The Colonel

I've never driven a tank myself but I have two armor officers who were in the first gulf war working for me. They both agree that spinning over a trench in an M-1 would be a bad idea. However, on the first night they attached mine plows to some tanks and ran down the Iraqi trench line throwing sand into the trench to bury anyone in there. An interesting twist to overrun tactic I thought. They had to get pre-approval from the JAG to ensure they weren't going to violate any laws of armed conflict.

I like Peter Cairns' idea for wounded. And I definitely would want killed AFVs to remain on the map. Dead bodies and destroyed tanks add to the immersion...I just like the feeling of satisfaction of moving the camera down a road strewn with the burning vehicles of my vanquished foe.

CHANGE: 1. I'd like a screen that lists all my current units and their status, like suppression level, ammo remaining etc.. and the ability to select a unit on that screen and go to it on the map. 2. In the scenario editor, affects for taking objectives other than just points. For example, a reinforcement's arrival conditional upon an objective being held (could be used for a bridge, dock, intersection etc.) or ammo levels drop if an objective is lost (e.g. ammo dump) 3. Beyond line-of-sight indirect fire...I should be able to zero in mortar fire on top of a ridge, the adjust a few clicks down on the elevation to drop the rounds on the backside of the ridge where my mortar/platoon commander can't see. 4. Greater morale effect of having company and battalion HQs in the area, and morale deficit for units in their chain if they are eliminated. 5. A "line-of-sight" map option for each unit, where you can look down on the map and all the areas visible to him are shaded. KEEP: 1. I know I'm in the minority on this, but hear me out. I think Borg spotting has to stay. The reason is that a player essentially has "Borg control" over all of his forces. In other words, you can still give orders to a unit that is out of command, albeit with some delay. In reality you may not even know where your own units are or be able to give any orders at all if it is the real-world equivalent of "out of command". But as a player we get a "God's eye view" which is necessary to be able to play the game. Therefore you know exactly where all your own units are and can always communicate with them. Borg spotting is a necessary side effect of this. Imagine how complex it would be if an enemy unit were moving toward your lines. First you have to check each unit to see who has LOS to that unit, like we do now, then you have to somehow determine who is actually seeing it. And if a unit has LOS to the emeny, but doesn't "see" it, what will we do? Would there be a "hey look over there" order? Because if any my units on the map spots an enemy unit, then I as the player have knowledge of that unit. And if I as the player can communicate with any of my units at anytime, then that should include all the current knowledge of the enemy locations. Which means Borg spotting. I know it's not necessarily realistic, but I think the gameplay mechanics would be a disappointment to many if we did away with it. 2. Please keep the flexibility in size of game that can be played, as I like scenarios approaching Division size. [ September 08, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: The Colonel ]

I've noted that it takes 40 seconds from shell impact to the start of the smoke plume regardless of shell size. And remember what Soddball said, the wind strength definitely plays a role in how long the plume hangs around. One of my favorite tricks for making an instant and long-lasting smoke screen is to blow up an intervening building in the area if one's available. I've seen smoke from building collapse last over 5 minutes.

I wouldn't imagine anyone using it to see your opponents setup. If you're playing the AI and sticking to scenario default setup, there's no fun in seeing where the enemy is. In H2H, doesn't your opponent do his own setup? Mine all do. And they also use the map for testing.

Mystro you can also go to your scenario editor and open up the scenario file. Then go to map editor and preview map. Then you can place forces anywhere on the map and check LOS.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain the game engine does not account for degrees of hull down. Just go into the scenario editor and set two opposing tanks across from each other on ridgelines. The probability of a hit is exactly the same for a hull down vehicle, regardless of how much you tweak it up or down the ridgeline. I used to go to great pains getting my tank guns to barely peak over a ridgline, but now I don't think it matters. It's hull down or not. Plus, remember that the terrain graphics that you see aren't necessarily exactly the same level as the terrain being modeled. So you couldn't really eyeball a perfect hull down position anyway.

I did get an Hs-129 to make a successful bomblet attack the other day. It took out an SU-76 with a large barrage of small explosions covering about 100 meters long and 20 meters wide. It didn't seem to bother the infantry in the area though (in foxholes in woods).

Neutral Party's trick works like a champ. I never would have figured that out....Thanks.

Does anyone have a trick for area targeting the top story of buildings when you don't have LOS to the bottom floor? It seems like CMBB won't let you "see" the second story unless you can see the first story also. But when an enemy unit is visible in the second story, you can see it and fire at it. But when it hides, you can no longer area target there if you don't have LOS to the bottom story. Very frustrating. Anybody else have this problem? (I have done a word search of old threads and came up empty.)

I actually thought of that a while back and tried running some experiments at night to determine at what distance approaching units produce sound contacts. I used unhidden platoon HQs for the "listeners". I had approaching infantry coming through a forest at everything from "sneak" through "run", and armor on a nearby dirt road in both "move" and "fast". To precisely establish the point at which a unit is heard I first wrote down the clock time when the sound contact appeared, and then viewed the opposing force movie to see where the unit actually was at that second. I first did 10 trials with calm wind. Then (after getting yelled at by my wife for "spending too much time on this dumb game") I did 10 trials with Strong wind. There was no apparent affect of wind speed. As you would expect, the faster units are moving the earlier they can be heard. But the wind didn't matter. There was a slight variation on the distance that units were heard from trial to trial, but the variance was very small. You could easily predict where the moving infantry and the running infantry would produce sound contacts. I was interested in the topic because I'm about to launch an 80 turn 45,000 strength point night attack in a PBEM game.

