ActionMan

Did you realise that for a pre-planned barrage, the FO does not need LOS on the target. I am using this in a CMAK scenario in I am trying to build where there is an air strike by heavy bombers before the ground forces go in. I am representing this with several FOs with different size guns (representing different size bombs) pre-planned to hit the target on the first move. None have LOS on the target. I have just checked in CMBB and LOS is not needed here either.

I have no idea if this is the right place for this question, but I am sure someone in the Combat Mission family can give an answer. At lunchtime today someone was looking at a book on the Second World War. It had pictures of the Nuremberg rallies showing the banners. The banners had swastikas aligned horizontally/vertically. However, the flags and aircraft markings have swastikas aligned diagonally. At the time when the rallies had horizontal swastikas, the aircraft, eg Ju52s flying Hitler around, had diagonal swastikas on the tail. Does anyone know why there is a difference? Thanks in advance for your input.

I would agree that CMAK modified for ETO is better. It can also be used for the campaigns of 1939/40. However, there are some things missing from CMAK, specifically King Tigers and Pershings (Comets too?). King Tigers were becoming more common on the Western Front, replacing Tiger 1s. To model ETO battles you really need King Tigers. Also, I enjoy playing hypothetical assaults on Berchtesgarten and the Alpine redoubt. For these you need King Tigers and Pershings.

I had understood from other threads that "bogging" relates to more than just a vehicle stuck in mud. I thought it also covers mechanical failures, which were a big problem with later German tanks, as they were sabotaged by the slave workers in the factories.

If a mortar is in contact with a platoon or company HQ, then it can fire under instructions from the HQ without being in sight of the target. So if the HQ is within 50m of the target and the mortar in contact with the HQ, then the mortar can fire. This also allows a mortar to be hidden in a wood or behind a rise if the HQ can see the target. The mortar is then safe from return fire.

I recently made a scenario in CMAK, modified for France 1940, which was to simulate a German river crossing against the French. When I determined the units I allocated one sharpshooter for each boat to bring the boats back. This works quite well, as the boat can take a sharpshooter and another unit, though it may be only one mortar. I encountered two problems. Firstly, as already mentioned, it takes about 3-4 moves to turn a boat around to return to the other bank and then it needs to turn again! The second problem was with a second assault boat unit appearing as reinforcements. They were supposed to appear on the river bank close to a mined bridge (representing a damaged bridge to be repaired by engineers as part of the scenario). The boats, presumably handled by the AI as vehicles, preferred to be on a road, e.g. the mined bridge! So I laid a track alongside the river, which worked well, until in one test a HT was on the track. This meant that the platoon leader's boat appeared on the road near the bridge and took 5 turns before it got to the river, by which time the platoon units had been routed! After all the development the scenario was fun to play though.

When fighting a battle against the AI, there is the option of the AI being free to place units. Does the AI do this in a random way or is does it use some intelligence?

The designations for the I and II mean agricultural tractor. They are the names they were given during developemnt and production to hide from the rest of the world that the Germans were making tanks. In exactly the same way that the word 'tank' came into being to hide from the Germans that the British were making a secret weapon.

I have recently been given CMAK (and CMBB, isn't Father's Day wonderful!). I have a vague memory of some scenarios for Operation Sealion. Is this so and where can I find them? I would also enjoy any scenarios from the Blitzkriegs in 1939 and 1940.

This converter sounds very useful. Where can I find it?

I presume by "bogged" you mean the generic CMBO representation of an immobilisation. The Tiger was on the road and the ground conditions were not muddy. Does this represent a mechanical failure?

I was just playing Villers-Bocage - Tiger! Hot Seat with my teenage son. He was most disappointed when Wittmann's Tiger was immobilised at the very end (60 sec) of turn 4. It appears to have been stopped by my M3A1 half-track, armed with a 0.3" and a 0.5" machine gun. It was then very easy for my Crommwells to get behind it and take it out. Wittmann was killed shortly after abandoning the knocked out tank. How is it possible for a half-track to stop a Tiger, or was it an AI generated immobilisation to represent the poor mechanical reliability of the Tiger? :confused: The tank was still on the road, so it would not have been due to bogging.

I managed to get a section of Brit paras behind a Jagdpanther. They threw 2 satchel charges from a distance of about 20m. The second one immobilised it, so that a Firefly could get round to the flank and take it out. I was very impressed with the infantry / armour co-operation, though I had hoped the satchel charges would do the job on their own.

My point in raising this topic was not really to discuss the use of MMG carriers for scouting, as scouting is being ably discussed in the other thread. The real point is how best to use the carriers. For example, are they useful as mobile machine gun nests?

I have been reading the thread on armoured cars and scouting with interest. I was wondering if the use of MMG carriers would come up. These appear in several CMBO scenarios (possibly other CMs too). I have wondered about the best way to use them. Are they usefull for scouting or as mobile machine gun nests? Do they have another better use? I would be glad to hear what you more experienced players think of these.