Bud Backer

Don't listen to them! It's all propaganda! They're trying to sell you a line! Only buy CMFI if you want the only CM WWII game that goes back to 1943, and has the most nations. And mountains. Who wants to fight on mountains?? That's crazy talk! If you want to do even more insane things, go and buy Gustav Line to add the added inconvenience of expanding the timeline and adding even more units and nations. What next? Little green men? I ask you...

Not to worry, I didn't think you were implying anything, just telling us a story us all. And if you're truly intrigued by the armour based AAR, we cam do it when you have time.

Most of my models did not follow me when I moved. Space is a problem so I suppose it's not the disappointment it would otherwise be, but I do miss my Tiger IE. That was a beauty.

I know that pic!!! Isn't that from a Tamiya model box??

Hahaha your story is funny, Ian. I've lost terribly in these games, and while I've improved I'm by no means a great player. But I've never rage quit. That Is just lacking in respect for one's opponent - you spend a lot of time purchasing, deploying and playing and then to not have the play to completion is very frustrating. So I don't do it. Sometimes my opponent and I will mutually agree that the result is now clear and that there is little enjoyment in a tedious mop-up, but that's always by agreement. I don't want to give the wrong impression of my friend, either. He's very smart, and is very methodical in his approach to fighting. However, like me at some point, he has certain assumptions about how things worked in WW2 (we've had extensive debates on air power and his expectation that aircraft should be much more available to the allies, and easily controlled). These assumptions do not always marry up with statistics and history (Bil's PzIV vs Sherman AAR is an example of a surprise for many here - a lot of us assumed that the PzIV was pretty much superior on almost all respects to the Sherman, and his AAR showed that is not quite as clear cut). The point being that I need to have a pretty clear victory in this battle to break the current attitude that the allies cannot meet the Germans on equal terms if the Big Cats are at the table. Several battles with him as allies so far have supported his perception that this is so, and our last battle was with me as U.S. He feels it was easy as Germans (even though I got a draw). It's time to change the tune... I understand the point Pete is making. The trouble is that you've both suggested scenarios to play to see how it was realistically done, but the scenarios still require an understanding of What I Need To Do, and that I lack. Nice to have the tools and the right setting, but I can tell you that the result will be a bad loss for me and I will still not be sure what it is that I'm missing as effective and realistic allied counters. What comes to mind is air power, arty, flanking, but I fail terribly at actually doing it. Maybe I need to do what you are doing with Method Gamer, but specifically for the purpose of instruction in dealing with the Big Cats - a crowd sourced AAR, with a willing partner, on a realistic map/situation.

Thanks, Womble! That's really great info, I learned something new too!

Hmm yes...well maybe that's why I've made a 208x208m map for each game I own except CMBS. It's doable on a weekend, and I can flesh it out and it's the right size for a Micro-Battle story!