The best way to get them is to use the scenario editor and open up any scenario. Then go to map editor and map preview. While your on the preview map you can move both sides forces around into different terrain. Then set an opposing force unit nearby and use the LOS tool. It will display the relative exposure of any unit you hold the cursor over. You can learn alot about how the game thinks by messing around with this. Somebody also put together a table that I can email you on all the exposure numbers.

I like putting them in my trenches too. I also like to place them 25m or so behind my trenches and hide them. Then after the inevitable battle for the trench, when the enemy thinks he's won and moves his infantry into the trench, (let's face it, after we've killed all the units in a trench we all love to move all our men in there, just because we can) my FT's pop up and torch it. I've pulled this maneuver twice and it's quite satisfying.

Just ran the experiment and Andrew Kulin is exactly correct. Morale is a percentage of the on map units. So having happy units hide off map will reduce your overall morale.

Brent - I say fire away! If someone calls you gamey, just pretend you didn't know. I doubt many have followed this meandering thread this far. yuvuphys - Good budget data, thanks for the covering fire! throwdjohn - No one knows the price of war more than those who've fought in it. And I agree that education is crucial to any country. But I'd be willing to wager that in the history of mankind more poets, artists and teachers have died at the hands of their own government, while men of free nations quietly look away in the name of peace, than have died in all wars put together.

yeh, my gunless tanks usually get enlisted for halftrack duties to shuttle infantry around, plus as a mobile MG nest. Empty mortars are moved to a secluded hideout. Crews are a bit tougher. I, like most guys, consider attacking with them to be gamey. Having them hideout to spot is OK, but they don't spot well. On the defense they can delay the enemy by popping up with their trusty pistols and pin a squad if they're lucky. I don't consider them defending to be gamey, since what choice would they have. Even in RL they bailout, find a place to hide, and may eventually have to defend themselves. Interesting point by Andrew Kulin on global moral effects by drawing down the total force. Should be easy to confirm with an experiment. I'll check it out.

I agree. I think you've done about all you can do in that situation.

Next time you play CM, try using only 1941 weapons against an experienced opponent using only 1945 weapons. Then you'll get a taste of why we spend money on star wars crap.

Interesting. I did an experiment with 2 lines of Russian FTs and had them area target each other until the ammo was gone, with no effect. Maybe your conscript started the building he was in on fire and that fire was what effected him. So I guess there can be secondary friendly fire issues if you set the terrain on fire. Both flamethrowers and napalm were removed from the US inventory decades ago.

I have had success with attacking with flamethrowers in woods or hilly terrain, especially for clearing out trenches and foxholes. Remember you don't have to move the flamethrower into LOS of the target. If you can sneak to where you have LOS to a point near the enemy, but not necessarily LOS to the enemy itself, then you can area target that point near the enemy. Just coming close with a flamethrower is all you need to panic the enemy and send them running out of the trench/foxhole. Also, remember that you don't have to worry about friendly fire kills with flamethrowers. In this game your troops are not affected by your own flamethower bursts. So even if you have a bunch of friendlies in the area, fire away.

I've never seen it in CMBB. I've even done some experimenting to see if infantry can hide behind tanks. The exposure numbers for the infantry was the same whether they were in the open or behind a tank, which leads me to believe there is no impact on LOS or cover from tanks. (Contrary to what the Strategy Guide tells you). But, I wish there were. How many old photos have we seen with a squad of infantry crouched down behind a tank as it moves forward? Seems like it was a fairly common practice. I know that's where I'd be.

As far as the "fluke" surrenders go, I've done some experiments and a key factor seems to be the ratio of the number enemy units visible to the unit to the number of friendly units visible to the unit. This makes sense, since you'd be more likely to surrender if you believe you're out there on your own. But there's obviously many other factors and there's no way to tell for sure without the software formulas. It just seems like the times I've captured large squads without that much suppression, it's been when their within sight of huge numbers of enemy but few friendlies. Of course, if the opposite were true why would you surrender. And I agree with Krautman, too many prisoners are the lone MG crew type. Are these guys chained to their weapon? Seems like they should be able to abandon the gun and run, instead of being immobile and helpless. [ April 20, 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: The Colonel ]

I agree with JasonC that the Hull Down command is a disaster waiting to happen. The tanks will continue to roll forward until two conditions are met, they have LOS to the point you designated AND are hull down to it. The problem is LOS can be hard to predict until you're there. Some scattered trees, or even smoke that lands after you started moving can block your tanks view of the designated point. So they may, and often do, continue driving toward the point well beyond where you wanted them to halt. You'll find yourself yelling "STOP" at your computer screen as they happily drive to their death. I personnaly prefer the "HUNT" command when moving up to a ridgeline. That way your armor will halt and target the emeny as soon as they see them, which should have you in the hull down position you wanted.

I managed to "rescue" a captured 6 man squad and repatriate them back into my army. The only problem is after they've been prisoners, they are totally unarmed.

Der Kuenstler, Along with shell size, a major factor in how long the smoke remains is how strong the winds are. Make sure you try differing wind speeds or at least match the wind in the game you're playing when you run your experiment. Other than determining how long smoke hangs around and how easily ground fires spread, I've never been able to find any other effects from the wind speed setting. [ April 19, 2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: The Colonel ]