NameUsedBefore

Honestly, I would go across the open. If I were your opponent I'd be looking for you to frog-hop across the neighboor-hood area. I might put an MG or a sniper or two (and maybe even a tank) near the open area, but I wouldn't put my main force there. You're funneling a LOT of guys into a very small area, and that can be dangerous. Your best route may be simply going across that big area. Hell, if at all possible you may be able to get across stealthily and without problem. You look easy to trap, contain, and destroy with your plan. Too bunched up, IMO, and you're vulnerable to having a lot of guys in a building that your opponent may see fit for demolition. Not a good thing.

T-70s en masse.

Talking of all these snipers... Has anyone ever made a scenario where each "side" gets a group of snipers (with other units) on a very small map and just has to find each other? Probably boring, but intriguing.

I think if Germany wouldn't have invaded, the Soviets would have. When? I don't know. I also have my own theories that if the Western Allies didn't land in France then Russia would've gladly "liberated" it for the 'cause' and the Cold War may have had a different picture. They're all just theories, but I believe strongly in them.

^ Read Carl's post. Even before they opened those archives anyone with anysort of knowledge of the hatred between Facism and Communism would realize that if one didn't pull the trigger, the other would. Germany simply squeezed first.

What are the odds of a sniper hitting a crewmember from a tank? Is it rare or...? And does the skill of a sniper matter? I recently bought a handful of green and conscript snipers and I'm not sure if I should have spent those points elsewhere.

If that was true I'm guessing to have them in the game their rarity would have to be +500% or something, jeez.

Ugh. All that I said was to take place if both people had played the scenario before. If you're going to qoute and pick at one of my posts at least read the disclaimer however subtle it was.

Well if that's the case I agree completely. However, it appears that most often people have already played the scenario they're currently doing. If they've both played it then what is the point? Again, QB's offer a randomness and make the players adapt. Yes, you both will start on certain edges of the map; but few scenarios deviate from this set-up itself anyway. In scenarios I know the enemy is out there just as much as I do with QB's; the difference is in scenarios I have a pretty accurate idea of where he is (in strength/weakness) and with what --- in a QB I know he's out there, but I don't know with what, or possibly where. I just know he's out there, period.

As a writer myself I find people who steal work in the modern age (downloading music, games, books etc.) to be rather disgusting. The way that these people, who are actually rather ordinary citizens, literally steal (that is: break the law) and don't so much as think twice is just appalling. They don't realize that the only difference from stealing with a mouse click to doing it straight from a store is only cosmetic: either way you're being a thief, no different then the ones you see on T.V. getting caught and beat down by cops and store-owners. Eventually the world will catch up and the law will get with the Internet-age but until then stolen property is a huge concern for everyone in the given businesses. It's just sad that people can't even realize what they're doing is no different from the scumbags who do it in the actual stores.

Sorry but in a scenario you already know what you're facing, where, and in what number. Again, scenarios seem to favor those who know the technicalities of the game. In a QB you don't know what you're facing. There's plenty to adapt too: The weather, the terrain, what your opponent has, how much your opponent has, and where your opponent is. BTW: most scenarios have your basic you start here I start here concept. To say that's a reason there's nothing to adapt to in QB's is ridiculous. Where else should we start? How about I start in the middle and you start to the left, yay? Yay. P.S. Scenario: Always the same. Units always the same. Terrain stays the same. Weather stays the same. The conept of the scenario will forever stay the same. QB: Exact opposite. So, tell me, there's no adapting to what is random? But in something that will never change you must adapt? I'm failing to see the logic in that.

It has always been my belief that if Germany had captured Moscow during the initial surge it would've only prolonged the outcome of the war. Russia was just too vast and populated of an area. But, it has also been my belief that if the railway station Gorky had been captured, then Germany might have had some success. Blah, who knows?

My problem with scenarios? Well, there's so many of them so I will almost always play one I have not even seen yet. What happens here? My opponent knows what I start with and probably where, but I have no idea of what he starts with and where. Can there be a larger advantage? That's why I prefer QB's. QB's even the playing field because both of you are blundering into it with NO knowledge of what the terrain will be like and what your enemy will have. QB's DO have you making do with what you have as much as scenarios do. The difference is that you actually have to adapt in a QB whereas in a scenario you already have a mindset of where things are going be going. So, really, I'm not a big fan of scenarios. They're far too static for my liking in the sense that some things are already pre-destined. There's only so many things you can do in one scenario and with what. In a QB you have a nearly unlimited number of variables to play with. QB's appear to revolve around adapting to what's there; while scenarios revolve around simply knowing the technicalities of the game itself (like distancing between squads and 'splitting squads/combining them' like you said). I prefer the former.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/bren.htm Do you want the gun or...?

Wow I was just about to make a topic about this too... whew!

^ That's horrifying.

So, do I target with the HQ... or mortar? If the HQ has the line of sight, but the mortar doesn't, will the mortar still show a "clear" firing lane (even, let's say, if it's through a forest or something)?

