Tux

This works quite well as long as you don't try Sherman Vs Sherman. I did that once and the entire battle devolved into farce as it became clear that neither side could penetrate the other frontally, even at zero range. My opponent and I ran out of main gun ammo and then agreed to dismount and fight to the death with Colts and Thompsons. That was... interesting.

Looks like the alternative is to have it sticking up 3ft above the soldiers' heads. How should a bazooka be carried in such a small vehicle?

Thanks for the Target Light tip, Poesel. I was using full "Target" so it's good to know this could have hindered my tankers' ability to make the 'break-contact' call.

Yes, the Panzer crew were unbuttoned and almost instantly spotted the Priest as it hove into view. I have managed to check and the Pz III crew were normal motivation. It's interesting and gratifying to hear that people have seen a range of self-preservation behaviour. Perhaps the only thing I would question is whether "out-of-ammo" should have a significant added impact on the likelihood of a tank crew attempting to break contact. I suppose then you have to ask what "out-of-ammo" means. Do smoke rounds count? HE? It could quickly get annoying if attempts to smoke or disable an enemy tank with an AFV that was out of AP rounds repeatedly failed as the crew refused to remain in LOS. Like I said, it's just good to hear that, by my interpretation of events and feedback, it was probably a combination of my orders and other specific circumstances that resulted in the lost tank, rather than a lack of modelled behaviour.

Yes, they were area-firing their machine guns at a building, as per my orders. I agree that this may have contributed to the problem, especially if they were highly motivated (although I don't think they were). I think the fact that engaging the enemy AFV wasn't even an option in my scenario (all main gun ammo was depleted) is what makes me think that breaking contact could have been an automatic reaction. I don't remember ever having had a tank assess the threat it was facing as 'unmanageable' and attempt to break contact before engaging in combat. I was just wondering whether anybody else had encountered that kind of behaviour or could otherwise enlighten me as to whether tank crews are coded to make this evaluation at all, prior to taking damage.

Hi all, I recently played a PBEM and have a question to ask about tank self-preservation as modeled in the CMx2 engine: A Pz IIIN of mine had run dry of ammunition and was busy area-firing all MGs at a distant target when an enemy SPG pulled into view. The Pz III commander spotted the Priest but sat perfectly still while it took one, then two, then a third and very final shot. Considering that the Priest was an undoubted threat and the Pz had no means by which to combat it, why did it not reverse the ~10m necessary to break LOS? I can't remember the motivation of the regular tank crew but I almost never use anything above 'normal'. I am not one of the brigade who remember everything CMx1 in a rosy light but I am sure, in that game, tanks would regularly reverse away from threats they felt unable to combat before they took a damaging hit. In CMx2 I think I have only ever seen my tanks reverse of their own accord once they have already been damaged, as if a Sherman 75 facing a Tiger or an empty Pz IIIN facing a Priest SPG do not realise the threat they face until it manifests itself in the form of actual damage suffered. I am genuinely interested to know whether tanks in CMx2 properly 'assess' threats they face before hanging around for combat, or at least their own chances of damaging the enemy? If not, should they?

Thanks ian.

Agree with these both. I've had a couple of good AI QBs but scenarios are definitely better. I do like to pick my own forces sometimes, though! Thanks, Jack Ration. I'll have a look at WeBoB later on.

Thanks Ioannis, I'll have a look.

Hi guys, I spent the best part of two hours yesterday carefully setting up a Fallschirmjager company into keyholed defensive positions against the AI in a QB, hoping to get a half-decent fight out of it. Clicked go and within 30s it became clear that the AI had selected a force consisting almost entirely of armoured cars and halftracks. I won the scenario just using my Pz IIIM and Marder II support units. I need a challenge! Anybody willing to oblige? I would prefer CMFI at the moment, since my BN/MG installation is having licensing issues (bought MG on Saturday and haven't been able to play BN since). I don't mind attack/defense/ME and I don't mind Allied/Axis, so PM me and I'll send through some email details. I should be able to maintain minimum 1 turn per evening, probably more at weekends. Cheers.

