DaddyO

Thanks, but I saw no dismount command (I checked), and there is no icon for the unit separate from that for the Jeep. That's what has me stumped. I'm used to teams separate from the Jeeps themselves riding in jeeps and dismounting. This is different. Never seen this before. I'll double-check tomorrow, which will be the next time I can do so.

Cats Chasing Dogs scenario is a vehicle only scenario. In it the Allies get several Jeep units designated as Mortar Sections. I've never seen that before. They have "commanders" in them, but there is no available disembark or deploy order, and when I pull up the artillery menu all mortars show "denied." The ammo section shows some HE rounds. Any idea how I employ the mortars with these Jeep units?

FAST can also be very useful when traversing short distances where the troops are vulnerable. For example, you troops are in a wooded area bisected by a road down which the enemy has line of sight, and you want to get across the road. You MOVE or QUICK to the edge of the woods, then FAST across to the wooded edge on the other side of the road.

Well, part of the problem is that for all it is, CMBN is still an abstraction of tactical combat. There are things the player has that no commander in real life had. But, there are also things every commander, platoon, squad and soldier had that no player has: human experience, intuition and improvisation that go beyond orders. It seems to me the "god-like" capabilities of the CMBN commander are needed to balance out the lack of this capability.

I found it extremely helpful to watch AAR's on YouTube. Somehow by watching learning actually kicked in, while during reading it didn't.

Thanks Wombie, I was not aware that the existing command works in the way you describe. That helps provide some of what I want. What I had in mind was sweeping fire, where the concentration moves along, say three action squares, enough to put heads down for infantry antitank weapons (bazookas, panzerfausts and 'shreks, antitank grenades, hand grenades, etc.). This could last more than a minute if need be. But I'll take what I can get, and this is better than I though it was.

For artillery we have the option of linear targeting, which sometimes proves extremely useful. It occurs to me that it would be equally useful as a suppressive option for Area fire for armor and infantry. The idea occurred to me while watching a Barkmann's Corner video AAR from the Axis point of view and considering how the Allies might with their bevy of tanks move forward into terrain that is perfect for infantry antitank ambush. The judicious use of linear MG fire by tanks into suspect areas of hedgerow would go a long way to suppressing antitank teams, wouldn't it? What I have in mind is not sustained fire along full stretches of hedgerow, just a burst raked across short stretches.

Terrific to see you back in action with CM video AAR's. Loved the TWO new ones.

Are you the same Gamer58 from the DMB forum?

I think most will certainly understand. Even serious hobbies are, after all, just hobbies. Real life gets in the way sometimes. Let me express appreciation for all you have contributed in these AAR's. You really do have people hanging on the edge of their seats.

:chuckles: That's a bit like telling a ravenous lion, crouched in front of a carcass, to eat. But of course, that's why you snickered.

Thanks for the quick response.

Bill, can't remember, I think you said in a previous AAR, but what software do you use for text and graphic overlays on you battle maps?

Ian, I will resize the images and replace the ones in the original post. Thanks for the tip. Edited: Well, it appears I no longer have access to the edit button on my original pictures post. So here are the pictures resized, and going forward I will post with the recommended settings. Top down annotated map: Attacker elevated view: Approaches to the church:

Thanks for the battle suggestions, L.T. (hopefully you get the joke, Warrenpeace). I might be until Wednesday trying it, but you've provided me a basic plan to try, and that's a huge help.

The basic advice is to use my mortars (60mm on-map, and 81mm off-map), and one specific piece of advice was to use on-map mortar directly rather than risk a spotter. So far, the northeast tree stand receives a mortar attack as soon as I do anything other than hide. The northwest tree stand seems to offer better concealment and leads up to a hidden area before sloping quickly up to the walled grove. But there is no significant spotting from there. So my first question is: If I were to position my 60mm mortar for direct fire, where do you suggest I place it and why? The church and the town itself command all approaches once you crest the initial slopes. If you can see them, they can see you. The thin trees on the east ridge offer no significant concealment. Overall, the only approach I see that offers any promise is to (A) suppress the church and the trench in town, and ( use the hidden area to assemble and then somehow destroy any troops in the walled grove and attack the church from the northwest as quickly as possible. This does not look so easy, but it looks like my only chance. Regarding (A), I could station my only tank to where it is at the north end of the east ridge just hidden from the view of the town (and the risk of antitank guns) by the thin trees of the east ridge. From there I can target the church and parts of the walled grove with suppressive fire and do it with impunity. Regarding (, the only option I see is quickly crest the slope leading to the walled grove as far to the west as possible and just assault the church the best I can, hoping to use the church itself as a shield against any attack from the town itself. Feel free to correct me or comment.

