Enhancements

[Ted]

Which enhancements gives a tank a greater degree of rate of fire and accuracy?

Experience

Motivation

Fitness

Leadership

What would you consider good tweaks for a tank for a quick battle?

[Sgt Schultz]

Veteran/High/+1 is my standard armor setting for QBs. The costs seem prohibitive to me beyond those settings.

I also buy formations and then delete down to nothing but HQ tanks for all my on-map armor. This way if someone buys the farm, there is no loss of C2, as long as it is not the Co or Btn HQs. Plus arty can be called in from relative safety.

Fit is the only choice... period.

Experience, Motivation and Leadership all have their effects on total performance.

Experience helps spotting and accuracy, as well as quick-draw efforts. A Vet tank will vaporize an AT team, while a Green one will stare, think about it, and die.

Motivation will keep the crew on board longer under damaging fire, as well as keeping reverse and pop smoke to minimum unless actually needed. This can backfire in a big way with Extreme and Fanatic settings. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, but Fanatics have blood in their eyes.

Leadership helps the crew load faster, shoot straighter, see better.

-----------

These are all very soft effects that can not be quantified in any exact way, but the difference is there if you play enough games.

[Vanir Ausf B]

See my sig.

[poesel]

See my sig.

I wholeheartedly agree. But you also need to agree with the other side that he does the same. Else it's simply a massacre.

The value you get for higher experience is IMHO to cheap to pay for in points. Of course your crack squad will as readily die under conscript mortars.

[Sailor Malan2]

...

I also buy formations and then delete down to nothing but HQ tanks for all my on-map armor. This way if someone buys the farm, there is no loss of C2, as long as it is not the Co or Btn HQs. Plus arty can be called in from relative safety.

...

-----------

These are all very soft effects that can not be quantified in any exact way, but the difference is there if you play enough games.

Just so that there is no doubt here; are we all in agreement that this is extremely gamey, and will get you thown out of the Association of Historical Simulation Geeks and Associated Realism Buffs?

[Sgt Schultz]

LOL!

If you played against the ravenous horde that I do on a regular basis, you would take every slim advantage you could.

If you think that is gamey, then try this on for size my historically accurate friend...

Buy a German Infantry Plt.

Delete everything but the HQ.

Buy 6 Scout Teams(that is 18 MP40s thank you very much)

Buy 2 LMG teams.

Taa daa... instant SMG toon... before BFC releases one.

Place in ambush positions and set to "purée".

Platoon HQ... 28 points

Scout Teams... 29 points each

LMG42 teams... 28 points each

Vaporizing the enemy ... priceless.

[John Kettler]

Sgt Schultz,

While I understand the why of your armor purchase approach, it is ahistorical, at least, for the Americans (not sure how the German were set up on radios). Only the PL and APL tanks have transceivers fitted; the remaining tanks have receivers only. Therefore, what you're doing was simply impossible on the Normandy battlefield and provides command flexibility and redundancy which were nonexistent at the time. Frankly, this discussion is giving me PTSD flashbacks from my savaging by Fionn in the cherry picked Invitational Tourney.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jaeger Jonzo]

Is it possible to let the game pick both sides forces in qb's? It's some of the stuff mentioned above that's made a QB a pointless option for pbem with you guys hand picking the best attributes out of any possible unit...yawn. Dont you like a real challenge?

[Sgt Schultz]

Scenarios/Campaigns are the only way to go to avoid gameyness. There is no such animal as an accurate QB.

Why?

Destroy Points.

Without the penalties imposed by that feature, that is only available in designed works, then QBs are ONLY for those moments when you want to cut loose... not for any kind of accuracy at all. If a player is not FORCED to care for his units, then he will be tempted to take every possible advantage available. Human nature.

I am quite happy playing a historical scenario where my opponent is constrained in the same manner that I am. I like both types of play. I did my time in grog-land with my three full boxes of ASL maps/counters/scenario sheets for close to 20 years. Now, I get to let my hair down occasionally and really use the resources the way I would have if I had been in charge.

If I choose historically accurate QB buys, I lose. If I use my hard-won knowledge of the editor and the units at my disposal... I may still lose, but not as badly.

This is a QB thread... it lives and breathes gamey. The OP asked a question, and I gave an answer that is consistent with the game engine's capabilities. This is the seedy underbelly of CM, where grogs fear to tread.

Find an accurate scenario and send me a setup... Over 30 years of groggy WW2 gaming experience awaits your pleasure.

-----------

If a thread is about QBs, it is not about accuracy. It is about blowing the livin' cr@p out of your opponent in an orderly, proficient and military manner.

-----------

To paraphrase Conan...