Hi Pete, Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I appreciate it. You make some interesting points. I disagree with some, but that may be purely because I still feel I lack a lot of experience and am perhaps looking at things with a perspective that is not as well informed. Or maybe I'm right? Who knows? I'll tell you what I disagree with first - best to get the bitter stuff down before we more onto the sweet, eh? You mentioned that you feel the map and meeting engagement in principal are bad for a study on anti-heavy armour tactics. This may be my naiveté but I feel the opposite (within limits - I recognize that whatever I do will not sufficiently in depth to be comprising a full gamut of tactics against the Big Cats). Why do I feel differently? Because, despite it's lack of some aspects of reality, it's almost like a training exercise - take one of the worst case situations: without prepared defences and without control of the objectives to deal with enemy heavy armour. I feel as if I can handle this, I can handle the rest. I'm giving myself what I think is a tough challenge to see if I can out maneuver my enemy and win. Part of this is also a demonstration to my opponent who feels that the allies have a bum rap in the game and that short of overwhelming superiority they cannot really fight the Germans. I want to show him that what he expects is unwinnable is not the case. I hope I can succeed in this - to if nothing else, stop the frequent debates about imbalance. Partly also, to put my money where my mouth is, and show that I wasn't lying when I said that I've had other opponents play the allies and pound my Germans into dust VERY effectively, Big Cats and all. Ok, with that out of the way, onto the agreement bit! You also mentioned that in IanL and MG's game you felt that the way things were set up, the one with the best choices would win, and that in this battle, its more down to luck - who spots first, who shoots first. I have a hard time disputing the former, and I can see the logic of the latter. You have a good point there, but I do hope that either I or my opponent will need to exercise skill, intuition, and planning in setting up that first (and second and third) shot that leads to eventual success. I do see that our battle does rest on the edge of razor, and that it can go from balance to disaster in an instant. I do get your point about the map. Really, a very large map which would require more recon, more maneuver, where we are not in immediate frontal penetration range would be much better. I concede that completely. I played Wittman's Demise - it was my first PBEM game and I was utterly trounced by the German opponent. I felt totally paralyzed and shocked at how I could not deal with the Big Cats. As a learning experience, it wasn't effective, because I found the size (read: numbers of units) of the battle overwhelming. But...it might make an interesting scenario to play now that I have more experience with the game. Gamey tactics is a dicey proposition to discuss because what is gamey to one is not to another. I like my games to feel immersive, to make me feel I'm there, that it's real, and in that regard, I try to avoid stuff that -to me- appears gamey, but I might well be doing stuff that someone else will consider ridiculous. It's not on purpose but that's where agreement on what is gamey becomes so essential. I don't like to win (or lose) by hiding one man somewhere on the objective to force my opponent to search for 10 min for the one guy that keeps him from winning. I do not have a problem, on the other hand, with someone who uses map edges to move about, etc. To me anywhere on the map is fair game. Others feel very differently on both issues. I think anything that allows me to win by default is pointless, as there is no challenge to that. I'm not here to tally a score of wins, I want to have fun feeling like I'm living the battle I play, and win or lose, that it makes me think and struggle to survive. Anything less is not that interesting. So I completely agree with you on that!

To your points, Ian, A) my experience is that you can hit dismount on the vehicle, and it will dismount the infantry only. You need to hit Bail to get the crew to abandon ship. However, if you have a truck with several units on it, you can selectively dismount particular units by selecting them and hitting dismount. Do it on the truck and all passengers would get off.

Riff raff...gosh we Canadians are polite! Haha!

No worries, I didn't think he did, I was just making sure I wasn't appearing argumentative.

Yeah, that T34 kill had a dozen crosses blooming after the hit. It was a desperate move and yet it was that or simply surrender. Only taking the Panther out would give us a fighting chance, and that failed. The battle itself was over in 6 minutes. Kohl pulverized everything on the map with that tank. There was no cover aside from the barn and farmhouse and you saw how that worked out. Excellent that the fade to B&W worked for you as well. Feedback is great because I'm learning and adapting my writing/design as I do this. I get delaying reading your comic because you knew you had to wait a while for the next. COMMANDO Comics comes out bi-monthly, so I think subscribers get their fix more often. I don't subscribe but I did get a lot of their collections in book form. It's surprisingly good, I see the formula is to present something and have the story go totally somewhere else. Kinda happened here too, though not by design! Dmitry's story will continue, but I have to work out with Kohl what our focus will be as it impacts him as well.

But that would require me to order it to be done, and not happen spontaneously, right? The screenshot was just of the unit as it sat in the open. Could it have gone in a truck and taken stuff from it on its own?

In terms of functionality, they all work the same way, so if you like the way things are done in CMBS you won't be disappointed. Each of the other games has their unique units, terrain features and of course a lot of stuff that is common to all by virtue of being set in WWII Europe. My favourite is CMBN, but that's my own tastes that dictate that. I have CMFI AND CMRT as well, and each has their own flavour that makes them different from the others. CMBN has been around longer so has more expansions than any other game. If you like Normandy and Market Garden you're golden with that. If you want to see what it was like slogging the hilly countryside of Italy, and be able to go back to mid-1943, then CMFI is great. And if you want to leave the western allies behind and fight to free Russia the. CMRT Is fantastic. Each nation functions differently with different kit and also different tactical methods, so one is not like the other. My recommendation: -if you can't pick one then go for the full CMBN experience. -if you have a locale you prefer, buy the one that happens there.

How DARE you laugh! Those were my boys!

Uh...that would be almost Impossible. Because that screen cap was taken in deploy phase right after purchase. The scenario has not started yet. Unless they unit could acquire some from a vehicle or another unit at that stage of the game. I always thought not but Maybe there is something I've missed. Sorry to contradict you Jon, but I assure you I have no axe to grind!

