape and with wounded maybe, but at least they ran. Now if you have minimum cover and more forces around, you can help you CM-Soldiers a little. You said no smoke available, thus I guess no mortar fire to surpress the enemy either. The times I got away from an enemy I tried it this way. The forward platoon, or the one that was in the center of the attack, which it repulsed long enough and is about to get shot, has to be supported by friendly units. It should not be pinned at the turn you try to run or you end up with a seperated platoon. And it the enemy should be further away then 100m - 150m, otherwise just stay put and let them die like heroes. Better then getting killed with shots in the back. At least in game terms. Look at the disposal of weapons you got at hand. Even weapons that are rather far away to be effective. Now look at the enemy. All those guys that are standing, especially those that have the nasty red lines pointing on your "retreating" platoon should be fired at in the next minute. I experienced best effects when firing with two MMGs/HMGs at one group each. They won´t do that much this minute. Neighbouring platoons take on another group. If they are close enough they might do two, but I suppose they are not, otherwise they outha be pulled out, next turn. Guns, tanks and alike can do one group each, if reloading is fast enough. Don´t bother at all with allready running or pinned enemies. And shoot at the closest ones to your "retreating" platoon. You need 10-20 secs for your guys to get up an RUN. Once they made it at the back of there tree islands the number of possible threats is decreased and they keep on running often enough. Sometimes in panic, sometimes in order. The worst thing to happen is getting pinned, before you even got to stand up. You will loose those groups 100%, especially if the platoon leader did run out of command radius. Generally the whole thing is virtually impossible to happen without significant losses. Therefore never retreat when then enemy is under 200m is a good rule. Do it early or don´t do it at all. I think retreating is the hardest infantry action in CM, much harder than in Close-Combat.

I didn´t experience any difference in the calibers nor in the position (hill, trees, wheatfield, open) considering the chance to bring something down. Sometimes my 20mm Flak killed two, while my Flak-Vierling and 37mm Flak got none. I do think there is a difference in the performance of Russian and German AA, so. But of course this might be either the vulnerability of the different planes, the optics or the ammo of the different AA Guns involved. Anyways I feel it is easier to fend off Russian planes, then German bombers. Often enough I got a kill on a Sturmovik before it even fired a single shot, while as the commander of Russian forces I wasn´t sure if the Henschels dropped down because of lack of fuel or because my AA hit. These observations are totally random and subjective, though. As been said previuously, it is rather hard to do reliable tests. As long as shooting at all is concerned...my guns always shoot. No matter where they sit. But naturally, I never place them in deep woods, so I don´t know about a possible perfomance loss here. I do it, like it is done in (nowadays) procedures. AA is first to pick, when it comes to choosing positions. Generally I try to place them some spot they have LOS on advancing Inf, too.

No need to exchange insults with arguments. It is my opionion, that buying a tank is a risk. Because in most cases you could get other material and men for the money, that spread the risk to loss of a big chunk of points on several shoulders. Of course buying a tank includings the willingness to move it around, otherwise I might buy a bunker, but that doesn´t mean that you ought to have 100% control over the tanks performance. (100% on roads and dry ground that is). To put it into a rather hair-splitting way: You can either place the tank in a well choosen position and never need to move it, or you "risk" to loose it in a rather unuseful place while cruising on the map. Maybe I am to deep into realism. Maybe deep enough to actually gamble with playability (at least of the low budget scens) but I like it that way. Thus I am advocating the present system. When my company deploys to the nearby maneuver grounds via road, we suffer from all kinds of breakdowns on a short trip of 20km. All neat asphalt roads in good shape. Things like that happen. Surely I hate to be the platoon leader that looses one tank because of silly engine overcooking, oil loss and alike, but I can´t help it. Luckily this is all without enemy fire, therefore most problems can be solved in 10 - 30 minutes, but some things do even take longer and cannot be cleared on the road. This is reality, at least how I experience it in everyday life. Maybe our vehicles and drivers suck, maybe WW II tanks were much more realiable. But I feel the present system is going in the right direction.

