pnzrldr

Gents, Long discussion on terrain fire to accompany flamethrowers (and all those other lovely sources of ignition), and I'll leave official announce to BFC, but suffice to say you won't see it in - at least the initial release - of CMRT. I lobbied for, but each new feature comes with a cost in programming time/effort, tradeoffs, system/graphics stability, etc... and flames did not make the cut when looking at work vs. benefit. Just trust that the crew is doing the best they can to enhance the game engine in meaningful ways without having to redo the whole thing from scratch. I sincerely hope that the other dramatic improvements will suffice for now, until further evolution occurs.

Ken, Yeah, harsh man. While hit/kill numbers are not an exact data set for a programmer looking at this, given what we know about the specific tank performance with other variables removed as much as possible (crew quality, ammo loadout, weather, etc...) the hit/kill sequence should logically follow the spotting by a bounded period of time (hit/kill follows spot by X seconds, plus/minus Y, in a presumably standard deviation). So while not a solid data point, they still point to a potential problem. For what it is worth, speaking as someone with long hours spent scanning as a TC, I concur that the number of eyes is the key variable. But some eyes are more valuable than others. The TC spends virtually ALL of his time scanning. He also knows the tactical situation to a degree and can therefore prioritize where he is looking, spending more time on more 'likely' locations. I usually used a set of binos as well, which are a significant help. A smart TC always establishes a logical sector for his gunner to scan. Usually, the TC will set right/left limits for a horizontal scan by the gunner, based upon likely enemy locations and how far out the scan is looking. Obviously the usual assumption is that the gunner should look long range (w/ ten power optics) and the TC should focus on things closer in that are easily identified w/ naked eye. In this configuration, the TC still usually finds the targets as it is easier for the naked eye to key in on movement, which is what usually allows you to spot something. For stationary targets on the offense... well, the M1 I used cheats of course, since it has thermals and a superb stab system. But even when moving that is no sub for the TC staying up and scanning. At gunnery, we typically have an engagement with the stab disabled. This is HARD. The gunner really cannot scan while the tank is moving and there is no stab system. However, the loader usually comes up if you are moving and not shooting, and he lends additional eyeballs to the TC. If you are buttoned up w/ no stab and moving, I cannot imagine anyone ever seeing anything w/o advanced optics - like thermals and CITV. Like, nothing. Ever. The driver did occasionally spot things first though, even seeing the world through his narrow little POV. In an ideal world the crew positions would be weighted, with the two having optics (TC [binos] and gunner) getting 3 or 4 times the weight assigned to loader, and 5 times that assigned to driver. Not sure the spotting model is this advanced though. History Lover, you have a plethora of betas looking at this thread and a new post going on the beta forum. Despair not. Remember that confirming that you can see a problem in the way the game behaves is radically different from providing relevant data that a computer programmer can use to change the simulation. The betas aren't listened to all that often - we have to make sacrifices to a strange demi-God named Charles - who likes South African wine apparently - to get any attention. But sometimes our entreaties and your prayers are heard. Keep the faith, keep asking hard questions, listen to the feedback and criticism, and set aside some money for the Eastern Front CM coming out in the near future. I promise you it will rock.

Shot was taken at the US Army's new historical vehicle restoration facility at FT Benning, GA. Their collection combines the assets from the old Ordnance museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD and the Patton Museum from FT Knox, KY. There is not yet a new Armor Museum (google it and contribute - they need your $$!) but they have a very capable motorpool facility and a fair amount of covered storage. I didn't count but would say they have in excess of 200 vehicles there ranging from WWI tanks (4 or 5 in reasonable condition) through newer items like Abrams SN 001 and M60 SN 007. Many famous experimental vehicles are there as well like the T-28, MBT-70 and M-8 AGS. Many also show extensive battle damage, like the Jagdtiger which used to be housed at Aberdeen. Currently the facility is working on extensive restoration of a Tiger I and have about 20 exhibits specifically intended to let new Armor and Infantry LT's and SGTs attending school at FT Benning to crawl all over/in/through to gain appreciation for the evolution of AFV capabilities and fighting realities. They even have "Cobra King" the Sherman Jumbo from 4AD that was first tank into Bastogne. A great trip and fantastic facility. I hope that others can some day share in it.

