PFMM

Thanks for these. I've played three of them and both my opponents and I have enjoyed them. Still think they would be good as an operation.

Look at it this way; AT guns are tanks without both mobility and protection. Their one advantage is that they have a low silhouette which disappears the moment they fire a shot. Given this, do you really think an AT gun wants to duel with a tank?

Don't know wether it's cheating or not, but what happens is that the script for the mission will determine where your units are before dumping on them. One way to obviate this is to spread them out even more. As to the T34, sounds more like your substandard Soviet rounds are shattering on impact.

Aha. That problem. Yes it annoys the hell out of my opponents and I. I've always assumed it was a bug or some wacky limitation of the engine, and over the years have learned to live with it by treating as part of the game (either leave them there or move them). If it is design, I can only think that the designers are saying this area is too crowded move them elsewhere. Apart from that I try not to think about it too much and space my units out to minimise it at the end of a particular battle. Hope for CMC to fix it? I dunno.

It seems inspired by the Advanced Squad Leader historical module rules. I think the no man's land parameter is a compromise to reflect the terrain (lower for denser terrain, higher for open terrain) and the amount of infiltration over time into an area of troops from both sides as they take a breather between bouts (again lower for long times and higher for short times). In my opinion, I like it. I tend to play mostly operations when I can, and like the continuouty and bluff that they present. I'd advise you to take full advantage of the ability to move your troops around.

Well colour me a pessimist in this regard. I'm currently editing some missions, and I've come to the realisation that one will have to code for each and every missionevery time. It's not just a matter of placing the right forces in the right places anymore and having at it, you have the prime responsibility of the game play as well. Map editing, forget it. The amount of time required and the technology involved place this outside most peoples reach. I don't see much community mapping for IL2 and that's much more popular. Skin editing should have been in from the start and I'm still scratching my head as to why that was left out. The more I look at things the more they need a Gautrek dusty mod. Oh well, one can only hope for matters to improve I guess.

hobo, the real answer to your question lies in the script that governs the scenario. Quite often the script will check wether there are units in a given area, and if present vector units to it. Other times the forces are arranged in such a way as to force an engagement. Once there, they (in theory and from my observation) use the same rules as you. My wish for help about the environmental visibility mentioned in my previous post still stands. Any takers?

hobo, that doesn't seem true. I've played the training mission 3 (the awf ullone with the AT guns) and if you put your AT man in the bushes he can pop a way for awhile without being spotted. In fact I crawled him around for a while and he nailed two PzIIIs before he was killed. On the same front though I cannot get a grip with the visibility model. I'm using tutorial 1 as test for visibility effects for my missions (I want to do a suprise dawn attack in fog) and am getting unwanted results. For instance, I have fog at 0 20 0 500 1000 and rain falling, yet just after the snipers appear and walk a few metres down the road both they can see the AT gun and the AT gun can see them a about 150 metres, and through a cluster of bushes to boot. And nothing I try seems to change this. What am I doing wrong? Help.

Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, so while units are harder to spot in both inclement weather and lighting they are no harder to hit than in clear conditions? On another front, I'm trying to put together some single missions. I have no problem with the coding or structure ,but I wonder how much of the gameplay is up to the scenario designer. Lets say I send some light tanks to an area where the player has a heavy tank. Will the light tanks engage the heavy tank in meaningfull way (ie by using cover, avoiding the heavy tank's gun, etc.) or will they just stick to the script and attempt to shoot it out? Any poinetrs in this area would be most appreciated.

Another one from me. How do light and environmental conditions affect spotting and shooting? Do they make units harder to spot and shoot? Do they limit the range at which they may be spotted and shot at? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for taking the time. Is there some way of minimizing the amount of shuffling your troops do without using the hold order? Why do they do it? And how could we best use it?

SirReal, That is also a lousy ambush. You've placed all your tanks so they engage one on one. What you want in multiple on one from multiple angles. Learn to mass your armour better.

Well it's good to see some interest in smaller games. I've got the next fortnight off from work and have the following scenarios to the stage where they're almost playable: A comapany of bazooka armed US infantry try at dawn with the aid of fog to clear a couple of German tanks plus a depleted force of infantry before their reinforcements show up. Suprise raid by US troops on a rear supply area. Can the Germans form a viable defense? Reworking of the Demo mission to a recon by force at night by a reinforced Soviet battalion (150 men and about 10 tanks) against a rag tag and very second rate outpost. This one is the most advanced and I like it a lot. I've still got a lot to learn and there are still many things that niggle at me, but the potential is there. Hope to keep you posted.

The confusion of scale. The game seems to be designed for small(company sized or less) actions in close contact (say about a kilometre or less) of each other. Instead the Demo provides a major Soviet attack with a mere hundred infantry. There should be a least a thousand! I reverse engineered a scenario of about a 100 men with a section of tanks attacking a force of about 50 with some anti-tank guns within a square of about half a kilometere a side, and find it far more enjoyable and manageable (on a side note it is bloody hard work to do this compared with combat mission). The biggest question is why? And does the full game contain more of the sort of battles presented in the demo?