Well, I think it is. Even buying a tank is a risk. Much money for a weapon system that can break down in times I really don´t want it to break down. And moving it can enhence mechanical failures, thus moving at all, no matter where is a risk. Yep, and I am perfectly fine with this. I do think that these risks are much higher, since they sum up trackingproblems and mechanical/human failures. Like the F1 car, it has some break downs in Monte Carlo, but it would never get far in country side France. If the game treats chances for immobilisations the same on dry roads and in mud, it is flawed. But my experince shows, that chances are much higher in bad terrain. Thus avoiding it, expecially avoiding to cross it helps to lower the chance of immobilisations. HOW? Well it does only lower the chance of getting tracked, not the chance of all other mechanical breakdowns and driver mistakes. It can´t got under the minimum of some breakdowns. The minimum you wish to be ruled out, like a houserule for board games. A houserule I would not submit to, since I like it the way it is right now.

1. I don´t feel it is game determing 2. This brings back the whole issue of other "random" things. Hitchances, Inf attacking a tank or not, Jamming, and so on. You ask why I object it? Because this is a disccussion asking for pros and cons, no? Do you think I would stop playing the game if it "features" a "never get tracked on dry ground button"? I just think it doesn´t make sense to rule some things out, that did, and noone is actually arguing against that, happen. Tanks broke down in all kinds of place, therefore I don´t see any need for artificial 100% safe places. Easy as that. Asides I don´t know what straw dude you are reffering to, but if you simply read the lines, you will see, that he asked for ZERO immob chances on roads and alike. Thus he IS neglecting the chance of mechanical breakdowns other than tracking in mud and alike. Thus it stays a vital argument. Because if the chance for immobilisations on roads and dry ground hits ZERO (for what ever game reason at all), you killed mechanical failures and human incompetency as an effect on vehicles. This is what I object to. I hated tracked tanks and frozen Engines since CC. But I never asked to get rid of it, just because I lost a ladder game with a Tiger Ie stuck in the back of the map. And compared ton the size of CM games, CC maps very really, really small and the impact of loosing a tank to immobilisation could be devastating, too. Again if you want to play chess, play chess. This game is trying to simulate war. It fails in many parts and does well in others, but a very good thing it does is giving chance a chance. That was important in Risk where one silly army could hold of my whole force and it was important in Empire, where Battleship King George V. sank 3 of mine, plus several Cruisers, DDs and a submarine. Not to count the lost planes. I hated the ship, I even hated my brother who was my opponent, but I never questioned the game mechanics because of that random effect.

Yep, you are right, everytime I used them, they didn´t work as well as plain rocktes. I figured, that the fires they start out might disturb my enemy a little more, but the actual number of fires spreading after impact is very small .

@ JC Well I don´t know if it´s my lack of English, but for me he makes a difference between immobilisations. How else do you explain, that he advocates a "proportional effect" of Zero, on dry terrain and roads? It´s rather obvious that he doesn´t take other immob´ reasons than loosing a track into account. And THIS is the flaw in my pont of view. I know you guys don´t like it, but the game ain´t screwed because you "loose" a tank once in while on dry ground, it will be screwed if you make it impossible that tank get immobed in all kinds of places. Because the "so-called heart-attack of the driver" can happen anytime and any place. A machine and especially WWII tanks aren´t 100% realiable. For a gazillion reasons. Why do you keep blaming it all onto ONE reason then? Continuous statements, that you aren´t interested in other reasons for immobilisations aren´t an argument, as I said. The overall proportion of breakdowns might be to low or to high, who knows. But we can´t seperate one single reason and work only with that as far as I see it. Or to formulate it a little more precise: A huge array of reasons for breakdowns that end in immobilisation are not place bound. Therefore it doesn´t make sense to give players control over them, unless we want a game that is more arcade style.