Great AAR. Only Criticism I have <spoiler alert!> is that you glossed over the final shootout w/ the StuG! I wanted to see who hit it with what effect and you zipped right past! That was awesome getting so much firepower concentrated on it.

Not quite a screenshot, but I could not resist. 2013-11-07 12.23.38 by pnzrldr, on Flickr

Wow, either way you look at it this is sort of like Lewis and Clark, only in reverse!

Nope. CW and MG both contribute to the CMBN base, but FI is a different 'game' altogether. Units don't directly cross over, except when the developers choose to pull them in (flak available now in MG, etc...). FI is worth the price though. Some fantastic scenarios, and a chance to play with some earlier war variants of men/equipment in terrain that is less compartmentalized, grittier visually and in some cases visually spectacular (some of the mountain and urban/village pieces).

John - that is certainly one way of saving on expensive time fuze! I love it! How practical! Don't let our Taliban friends see that, they would adopt it in a heartbeat (and I am not really kidding).

All note: PIAT, bazooka, Pzfaust or Schreck, US 105mm HEAT from a Priest, modern-day AT-4, TOW, Hellfire, Mk-19 40mm HEDP, etc... all have HEAT warheads, and the penetration is totally independent from the velocity of the round. You could walk up to a tank, set a Pzfaust (or any of the above) warhead against the front slope, back off and detonate it with a blasting cap and time fuze and it will have the exact same penetration as if it struck the vehicle on the fly. See John's references above for details on why/how.

And isn't that strange, since the Sdkfz gunners have a shield and the US gunners do not on their M3s? Odd, but I do find the US gunners a bit more survivable. However, this could be simply my too limited set for statistical analysis. I bitched a lot recently about Pak crew vulnerability, but played a CMFI/GL scenario vs. AI (Smoke Em if you Got Em) wherein a Pak gave me absolute fits, continuing to KO vehicles after several iterations of, "surely THAT must have killed him!" fires. So I conclude that sometimes Paks die easy, and sometimes, not so much... Just wish I could influence that a bit more.

Bil - your scenarios for these probs are rudimentary enough. You should solicit a volunteer (not me) to backwards convert them. I bet someone would pony up. I will be busy visiting tank factories and such <sigh!> It is a dirty job, but someone has to do it... after our government rediscovers it has perpetual income that is.

Holy Scheisse! Your videos are awesome! Whooot!

Bil, I played the "Tobacco Factory" scenario in GL as the Ami's against the AI, and got three Shermans dusted off by quad 20mms. The results were devastating. One vehicle suffered only optics and superficial damage, along with instant full suppression. He backed out successfully and was back in the fight a turn or two later. The second lost all optics, main gun, .50 cal blown off, and suffered a morale hit that lasted the rest of the scenario. The third one suffered a hit similar to the first, tried to back out in a stupid direction (he hadn't spotted his antagonist) turned his side and got immobilized. The next turn two quick bursts of 20mm into the side of the Sherman blew it up. I would not count your Wirbelwind an ineffective vehicle against those Cromwells, assuming he shoots first (or straightest).

You are revealing your nationality, with "knock-on effects." No one who doesn't play rugby has any idea what that means. ;-) My old man is visiting Wellington later this month. I told him if he doesn't bring back a Hurricanes jersey and an All Blacks jersey, he might as well not come back. He just mumbled back something about 30lb rainbow trout and hobbits.

Geezer! I was 9.

As a counterpoint to my previous argument, I am currently also engaged against an experienced allied player on the Wittman scenario that Bil is running an AAR on in CMBN. I have lost something like 60% of the total German armor and all of the Tigers, yet am continuing to play, mostly just to learn how to best apply tactics I know well to the CM battlefield. But if this were the real deal, we (the Germans) would have called off the attack after losing the first company or so of Panzers. Neither the Germans nor the Western Allies (after North Africa anyway) were much on the WWI reinforcing defeat and banging their heads against brick walls. If an attack failed or met unbreakable resistance, they USUALLY sought another avenue, additional support or more force. There are exceptions of course, especially in greener units or when contesting truly critical objectives, but again, the routine in the war was to pit overwhelming force against a weak point, crumble initial defenses seize some piece of advantageous terrain, and then watch as the enemy has to reshuffle his lines and withdraw adjacent forces that are now overextended, while attacking with artillery to disrupt these withdrawals and cause casualties. The 'evenly matched' combats that we all relish in CM were in fact somewhat rare. The bottom line is that when we design our scenarios, it would be wise to keep in mind who exactly has the initiative (and the ability to change their minds about something) and what precisely our pixeltruppen commanders (at all levels) would be doing.