I don't think I'm getting this. If the HQ has to be in command of the mortar/artillery spotter, then wouldn't it be probable that his LOS is almost exactly the same as the mortar/spotter's? More detail...?

Exactly how is this done? I've seen people mentioning how you should place mortars and artillery spotters/launchers behind hills and just have HQ's spot for them. But I have no idea how to do this ...

Since I am a writer, I have found that criticism (especially early on) helped me a lot more than it did harm. I think it depends on the person's characteristics and personality.

Do you guys remember the Close Combat games? Well, the second one was set during Operation Market Garden. In my first play of the game I had pushed the British into Arnhem but could not actually take and hole the bridge. So I holed up my pocket of troops in the eastern side of the city occasionally taking ground all in wait for the Allies to show up. Except I failed to get the Allies there before almost the entire British force was anniahlated. From what I remember the entire center of the city-area was just these little "pixel" rubbles. You could no longer distinguish where an actual building lay as they began overlapping. Mortar holes took place of actual ground and grass. One certain alley way had three tanks, victims of sneak-PIAT attacks (which I maneuvered brilliantly till the end; they ran out of ammo). The troops? When evacuated there was one MG left, no ammo. A handful of half-squads/ad-hocs, very few of the men in those had ammo, usually something like two or three shots. PIAT was empty, and one operator was incacipated. That was the last time I'd seen such destruction in a war/strategy-game. This reminds me of that, except less city and more burning forests and tanks. And a whole of lot more casualties... There was a certain moment of drama and excitement, though, when I had to plug that middle-sector. The fear of losing my precious ATG's was huge, and I actually moved a platoon that I had positioned way-far away into the forest, coming up just in the knick of time as my initial defences became utterly used-up. One squad of 12 was down to one man, in fact, and he ended up surviving the battle, holding down the eastern-side of the forest with the help of surrounding MG's. The molotov-heaving ampulets, and a few actual throws from the troops, resulted in numerous forest fires. I'm not sure, but can those actually get out of hand? I was a little afraid they'd just burst out and just take the whole forest with 'em (and my ATGs); but for the most part they were contained. Also, for those who were reading about my troops taking out tanks. Well, it happened numerous times with the ampulents (sp?)... but, never with a squad. However I actually had two squads of 10 get 10m away from a tank and keep it tied up for three or four minutes. In one instance the tank lowered its barrel and fired a shot into one squad, instantly killing two; but after a brief panic they were right back in it. It seemed that the men were so close the tank could not get off a proper shot. The tank itself was a PzIV, so those grenades they threw didn't do any damage that I know of. Eventually, as the squads lingered just meters away from the treads, the tanks started to reverse where it immediately came into the view of an ATG and was blown away by two successive hits (also giving me the best explosion of the battle yet!).

http://www.carlstumpf.com/combat%20mission/Aberdeen/More_Aberdeen_Equipment.htm The 76mm is what I was talking about.

Ahhhhh...

I've started playing the 'Blitzkrieg' operation as the Soviets. I just finished the second battle and have taken out a good number of tanks and infantry. Anyway, I don't think I've seen so much destruction in this game till now. I had entire sections just lighting up with gunfire, guys getting cut down, whole 12-man squads of conscripts trying to run away but getting blown apart by an artillery round. There were a few forest fires from the ampulents (sp) whose molotovs actually knocked out quite a few light-tanks. A good deal of the German tanks had caught fire due to 7.62mm shots (I had strengthened one flank with ATG's and had predicted the German actions right: they swarmed the area with tanks which cut down in a massive cross-fire). An artillery barrage destroyed two houses and, in one tree-burst, killed one of my HQ's completely. There were multiple situations of opposing squads fighting at 5m-and less. On occasion they'd be at 1m/2m apart just blasting away. By the end of the second battle the field was in total ruin. One side had a forest-fire going with quite a handful of dead German and Soviet soldiers plus some knocked out light-tanks and half-tracks. A patch of a forest was covered in artillery-craters where an intensive infantry battle had commenced; I think there were 8-eliminated squads in the area and a burnt-out half-track. In the middle there was a large forest-section which had it's bordering lit-aflame. The battle in that particular forest was confusing for both sides. On two occasions we each had squads way past the rest of our main contingents. I had to pull troops from other sectors to help out in fear that the middle of my battle-line would collapse (and that my ATGs would be flanked). To the left was nothing but mortar craters. In an attempt to keep a wave of troops from rolling over my weak defence there I had four-mortars and spot-mortars just bombard the entire area. It worked: only two known squads were seen in the area. However, this is the spot where a multitude of unfortunate tanks were caught in a killer-crossfire. The air was clogged with smoke and the ground astrewn with dead crewmen. I'm so used to doing just quick battles and regular-scenarios, destruction like this I have never seen before --- and I still have three battles to go!

Broken guns probably happen a lot more often then you think. Remember, you can't really know if it has happened or not.