It doesn't seem clear to me that BFC would have to go to the effort of coding new fortification types (graphical variations aside). Rather, I imagine they could simply allow the current 'foxholes' to be used in any terrain type, or building floor, to which it would provide the same protective benefit as a foxhole does to an open ground action spot. It would also make it easier to purchase the number of fortifications that you want if you don't have to purchase each type separately. I realise there are several fortification types already available but thought that the above would be a relatively neat way to increase their potential usefulness with minimal coding effort. However, knowing little about coding in general, I am prepared for the fact that it may mean more work than I imagine. How about the ability to use AT from inside fortified buildings, having paid for the privilege? Surely that would be a useful perk which would resolve a few issues that people have with the current game mechanics? I like Yankeedog's 'Fortification Points' idea, but I think that would amount to a more labour-intensive overhaul of the fortification system. Either way I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

I was thinking the other day about the way CM handles light fortifications (i.e. foxholes, sandbags, etc.) and wondering why I so rarely purchase them for a defense (basically never) and I think I had quite a good idea. Usually, when I have 'good' ideas, it takes someone else to point out the glaringly obvious flaw, so I thought I'd run it past you lot and see if you thought it would work well. The idea is this: On the fortifications purchase screen, instead of foxholes, the item you buy could read simply 'light fortifications'. Then, when you are on the map and into setup, the fortifications would vary depending on where you placed them. For example, placing one 'light fortification' on open ground would give you the cluster of foxholes that we currently have, but placing one on concrete or a rocky or paved area would, instead, appear as a small barricade made of furniture, rubble, or rocks, etc., which would provide cover for troops to hide behind during street combat and when situated in rough ground. The effect it has needn't be any different to a foxhole, but it would allow placement on hard surfaces (currently not possible) and would add some flavour to the scene at the same time. Then, we can extend the idea to buildings. Instead of an action spot on the ground, the player could place the 'light fortification' in a building, allowing them to fortify a single floor, of their choice, with sandbags around the insides of the walls and planks of wood, etc., to produce firing slits at the windows. Again, the effect would basically be identical to the added protection given by foxholes in open ground; the building walls would become more resistant to small arms penetration and shrapnel and the windows would be less likely to be penetrated. We could even go so far as to assume that the 'fortified' floor of a building has been properly prepared so as to allow an AT team to fire Bazookas, Panzerschrecks or Panzerfausts from inside it (perhaps with the small risk of injury to other personnel on the floor)! All fortifications would, of course, be as readily visible as foxholes currently are, so that fortified building floors, for example, would be fairly obvious to the attacker. However I imagine that that is fairly realistic and that it would just become part of the game of double-bluff being played by the defender. Of course this could, as far as I know, be impossible to code satisfactorily. However, barring that, I can't see any reasons why it wouldn't be a huge improvement to the game at the moment. Please, what am I missing?!

I'll second the call for Rambler to hit the CW weapons. If it please you, sir, of course!

Any faust-armed squad within 30m of an enemy tank will pretty reliably take things into their own hands and use the weapon, assuming they are unsuppressed. If you like you can give them a target order or a 30m cover arc to make sure they don't get distracted by a more distant target but I've never seen anything persuade any of my men that the live tank within 30m of them is not their primary concern. [EDIT: Black Prince beat me to it. ]

To be honest I've always found it perfectly easy to use Panzerfausts effectively. I give my AT teams 31m circular cover arcs and they perform just as I'd like them to when armour breaches that arc. It helps if you can have them hide until they need to attack as well. Maybe I've just been lucky but, like I say, I simply haven't noticed any major problems with the way they operate.

All I find myself thinking while reading that list is 'why would British intelligence have even cared?'. Seriously, Operation Mincemeat or 'Some StuGs might be carrying a slightly shorter gun, although not quite as short as the one they used to carry' - which would you rather 'fall' for?

I understand your frustration (trust me, I've been throughout this sort of thing too) but nothing about it strikes me as impossible. I think you might just have been really, really unlucky. The first AT team not spotting the tank is strange and still needs to be tested to check that this is not a common problem. The other two encounters, and their results, are totally plausible. If your opponent bought a crack/elite Pz IV or gave it +2 attributes then the M10 strike would need to destroy the tank or kill crew to 'slow it down'. Looks like you got unlucky and did neither.

What sort of forests are most common in Normandy, in terms of tree/ plant types? If forests in Normandy are anything like the Beech, Birch, Oak and Chestnut forests of South East England then they would have fairly thick and extensive undergrowth consisting of Holly, Bracken, saplings and other, thornier things. You do get open areas between the Birch but not usually for more than 10-15m or so... When I'm walking through Epping forest, for example, I sometimes imagine having to fight through it and, I can tell you, I'd far rather be defending from concealed ambush positions than trying to stalk through in an attacking force. It's a beautiful place though!

