db_zero

Can these be fired within buildings or do they need to be used outside of buildings?

Sounds like if you have MG you don't need the 2.11 update? I'm also downloading the GL update.

I recently killed a German recon HT in a h2h game. Went to hunt down the 2 survivors and they killed all 4 of the pursuing Polish troops. From what I've seen of my own tank crews and opponents vehicle crews performance I've come to the conclusion they have Glocks, 15 round mags and trained by world class pistol shooters. It's really worthwhile to get them to a jeep/truck/halftrack and have them load up with ammo and treat them as Delta Force operatives.

Ugg the Hobbit...never could get into it. I read other authors like Bruce Canton and Paul Carrell in HS. I rented LotR when it came out on DVD. Fell asleep about half way through it.

Besides tanks, how much of the other stuff did air attacks take out? Trucks, half tracks, prime movers, artillery. The German army relied on horses and don't think horses and air attacks go well together. Air attacks is also disruptive. The Germans were masters of mobile defense and counter attacks and it pretty hard to do that when the enemy rules the skies.

This has probably been posted before, but if not here is a link to some downloadable US Army field manuals. Not sure about how relevant to CM gameplay. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/ Here is one on German Army. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/HB/index.html Another place for interesting stuff. http://www.lonesentry.com/ Sure the British had one. Don't think the Russians had one.

Many of the examples pointed out were missions flown by the Army Air Force-not because they wanted to, but ordered to. Eisenhower demanded control of the Army Air Force for a period before and after the Normandy landings. The Army Air Corps was more interested in strategic bombing. The Pacific was a whole different beast. Island hopping and naval operations would be next to impossible without land based air. In WW2 the Air Force was under the Army. After the war the Army Air Corps demanded and got independence to become the USAF and in the divorce got the airplanes and control over how they would be used. The Army was by law forbidden to operate armed fixed wing aircraft-something that I think still exists to this day. The Army was allowed to have the newfangled helicopters. Some believe if the Air Force knew the Army would eventually arm helicopters and turn them into gunships they would have had congress forbid the Army from having them in 1947. The rumor that the Air Force always hated the A-10 and wanted to get rid of it back in the 70's and 80's still exists. So does the rumor the Army has coveted the A-10 and wouldn't mind having them....

The upside is it's a Spitfire strafing my troops. Had it been something else armed with 500/1000 pound bombs or a broadside of rockets the damage could be far worse. I haven't played out the next turn yet so I'll see if he wheels around and does another strafing pass on my troops. I put the area target circle dead center on a small farm with a couple of buildings. Guess next time I'll stick to using the point fire. I may up ending suffering more losses from friendly fire than I do from the Germans. Well live and learn and better against the AI than another opponent.

In North Africa P-38's earned a reputation as efficient and deadly killers of American troops who got bombed and strafed by accidence. Wasn't long before troops just shot at anything in the air, so material was put out to aid recognition of aircraft and the acronym WEFT or Wings, Engine, Fuselage, Tail was created to assist in what to look for. Wasn't long before troops just changed it to Wrong Every F***ing Time.

Playing a MG scenario against the AI thank god. Used a FO to call in a Spitfire strafing run. The first run missed the target. The second pass hoses my paras running near the target. I may have to change procedure and always use the point targeting for airstrikes.

Been 14 years for me too. Saw something about a new and innovative game and too a look after seeing good reviews. Actually took it to work-I was at a dot-com that would soon go belly up. Played CM quite a bit and made a scenario in the editor. Got CMBB a couple years later, but really didn't play it much-in fact hardly touched it and never got Africa. When I saw CMBN I got the collectors edition, played it a while then moved on to other games. Started playing h2h a few months ago and I'm hooked. Still a newby.

Its pouring rain in Italy and I have tanks. Conventional wisdom says it may be a good idea to move them off the trail, but in the pouring rain I think there is a risk of a tank or 2, perhaps more getting stuck off road. A stuck tank for all purposes is pretty useless. Do I keep them on the trail-even if its tactically risky? Or take a chance and move them off the trail. The rain is coming down hard. Does it matter in the game the type of tank it is? Tiger-heavy tank, wide treads and wheel system that distributes the weight, but not sure about how it handles mud. Panther-same with lower weight. MarkIV-thin treads. not so efficient wheel system?

Getting towards the end of book Army at Dawn before I jump into Day of Battle. After the debacle of Kasserine, it was said that a general needed to lose a division of men before he could be considered experienced, so applying that metric when you've suffered your 10,000 or so casualty in CM you can join the ranks of the elite players.

There is also the time factor. I think the game time limits to complete objectives is ahistorical, but given its a sim/game understandable. It does have the effect of making players far more aggressive than was probably the case in real life.

While I agree this is a very good tactic and solution, there is room for nuance. Many battles in MG the British are outgunned from the geto and the restrictive and channelizing nature of urban warfare can make it risky to always strive for trying to gain a firepower advantage as the German tanks can easily inflict heavy casualties on infantry in buildings.

Sneak some info? You're making nice progress and those tanks are a real headache. For me its all about extracting as much blood as possible and dying heroically. As the OP said concentrating firepower is the key-that cures 90% of the time and you have a big advantage in firepower.

