Georgie

The Icons for destroyed vehicles are of no use and clutter the screen in a vehicle rich battle. Can you get rid of them without turning all the Icons off?

That sounds interesting, would help with immersion. Will it work for CMBN?

I have had the best luck in setting up a good AI defense by choosing a good defensive position for the various units and leaving them there. I believe that that is the most effective defense given the size of our battles. Even using the largest maps that we have it is too haphazard to try to move a defensive element for fear of it either being spotted or moving to a worse or no better position. There is simply no method at out disposal to implement a mobile or even a shifting defense. Given the communications in use during WW2 its hard for me to believe that units in a small battle, as a regular tactic, shifted their carefully selected or hard won defensive positions unless it was for a counter attack which we are not doing by simply moving them to a different location.

Thanks Hilts, I didn't know that. Will give it a try.

I remember that in CM1 tanks were able to push destroyed vehicles out of the way but I never questioned whether or not it was realistic. I remember that tanks could push tanks and that it was handy.

I played a scenario that required the use of a section of road by my tanks but a destroyed truck was in the way. My tanks had to thread their way around the destroyed truck through out the entire scenario. It would be more fun and realistic to just be able to push the truck aside.

One of the things that I think would make a crowded scenario more fun is if tanks are destroyed and in the middle of the road is to be able to push them aside.

Thanks womble and sublime. Good to hear that it was temporary and also that we can get by with the AP round for antipersonnel use.

I remember that in CMBO the US 57mm had HE. Will HE be added latter on in CMBN or am I remembering wrong?

Sometimes in CMBN an unpleasent surprise is the just what you need to get you to thinking.

Thanks Pete, I ordered the CW module today. I enjoyed "The Crossroads at Monthardrou" and could not find anymore that you had written. Good to here that there are some in the CW module. Ray

JonS can you tell me where I can find these scenarios. Thanks in advance. georgie

While playing Huzzar as the US against the AI, great map, I stationed a lone M4 75mm about 50m to the side of the last river crossing on the US right flank. I guess the Axis tanks and AFVs got an advance order to cross the river at that point because the lone M4 destroyed 3 Panthers and about 7 or 8 AFVs. This would never happen IRL and and it would be good if it didn't happen in CMBN. But how can it be prevented?

Now that BF has solved the OOM problem I'm busy making an aprox 4000x4000 meter map. Is fictitious and since I wanted some fairly large hills its turning out to look like Italy or maybe the German mountains. The map maker takes a "little learning" but its well worth the effort as the results are outstanding. Once I have finished I'll upload it or maybe make a "Last Redoubt" scenario and upload that. Its gonna take a while.

A lot of seasick tankers would have been the result if they really did rock that much and that fast, especially if they had been drinking French wine and beer.

If a scenario designer is going to have to set up a scripted defense then he needs information to respond to. Simply to guess where the attacker will be at a given time is pointless probably 75 percent of the time. Different players methods of attack vary both in timing and direction. Some favor the center some the flanks. Some favor a pincer movement involving both flanks some the center and one flank and some change their method each time they play. My point is that it is pointless with out some clue as to the attackers intent for a designer to try to script the defense simply because its possible. It would in the vast majority of times be better to set up a strong well thought out static defense and set the scoring to where the attacker has to take control of all of the strongly defended locations. Maybe we do need triggers. At least with triggers the designer will have a tool at his disposal to design a reasonably effective mobile defense. It wont be perfect but I believe that it will be a lot better than what we have now.

Yes, I've had very little luck shifting my defense as it is usually too late and if it is in time its because I was lucky. Some scenarios I'll be offensive against the AI and will be making pretty much zero progress and then the enemy will get up and leave , exposing themselves to my concentrated fire. Tanks will expose their flanks to my 75 Shermans and get taken out where as if they had stayed in place I would have been hard put to turn their flank or push thru the middle.

I tend to agree, will have to wait to find out for sure, triggers probably won't add much since the shifting defense will still be exposed unless it is routed to the back of the map and then advance which may be effective. Makes me wonder just how much shifting of forces went on IRL in a tactical battle with a limited time frame and size like CMBN.

I remember trying to design an AI defense with CMBB and I would spend hours placing tanks and men in intricate positions with overlapping fire zones and tanks in hull down positions with keyholes covering likely avenues of advance and then when I play tested the scenario they would all leave their positions and go on a walkabout. Never could figure out how to prevent this from happening. I think that, with out knowing where the attack will fall, a static defense covering all the avenues of approach with well concealed guns , AFVs and troops is the strongest. If there was an indication of where the the attack was taking place then a well planned shift to concentrate the defense would be the strongest. But there isn't presently a method to determine that.

When playing against the AI I have more trouble overcoming a static defense. If I am faced with a shifting defense my troops simply gun down the "shifting" defense as they attempt to change positions. What have other players experienced with a "shifting" versus a static defense?

Thanks for the reply YankeeDog.

What it boils down to for me is what makes this game more fun to play, a 60sec turn or a 30 sec turn or a choice between the two. I prefer a 30 sec turn because it allows more control by the player. Kinda a compromise between RT and Turn Based. You get more control, a playback and less expenditure of tank and gun and mortar ammo. I would also like that there be a choice between 60 and 30 seconds for those who like 60 second turns. Just my opinion.

Tried it and it makes the button position very clear. The position was very subtle before and I thought that it was just a toggle with no position indication. Thank you JuJu.