I think this is very important. When I make a map I want it to look like a place someone could visit - and that it has (or had recently) in habitants. If it looks sterile I've done something wrong.

Hi there and welcome to Combat Mission and the Battlefront Forums! I can answer questions 1 and 2. 1) Before giving a vehicle any movement orders, press DISMOUNT. Then give the vehicle move orders. This will result in the vehicle remaining stationary until the unit disembarks, then it will carry out the move order. Note that you can also give the infantry unit a move order too, so that it doesn't only disembark but will go where to tell it to, and the vehicle will merrily go its way once they leave it. 2) Instead of split squad, (which tends to split the squad in larger halves), try using the Scout team command in the same menu, it will split off 2 men, which should be able to get aboard the three free spaces on the vehicle. I'm sure someone else can answer your third question shortly.

Nice link, Pat. It's amazing how much makes its way in the web, and other more innocuous stuff is "classified".

I have sent my purchases to my opponent. He's got a lot of work and will only be taking his turn tomorrow night, then I have to buy and deploy. So we all must wait...

Ah, Pete! I always enjoy your posts so your thoughts are worth more than 2p. Perhaps a half crown? Or 3 bob? Good lord, dating myself there! The choice of map was not mine, but I'll admit I don't quite follow your point. Are you saying it is implausible that the Allies would end up fighting the Germans on a somewhat open area? I have seen the discussions about the merits (or lack thereof) of meeting engagements in terms of realistic situations. I do follow that, but it is a rather convenient way for two players to not have to worry terribly about play balance - we're both on equal terms and my friend/opponent has a lot less experience with the game than most members of the forum so I'm trying to ensure I do not favour situations that would work better for me. We will eventually move onto other types of battles. At the same time, I do enjoy meeting engagements as well, despite the more tenuous realism - at least in terms of how often they would occur, which is not often at all. On the other hand your suggestion of scenarios is interesting to me. We will definitely explore those as well. We both want to have a better handle on mechanics, equipment, tactics, before we do scenarios - the thing I feel about scenarios is that once you play them, they are no longer a surprise. Yes, you can revisit them but only the first time is the real experience, and I want to be in a position to make the most of that experience when it happens, if that makes sense. I wonder if you could elaborate why you say that this battle "will be down to exploiting a full understanding of the game mechanics rather than a understanding of good all arms combat"? Do I not have to use decent combination of forces to succeed? Or is that not what you mean? By the way, I'm not arguing, the point of this thread is to learn and part of that process may be to challenge things or to ask for further details.

You're right, now that I'm home I could not help but indulge my curiosity. He can get 10 PzIVH, 7 Panther-G, or 2 Tiger IE. Of course those are extremes. While he can have a viable force with two tigers with the points left, the others would leave him almost nothing at all. My guess, because of the rarity cost of tigers, he might buy 4 panthers again, but to surprise me he is more likely to mix things up and get 1 tiger and 2 panthers, or 2 panthers and some PzIVs. I'm more concerned if he buys a decent quantity of artillery which could wreak havoc on my scouting and infantry tactics. I agree RE: ATGs. I can't see myself using them except with incredibly good sightlines, or as part of an integrated defence. I have indeed considered mortars and on-map ones at that. Two major considerations made me decide not to: 1) Ammo supply - on map CDN mortars (when I've used them in the past) seem to have really inadequate ammo supplies, so that my intention to use arty to drive my opponent into positions that do not favour him would not be possible 2) I do not want to move the damn things around the map to get direct fire and there is far too much open ground to displace them safely, and if I don't get direct fire out of them they might as well be off map. I do worry about response times. Hence the TRPs and the fact my FOO teams are high leadership and experience. Hopefully that helps.

You know, this may be not quite as bad as I fear. We shall see! I will formally buy tonight when I'm home from work.

New Plan: Based on the discussion, I've modified my plan. Im still nervous about my infantry, but I think it's better to move it right away than to make to cross my ridgeline later when the enemy may be closer and better able to see them.

IIRC I have 2 APDS per Firefly. You're right about the slope. As one descends, different LOS' are revealed. This will be an extremely tricky map to maneuver on! I really will need as much smoke as I can drop, to mitigate the long range advantages of his guns.