Actually I meant overall not just urban combat. I knew at setup I should not have placed the AT gun to cover the road, but did so anyway. I would have been better served placing it behing a building where it would be more survivable and capable of using enfilide fire. I also just got through a series of turns in a non urban environment where we had a brutal, nasty fight in the woods. I had the defending positional advantage and thought I could easily handle what my opponent had, but he used a tactic that negated my advantage and nearly overran my position until I used his tactics againt him and stopped him cold. I watched the replays over and over and it was brutal. Fighting in wooded areas is probably as nasty as urban areas. I'm sure we'll eventually see a Hurtgen Forrest battle that will probably turn some players off.

I bet that just like recipes, there are some secrets, tactics snd strategies out there that some don't share. I've discovered some things I'd rather not discuss and I'm pretty sure there are others. I've also seen my oponents do some useful and interesting stuff that I'm more than happy to incorporate into my bag of tricks.

A 3 to 1 adavantage is generally required for victory in normal conditions all thing being equal. In urban combat that goes up to 7 to 1 if not higher. No real easy way to take a built up area if the defender is willing to fight. Perhaps in game terms pounding it with artillery may work to a degree by killing defenders Inreal life that often just complicated matters by creating lots of rubble and obstructions. Since the game doesn't model rubble you may get away with it - if you have the arty available. Tanks aren't as powerful in urban areas anymore, still useful. AA weapons will be useful. It also appears to me the buildings in Holland protect infantry much better. Your resupply trucks and vechicles are going to become even more valuable as you'll be using up lots of ammo.

OP needs a foray into the Red Light district. That should cure him of what ails him and working too much. Seriously the new Normandy maps I've seen are really good. Are there going to be master maps for Normandy and will it link into the new Holland master maps? It would be awesome if the Normandy, Netherlands and Bulge maps all link up and you can play a campaign with a company/battalion/regiment all the way through the war with the same troops and get replacements. The new Normandy scenario I'm now playing looks to have kriegsmarines. Be interesting to see how well they fight.

Must be something in the milk. Personally I like the fact there are some more Normandy scenarios. Playing one of the new ones h2h now. My opponent is really psyched. His grandfather was attached to an AA unit that fought with the American division represented in the game.

Fair enough... As for me and I suspect many other people out there when I don't know something and want to find out more I goggle, bing get a number of results and start to drill down from there. Can also go to youtube and see what I can dig up there. Then there is the tried and true gaming review sites. Metacritic is not the one stop be all. Its a place I never go to. Yours and other people mileage may vary.

interesting. I always though it was a waste of time for infantry to fire on a buttoned up tank.

You bring up some good points and I don't dispute what you've mentioned. The heavy tank battalions were crucial. But was the overall cost worth the effort? Would it have been more useful to have not spent time designing and producing the Tiger I, King Tiger and Jagdtiger and use those resources to just focusing on the Panther, Jagdpanther, maintenance and assault rifles. Back to my original thesis. Take the enormous resources allocated to designing, producing and fielding the super tanks and instead allocate 50% to making more Panthers, 20% to producing more assault guns, 20% to maintenance and the remainder to the new assault rifles. True the Panther was outclassed in many, but not all ways with the huge Soviet tanks like the JS series, but I would bet that till the wars end the bulk of the Soviet tank force was still the T-34 and the Panther matched up well against the T-34. The JS series would no doubt be a problem, but not an insurmountable one and having more tanks to deal with it would have eased the situation as the Soviet super tanks could not be everywhere at once. 20% of the resources used for German super tanks to making more assault guns. You can make more assaults guns from the resources used to make tanks. The Jagdpanther mounted a similar 88mm mounted on the Tiger. Its low profile made it ideal for defensive operations which by the end of 43 were the type of war Germany was fighting. It also shared the same chassis as the Panther and this would have made a big logistical difference. Having just 2 main tanks Panther and Jagdpanther to support would have been a much easier task than the myriad of different tanks Germany was trying to field and the fact the Panther and Jagdpanther shared the same chassis would have eased the maintenance and logistical issues considerably. 20% of the resources to maintenance of the German tanks. This would translate into more maintenance units, training for those units as wells as more recovery vehicles and those vital but overlooked things such as winches to pull tank engines, not to mention spare parts. Combine the 20% more for maintenance and limiting the newly developed tanks to just the Panther and Jagdpanther with the commonality of the chassis and you now have a tank force that is far more sustainable. Recovering an abandoned Panther or Jagdpanther is far easier than a King Tiger which was a nightmare to recover. The TigerI was also not very easy to recover. 10% of the resources used for super tanks to mass producing assault rifles and ammo of the assault rifles. That's a lot of FG42's and MP44's in 1943/44. That would have really made a difference especially on the Eastern Front where the German infantry often had to face hordes of Soviet troops with a bolt action rifle. Tanks without infantry support become very vulnerable.

Why do you say that? I just starting playing this h2h just recently. I'm still learning and not afraid to say I make mistakes and suffered some crushing defeats. I am getting better. One thing I do know and that is I'm better on the defense than I am attacking. The big attraction of CM is I can find really good players who can really put up a great challenge-better than the AI. I don't mind if I lose, so long as I have fun and get challenged. Sometimes when I'm losing I challenge myself to see how hard I can push my remaing men and inflict as much damage as possible, but sometimes I've had to wave the white surrender flag and hold my head in shame. What I will never do is just dissapear on an opponent. Thats dishonorable. I have a couple of opponents where we agree to not keep score or report. That way we can try battles that we know are unbalanced. It also allows us to refight a tough battle until one is satisfied with their results as well as try out different approaches. Don't sell yourself short. You're probably better than you think. Probably a better player than me too