jBrereton

The sample's not that big in size, is it? Plus if you simply 'hide' them, you can give the order the next turn (seeing as they're Veterans, they won't leap up in worry when a THT goes past) and remove all of the cover arc sillyness.

Indeed, the vehicle is utterly toasted, but this happens much more in wargames than in real life, which I think is the genuine issue at the moment on this thread. By the way - what possessed you to get an even uglier grass texture?

Ermm well it's the TACAI's choice on the matter that really decides whether they use their satchels or not. Seeing as it's a veteran team, maybe you should have kept them hidden until it got closer, or have a cover arc set up for it before they targetted it. It's a bit hard to tell, tbh.

That's the unarmed carriers. </font>

They have Transport 6...

What happens when they have, say, three or so 37mm flak guns placed overlapping their fields of fire, though? Bit more difficulty involved that "one AC for one flak gun", no? Flak weapons are also extremely useful for pinning down infantry, though, as well as good AC killers. True, they can be poor if the enemy has a lot of artillery, but, to be honest, seeing as you claim that they're crap, surely you'll target something else instead, and the flak'll casually pick off a soldier here and there, and break up the odd attack.

They're quite handy for carrying around AT guns. Don't really use them for much else.

Inola - won't work if you're playing someone capable, they'll take steps like, say, bringing tanks with them, to stop such things occuring. Because when a transport comes up against even a light tank, it's going to have its cargo blown to smithereens along with it.

Nemesis, when CMx2 comes, your tactics won't work. Your victories seem to be the result of your infantry spotting your enemies and your MG armed ACs doing the grunt work. Since ACs mostly have very, very poor vision slits when buttoned up, they are no use at all for scouting in real life, or really even for support, when the bullets start flying. They're suitable for long-range patrols and scouting. They're not much for actual fighting in real life due to their frailty. Even in CM, a decent player shouldn't have any problem with your tactics to be honest. If any of them took light AT or flak, your ACs would be buggered, and if light flak was taken then your infantry would be too.

It's not in iambic, but it's still quite novel

Hmm yeah - question is - when is this taking place? Could we have some time info from the OP? Alright - let me rephrase that - "Any AFV cresting a hill is far more at risk than the same AFV going over flat land"

The StuG is an assault gun, they're for levelling buildings in cities and firing at infantry and support weapon positions etc., they weren't really meant for fighting armour. And cresting hills with ANY AFV will lead to its destruction, especially a self-propelled gun like the StuG.

Who's been closest so far?

Panther wins 11/20.

With a bit of practise, it's not too hard to do, to be honest. A Hellcat can move at, iirc, 55mp/h on roads. That's a tremendously useful ability. If you take a couple of HMGs on the back of each, a platoon of four Hellcats can create an astonishingly useful firebase, and they're also excellent for redeployment. Yes, they are rather vulnerable to actual fire, but at high speeds, that vulnerability is reduced a great deal. No idea. It probably does, because they're tremendously useful. It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

The Allied turretted TDs are basically harder to use due to the fact that they're more versatile, no? With a Jagdtiger, you know what you're getting - an 88 on tracks, with a whole load of armour. With something like a Wolverine, things are a bit different. You might use them as transports for platoons of machine guns and set up a strong firebase, due to their exceptional speed. You might use them for shoot and scoot, again, because they're speedy, but also because their turret lets them track targets easily - this can also extend to engaging infantry. These choices are what makes them slightly harder to use than the Axis TDs. As I said - Jagdtigers really have one aim in life - fire extremely deadly rounds, and take a bit of punishment (although keeping them out of the line of fire is also important). M10s, for example, can attack infantry as well as vehicles due to their turret speed, can be used without having to keyhole them, so they become a more versatile asset - and hence a commander can find a great many uses for them, and it's more of a dilemma as to when and where to use them for their best effect. On the other hand, a TD can move a great deal faster than an anti-tank weapon, and hence can be used to counter-attack and indeed retreat and redeploy on the defensive. If enemy vehicles are moving to within a few hundred metres of a TD, you can just run it away, stop after a couple of hundred or so metres, and fire straight away - this takes, in total, about a minute or two. With an AT gun, preferably you'd have a truck, APC or halftrack nearby to redeploy at speed - not often the case. If you didn't have this capability, your ATGs would have to trudge away at snail's pace - doubtless getting overrun, and then take a couple of minutes to redeploy their gun as well. For a static defense, ATGs are better, for something more flexible, I'd prefer a TD myself. A TD is a great many times faster than an ATG. This is important when rapidly on the advance - a TD can also be used as an impromptu tank, even if it's not very good at this, and can hunt down infantry ill-equipped to deal with it. An ATG is slow and can't be used to hunt down infantry while they retreat - they're simply too slow. If one made a 20x20km battlefield, it'd be clear why TDs were often preferred to ATGs. At 2x2 or so, it's a bit less clear cut. [ November 01, 2006, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: jBrereton ]

Try it with the /57 and /85 - your losses should be rather less on the Allied side.

True, but TDs are really for defensive use. There are a fair few tanks more suitable to AT work which are more versatile and survivable than TDs, for example the Firefly for the US and the Elefant for the Germans, although a Tiger is perfectly adequate at tank destruction in all fairness.

Good idea! It might well get people seriously interested in World War 2 history, which is nice. You could also provide them, if possible, with the "World at War" series, which has some good information on the subject if they're interested. If you had CM:BB you could also make a class in "what to do when horribly ill-equipped for a situation compared to your rivals" featuring early 1942 USSR vs. Germany.

Unless, of course, the enemy surrenders within those ten turns.

IIRC the German tanks almost always used MG34s, because MG42s were the 'wrong shape'. So keep it in mind that their firepower will be less than an MG42, machine-gun wise.

You shouldn't... at all... they're not for offensive usage. Don't use them as tanks, that's not what they're for.

The 88s are very powerful, and will pretty much make certain that every hit is a kill. At longer ranges, the same cannot be said of 75mm guns, although it's generally good enough. And having four 88s lined up in a row on a ridge is asking for trouble. Any ATG position will get knocked out quickly if it's too open. Hence you hide some of the guns, or keep them more spread out and hence reduce "accidental" knockouts from tank shells that miss, but because they're all lined up, will hit something anyway.

Shame that HE shells are always used to begin with by the TACAI. A 20mm flak gun has no chance of a kill with HE rounds against a wooden bunker, but uses all of the bloody things until it finally does use its AP and generally kills the bunker off in a turn or two. Bah.

I dunno, if rarity is on your side (I'm taking it that you're using variable rarity), then they're a good buy due to their effectiveness at any range due to their HC head. Otherwise I'll agree that a standard AT weapon is much more effective.