My take on it. First a gripe. It would be nice if we could check out the lay of the land and the deployment area BEFORE we choose our forces. The first thing to note is there nowhere really decent to deploy. Almost all the deployment positions are exposed and you're going to suffer heavy artillery and HE chuckers. Take the Panther, PzIV ,Jagdpanther one infantry squad and the command squad. The tanks go hulldown as one in a small hollow that overlooks both the railway and the canal bridge. Expose the Jagdpanther more to draw fire and reverse them into the bushes at the first chance. As tanks become visible put as many shooters on them as possible to shut them down as quick as possible. One squad is scattered among the frontline trenches to minimise losses from artillery and act as a delaying force. Most of the panzerfausts and the commander go with the pillbox fort near the canal. Spread them out! The rest of the infantry is going to get out of town and up a tree line ravine then cut across at the end to a plateau at the top. Pull back even further behind a small rise and bring them forward when the Soviet infantry charges to the top. Have fun.

For those who have played the Combat Mission series everything that applies there applies here. On anti-tank guns, they are ambush weapons. Unless you have overwhelming numbers never reveal them at range. Deploy them so when a tank sees them, it's the last thing it sees. You want ranges of less than 200 metres. Reverse slopes, behind and in stands of trees, keyholed within villages, and so on. On tanks, take the biggest, baddest ones you can lay your hands on and lots of them. Present a wall of iron so that if one is shot at all the others can reply in kind. Support them with infantry to help them flush out AT infantry and guns. If the supporting infantry is fired on the tanks kill it, if the tanks are fired on the infantry kill it. Have fun.

No Squatdog, for every story of woe you can produce there are at least ten more recorded instances that are so surreal they make yours look sensible in comparison. In short some people don't like being shot at, while others don't care how much lead you throw at them. Maybe a little more caution on your part in future. Stop trying to steal all the glory while getting your men killed.

If you read Hackworth's About Face he describes an action where, during the Korean War, he witnessed a lone North Korean pin an entire company of Americans attacking him for about a quarter of an hour and then send them scrambling. And there are plenty of others I'm sure. It's not as absurd as you think.

OES95 Territory is won by firepower not moving. The only reason to move is to bring that firepower into play, or to place it so when the enemy moves he comes under fire (eg to cut off his escape routes). Moving under fire gives the enemy a free shot. So when to move under fire? 1) When the range is long and your fire will be ineffective as will his. 2)When closing even closer is worth the cost of losses and will undermine his position. 3)When it will reveal additional shooters at minimal cost to you which you can engage with free units. In both offence and defence concentrate firepower. On defence look for supporting positions where multiple types of firers can hit multiple types of targets (ie no dead zones). Go for depth, if he attempts to take a position or actually does so comes under fire from other positions. On offence attack in depth, scout his positions and then pin them in place, bring up additional firepower and blast the choice ones. Move other firepower to the rear to cut him off and blast him if he repositions. Then move on. In all cases get as close as you dare for best results and patience. Hope it helps.

On Combat Tactics I would ignore the advice given. Never ever present anything but your best armour towards an anti tank position. Bait him into firing at a pawn and then let him have it. On Defensive Tactics it looks as though the mission is bugged. Those tanks have see everything homing explosive laser beams mounted.

Played the tutorials and the one demo mission a few times. G - 17 (nice tanks, nice animations and less chocolate box scenery please) S - 15 U - 18 (easy for me with some nice options) P - 18 O - 18 Total - 86/100 I liked it alot, the action was good, it looked good and I had fun. Complaints, while the vista was nice it tends to blandness, and the vehicles that drive over everything is a bit much as was the pathfinding in general. As an old Combat Mission player I didn't see anything in Theater of War that was too far remove from what happens in Combat Mission. Good Stuff.

I haven't tried the Theater of War Demo yet, but I think the biggest stink Combat Mission players will raise is the reduction in scale. Combat Mission is battalions with platoon manuever, the next incarnation looks to be Company with team manuever. At this rate we will be playing Computer Ambush again. Bleh.

I disagree that better graphics is just eye candy. What you see is what you get is a critical part of playing Combat Mission, and a more refined graphical display can only add to the playing experience. As to the way forward, easy; less abstraction of command effects, relative spotting, refinements of the tactical routines, more building variety, ability to include player made models (for static display), more player options, and on and on. Plenty of work for all. As for Combat Mission Campaigns they claim it's only a few bugs, just a few here and there and everwhere.

Tried the demo and didn't like it. The graphics are not much better than Combat Mission's, the board game sequence of play slows the action and adds nothing, even more abstracted infantry than Combat Mission, clumsy interface and non destructable terrain. Despite all this it seems they are planning an add-on.

The Germans used Fords! I never knew. As to the paint job, I like, particularly the tray. Nice wood grain effect. Though more mud on the mudguards would be nice.