What is best in QBs?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to see the lamentation of their commander in dropbox chat.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm compiling a list of house rules I'm hoping to get my future opponents to agree to for QBs. I think I just thought of another: every HQ must have at least 1 subordinate unit

Buy a German Infantry Plt.

Delete everything but the HQ.

Buy 6 Scout Teams(that is 18 MP40s thank you very much)

Buy 2 LMG teams.

Taa daa... instant SMG toon... before BFC releases one.

Place in ambush positions and set to "purée".

Platoon HQ... 28 points

Scout Teams... 29 points each

LMG42 teams... 28 points each

Vaporizing the enemy ... priceless.

Interesting. I don't think I will bother with any rules to limit this. Although this does create a very powerful formation it will burn through ammo fast, and most importantly you are paying a steep premium. The Scout and LMG teams are 14.5 and 14 points per man respectively. A Grenadier platoon is 4.1 points per man so you are paying more than triple. To be sure, anything you can ambush at close range will be pureed, but the much cheaper Grenadier squad may to the job adequately at a much lower price. The average Grenadier squad has 5 vanilla K98, 1 K98/GL, 1 MG42, 2 MP40s (one MP40 is sometimes switched out for a scoped K98 or a MP44). So a typical Grenadier squad has the firepower equivalent of a scout team and a LMG42 team while costing 20 pts less (28+29) - 37. The other 5 guys in the squad are free backups

Of course I've never tried using a Scout + LMG platoon in an actual game so maybe they are worth their weight in gold, but at least on paper it doesn't look like an exploit.

[slysniper]

This reminds me why qb's are not for me. I just would never invest the time to come up with such practices, and even after I have seen them, likely used against me. I would use them myself but would not find enjoyment in them even though I know I need to use them to be talented.

All for the simple fact in the statement - if I was in charge, this is how my army would be. Like that is anything of reality, even if one would have found themselves totally in charge of the Armed forces at that time, none of you could have come close to fielding armies that you love to create in your fantasy world. So a grog I must be, because I have found the world has never delivered the expectations of any one person. People of greatness are those that deliver results with what the world gives them, not with dreams of what they wished they had.

This is not a attack against QB's or fantasy setups, they are fun and I enjoy them myself once in awhile. just pointing out it really comes down to what a person values as to why certain styles of play is not for everyone.

[Bud Backer]

I think the degree of gameyness is dependent on the players. My friend that I've been playing against for 30+ years has always said if he loses it's fine as long as it is reasonably believeable. QBs can indeed be terribly gamey from what has been mentioned, but we both try in games we play to pick realistic forces, and to protect them from needlessly being destroyed.

The trouble with scenarios is that whoever is the designer has an advantage over his opponent who either had to be given the option to look over the scenario as well (thus no one is surprised) or one player really has a big intelligence bonus over the other.

What I personally like about QB's is that it can always be fresh, no foreknowledge of what the other is buying and how they deploy, but with the right friends playing who are interested in a reasonably realistic experience, you can have a heck of a lot of fun.

Just my view, not invalidating anything anyone said before, it's just how it works for me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I agree that QBs are as realistic or fantasy-based as the players want to make them. The same is true for canned scenarios except it's the scenario designer who makes that decision. The drawback to QBs is that if you want them to be somewhat realistic you need to agree to that with your opponent before hand. The advantage is that you have endless replayability whereas there are a limited number of scenarios out there and only some of those are well-suited for H2H play.

[womble]

Is it possible to let the game pick both sides forces in qb's?

I think so. However, the force picking algorithms are... a bit wonky sometimes, so you might (if you're playing "Mixed" end up as the attacker with an FO, no Arty, a platoon of towed AT and a jeep.

It's some of the stuff mentioned above that's made a QB a pointless option for pbem with you guys hand picking the best attributes out of any possible unit...yawn. Dont you like a real challenge?

Define "real challenge". Any challenge in a QB is posed by the other player. That's a real challenge, compared to the AI. If you meant "realistic challenge", well, you might get that in a QB, or you might get a horribly gamey mix of forces that would never have been put together in RL.

This is a QB thread... it lives and breathes gamey.

If a thread is about QBs, it is not about accuracy. It is about blowing the livin' cr@p out of your opponent in an orderly, proficient and military manner.

Heh. Word.