Yes, I agree. I think I've been a little unclear; I'm not trying to say people chose LMGs rather than semi-automatic rifles for prioritisation. Rather I'm saying that, as two completely separate concepts, 'semi-automatic rifles as standard for riflemen' was generally pursued with far less vigour than 'multiple reliable light machine guns for rifle squads'. This, I think, reflects the feeling then that LMGs were a more important tactical upgrade than semi-autos. Out of interest, what would have been the possibility of equipping Commonwealth troops with Garands? Would supply and production output have coped? I'm just wondering why Garands never joined the extensive list of equipment which crossed the boundary between US-Commonwealth armies and vice-versa.

Three men with any rifle would cause the same problems. The point is this scenario doesn't matter. Squad LMGs were always supported by lighter (and heavier) arms so that they never had to fight individually. Where is the rest of the German force in your scenario? I could say that, at a range of 2m, five men with Colt .45s are superior to one with a Garand because they can spread out, etc. So what? It doesn't prove anything about the relative worth of arming infantry with pistols rather than Garands because it is an unrealistic scenario that no army would ever plan for.

Hi. Yeah I know mate - I'm not saying that semi-autos aren't better for riflemen than bolt-action rifles or that people didn't try to re-equip with them at all. I'm just saying that the efforts to re-equip with them weren't as urgent as the efforts to increase numbers of squad LMGs were, which demonstrates the squad LMG's greater importance as a weapon than having a semi-auto rifle in riflemen's hands rather than a bolt-action. In fact, WWII bolt-action rifles were all very good and, in cases like the SMLE, had sufficient rof capabilities to make re-equipment with semi-autos a desirable but not a critical priority. So, I disagree with your implication that a squad armed with Garands has a strong advantage over one with bolt-action rifles and two LMGs. I think the following quote from your source indicates that the author of that site does, too: To bend the thread topic, I think it's interesting to speculate how many men and with what weapons may have constituted the ideal WWII squad configuration? Ten men with eight StG44s and two MG42s is a pretty solid template which allows for two very strong fire teams. If you had no manpower or ammunition supply issues you could even opt for twelve-man squads with nine StG44s and three MG42s, allowing up to three good fire teams. Any thoughts?

Maybe you're right but, either way, that scenario never occurred and is therefore utterly irrelevant. AIUI the machine-gunner's job is suppression of the enemy while proper destructive firepower is brought to bear (arty, direct HE or grenades from squadmates assaulting the suppressed men). It does that job far better than the Garand. I think the performance of squads in game and real-life and the real-life lack of urgency shown by any of the German, Soviet or British armies to re-equip their riflemen with semi-automatics (as opposed to the comparative rush to increase the numbers of LMGs they carried) also tends to discredit your argument.

I play with 2 hour limits as standard in QBs. Unless you're role-playing a peculiar circumstance in which a lesser time-limit is for some reason realistic I don't see any need to artificially limit the action. What's realistic about everyone suddenly ceasing-fire and shuffling back to their lines after an arbitrary hour's worth of combat has elapsed? In RT I think time limits are even more meaningless. They should only be used when there is a genuine contextual need for the mission to be completed in that time, imho. IME that is rarely the case.

Yeah, it's the vertical deflection that got me too. Something put a hell of a lot of reactive force back into that shell. I thought maybe it clipped the upper rim of the armour plate or something, but then I imagine that would cause the shell to tumble straight onwards, beyond the car, or even deflect downwards into the car. Is shell deformation after first impact modelled? Perhaps then siffo990's idea could be right - the shell could have hit the 30mm plate hard enough to deform but not to penetrate and then could have ricocheted off the lesser armour behind it? Sorry, I forgot to mention: The impact takes place between the 34 and 33 second mark, for those who don't want to have to watch the turn and 'spot' it themselves. Also, by way of an excuse to anyone who notices my horribly bunched-up infantry along the main road, they were hurriedly put there to be hidden from the Americans on the right flank, so no judging! Lol.

I have recently had a PSW 234/1 heavy armoured car take a point-blank 75mm AP hit from a Sherman and was gratified (and more that a little surprised) to see it ricochet almost vertically into the air. The PSW was behind bocage but the Sherman's 75mm round definitely appears to hit the 'upper front hull' and then ricochet away causing zero damage. Was this a bizarre fluke resulting from a glancing blow to some obscure part of the car's armour or is something wrong here? A save file is here for people who want to watch the replay: https://rapidshare.com/files/974096071/SPW_234_armour.zip My laptop is very slow when running CMBN but I might try a few tests soon if I can get it to take less than an hour to set up...