This brings up an interesting point in scenario design. Not giving someone an exit area and some points to recoup by doing so, leads to a 'die in place' mentality that was, not surprisingly, absent in most (obviously not all) tactical engagements. We should strive to give the defender some 'outs' or (even more interestingly) build maps that allow the attacker to close those 'outs' and pin the defender in place (with the assumption that those left on map eventually surrender). I would think that more defensive engagements - or even meeting engagements - should be crafted this way, even the ones that give the defender a solid chance of stopping the attacker cold. Any guy defending any piece of terrain in this game should have contingency plans in mind, otherwise we are looking at an ahistorical tactical mindset. Although there are plenty of famous instances of units fighting on beyond any hope of escape or withdrawal (WWII was BIG war) these fights were NOT the norm, and most units faced with overwhelming force did their level best to get out of the way. In this fight, LTC GaJ should properly withdraw whatever is left of his task force, and call for the USAAC to do something about these monsterous great armored beasts that are wreaking havoc on his troops. Another cool thing would be artillery built in as "final protective fires" only. Say TRPs fixed in place and off-map support scheduled as late scenario reinforcements, intended specifically to either stop the enemy during his final assault, or cover the withdrawal of defending forces. Many of us are focused, not surprisingly, on the fun of executing a successful attack, but the challenge to 'withdraw in good order, under fire,' is a far greater one.

Two Mk IVs to assist the PzGrenadiers? How benevolent of you!

Bil, I suspect HE would do the trick on an open top AFV, but am curious if your BB used HEAT? Any idea? Big HEAT round like that would do evil things to that vehicle.

Pewpew, enjoy your videos as well. I echo the crowd that you should issue spoiler alerts up front on both posts and your videos. I had nearly forgotten that you can play the game in 'real time' mode. Most on the boards play WeGo as most are playing against human opponents. For hitting buildings, did you try the 'assault' command? I played through Bear Claws as well, with similar outcome to you. My PzGr squad succeeded in taking a 2 story bldg from US Ranger Squad that I had NOT hit w/ the Brummbar, taking about 3 casualties to do it. I hit them with area fire MG42 from two different directions, and did not let up until the squad was headed in the door. Using the WeGo I set the area fire on the turn of assault to 'target briefly.' They actually chased one Ranger out of the building and one of the Brummbar engaged him at point blank with the main gun, causing one of my supporting squads 2 more casualties!!! War is hell!

Ok, fine. I'll jump in with George and say two, but I still say that Wittman surviving IN HIS TIGER is the real mark of success.

I'm in for three. What's the buy in? Like George above, I managed to lose all of mine, but hey, you have the experience so lets see how it goes. The real question is, "does Wittman survive?" and the caveat, "in a functional Tiger or not?"

Got any mortar ammo left? This is where he is pinned down to such a discrete location you can effectively shoot w/o spotting. I'm assuming you burned most of it up already though. Bring up the Brummbar and go to work. Those M10s shouldn't like even near misses.

Read "Infantry Attacks" by Rommel, if you want to know about some actual maneuver tactics - and bounding overwatch - in the Great War. Superb book on tactics, fascinating history, and an interesting look at a brilliant leader.

Bil - you didn't tell me you were AAR'ing this! After I told you ol' "Teacher" took me to the schoolhouse on it! Lost ALL my Tigers, all Jpzs, the Marder, the Mk IV PLT... Hell the whole first wave basically. Then the reinforcements showed up and I decided to go round the other way. While I haven't gotten too deep, at least I have killed a lot more of his tanks - the Tigers rolled over w/o much of a fight as soon as they were zeroed in by the FFs. My new strategy for this scenario - sit tight, wait for reinforcements, walk the recon forward, drop lots of Arty and smoke, THEN move the Tigers up, along with everybody else. FFs = Beelzebub.