Okay, thanks for the help on Fraps. Now, to me this a learning exercise, not an attempt to win a battle. So below is an annotated picture of the battle map. Forgive my crude scrawls if you will, I'm just trying to get this posted. After posting the map, I will add a questions post. Here's a look at the terrain from the attacker's viewpoint. And here's a view focusing more on the approaches to the church.

One matter that has eluded me using Combat Mission is taking screen shots. If I try to do a SHIFT PrtScrn screen capture using a Windows keyboard with the game map on screen it always takes a picture of my desktop or an open window running "behind" Combat Mission, which I assume is running in DOS mode (?). If I try to Alt-TAB from the game screen to the Windows desktop to use a the Windows screen snippet program the screen momentarily makes the change but then immediately reverts back to the game screen. Is there a Windows setting I'm not aware of that may be giving me problems? I'd like to be able to do graphic battlefield analysis like I see so many do to help me in my planning, or to post my tactical situation and get advice. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks again for all the advice.

Thanks for all the comments. What I've found frustrating is that every time I've used the mortars so far, with a spotter and Point Target not Area Target, the mortars have been WAY off target. I'm using a 60mm mortar at the beginning because I want to save the 81mm off-map mortars for AT guns and the like. Yesterday's game went south immediately when my spotter used up his one opportunity (before being annihilated himself by mortars) on a 60mm mortar mission whose shots consistently fell not much more than half way to the target. Under these conditions it's kind of hard to pick off anything.

I own CMBN, and I'm not exactly the best Combat Mission player. In fact, that opening sentence is a fancy way of saying I'm not very good at all. Still, I play sometimes and try to absorb the great advice given on the Battlefront forums. I recently downloaded the CMFI demo, and in it there is a scenario, the first listed, called Fight At Vallebruce. The Axis controls the far end which consists of a high ridge along the entire far back line (from the Alled point of view) that rises to a dominating peak on the far right. These ridge commands almost the entire map. The Axis also occupies a fairly large, elevated complex of two-story buildings on the left-center and forward of the high ridge, and a two-story church on the right also elevated above the approaches. At the base of both of these the ground slopes downward to the valley that the Allies must cross in order to approach them (except for the ridge line described in the next paragraph.) Between the building complex and the church is a fortified trench line. Along the entire left-side is an elevated ridge line lightly shielded at the edge by sparse trees which provide almost no concealment. Even from troops on the opposite side of the valley. At the base of this ridge is a road, still a little above the valley, that runs straight along the length of the map to the Vallebruce building complex. There is no significant concealment I can find along this road, and the enemy has anti-armor assets covering the road. On the left side of the valley floor there is a road that seems to offer the only concealment because it butts up to the slope that rises to the entire stretch of Vallebruce. But once you go there you're quickly pinned. There are two stands of trees on the near side of the valley floor, one on the left and one on the right that offer some concealment. But as soon as you use them for an observation post (with appropriate small cover arc to avoid giving away your position) you are pounded by precise mortar fire and your observing officer is killed. There is nowhere safe for him to go. And you have no idea where the mortar fire is coming from, although there are plenty of potential enemy sites both for the mortar(s) and for observation. I assume that I am hopelessly missing some covered or concealed avenue of approach. I've tried scouting the ground carefully. I've searched using Vallebruce on the forum and found nothing. Can anyone who has successfully played this scenario give me some clues that might give my approach a chance?

Thanks for the video AAR's Johnsy. always love watching them when the maker includes his commentary like you and Ithikial do.

There is a difference between trying to sabotage something and ruining it. One describes your actions. The other is beyond your capability, which is more like a gnat on the hide of a rhinoceros. The gnat may be proud, but in the grand scheme of things he is rather pathetic. He who is great builds. He who is not mocks.

Boy, he sure came across as one. But if it's the case that his intent was other than trolling, I'll change my comment to: "Boy, that comes across like an attempt to sabotage the game. If it wasn't, you might consider the possible repercussions of linking Bill to his opponent's thread without first warning him."