Interesting. I don't think I will bother with any rules to limit this. Although this does create a very powerful formation it will burn through ammo fast, and most importantly you are paying a steep premium. The Scout and LMG teams are 14.5 and 14 points per man respectively. A Grenadier platoon is 4.1 points per man so you are paying more than triple. To be sure, anything you can ambush at close range will be pureed, but the much cheaper Grenadier squad may to the job adequately at a much lower price. The average Grenadier squad has 5 vanilla K98, 1 K98/GL, 1 MG42, 2 MP40s (one MP40 is sometimes switched out for a scoped K98 or a MP44). So a typical Grenadier squad has the firepower equivalent of a scout team and a LMG42 team while costing 20 pts less (28+29) - 37. The other 5 guys in the squad are free backups

Of course I've never tried using a Scout + LMG platoon in an actual game so maybe they are worth their weight in gold, but at least on paper it doesn't look like an exploit.

I think the points values for the independent teams are appropriately inflated to make "custom platoons" like that cost-ineffective against a decent player who knows how to handle infantry. As you say, you get a lot more "bang" for your QB "buck" from Formations of infantry, and that's before you consider how many more support weapons you can get for the points. In an ideal world, though, I'd like to see that sort of balance handled by rarity rather than base cost though.

It's the really small teams that you buy one or two of that are sorta "exploit-y", since a 2 man Sniper team costs very little to make Elite. But they are only small, and that sort of raisin in your Battalion pudding adds a little interest

[Jaeger Jonzo]

Hmm, it's a mentality thing I guess then. I define the challenge in trying to win the battle as realistically as possible within the context of a sim that's trying to be as realistic as it can be, not using silly fake oob's or über elite formations. I like qb's when they are against familiar opponents I've played over the years as you get a mutual respect thing going and can set ground rules. I suppose I don't get a grognardy ww2 battle sim being used as a gamey slug fest, why not use an rts or world of tanks for that? But each to your own, it just sadly means I only get to fight historical scenarios against new opponents and there aren't many scens for cmbn and cmfi.

[Bud Backer]

Hmm, it's a mentality thing I guess then. I define the challenge in trying to win the battle as realistically as possible within the context of a sim that's trying to be as realistic as it can be, not using silly fake oob's or über elite formations. I like qb's when they are against familiar opponents I've played over the years as you get a mutual respect thing going and can set ground rules.

I completely agree. It's when you're playing against someone whom you know, and who has a similar interest in how the game is played, that it gets really interesting. If I just wanted to see who can exploit the game mechanics I'd go back to some RTS games. A lot of fun admittedly, but impossible to simulate real combat, particularly with strangers as opponents.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

LOL!

If you played against the ravenous horde that I do on a regular basis, you would take every slim advantage you could.

If you think that is gamey, then try this on for size my historically accurate friend...

Buy a German Infantry Plt.

Delete everything but the HQ.

Buy 6 Scout Teams(that is 18 MP40s thank you very much)

Buy 2 LMG teams.

Taa daa... instant SMG toon... before BFC releases one.

Place in ambush positions and set to "purée".

Platoon HQ... 28 points

Scout Teams... 29 points each

LMG42 teams... 28 points each

Vaporizing the enemy ... priceless.

I personally like "frappe" Schultz. It leaves no indication at all of what you have placed in the blender. Cheers!

[John Kettler]

Sgt Schultz,

If you're forced to resort to such extreme measures in order to survive, I shudder to think what you're up against! Your two passages about disposing of and your Conan paraphrase would both make excellent sigs.

Vanir Ausf B,

Can computerized force optimization analyses be far away? Are you a descendant of one of McNamara's Whiz Kids?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Quintus Sertorius]

While I appreciate the historicity of CMBN (if I didn't I'd probably be playing some game with wizards and orcs or something), I'm in favor of expanding troop selection to include even anachronistic and ahistorical units and formations -- as long as they are prominently labeled. I might not even use them 95% of the time, but the option should be there. Historical battles are one thing, but made-up and head-to-head battles should let the player enjoy the game aspects of CMBN however he sees fit.

[Michael Emrys]

If you played against the ravenous horde that I do on a regular basis, you would take every slim advantage you could.

Which is why I stopped playing against live opponents long, long ago. I like my wargames at least semi-historical.

Michael

[Apocal]

No, that is perfectly fine. Adversarial multiplayer is meant to be played in a competitive frame of mind. If the wargame, played competitively, is unrealistic, that is a problem with the wargame, not with players.

[Michael Emrys]

If the wargame, played competitively, is unrealistic, that is a problem with the wargame, not with players.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. In my years of playing wargames against live opponents I found them to be a totally unscrupulous lot. Saying that, I am willing to concede that my sampling may not have been truly as representative as it might have been. Maybe I just had 20 year string of bad luck. Possibly there are players of CM who are fine, trustworthy gentlemen. However, the habit of solitaire play is now deeply set in me and I am in fact comfortable with it. The rest of you can...well, play as you like.

Michael

[Sgt Schultz]

Yep, I like a nice evening of single player campaign play. It certainly is more in line with my mental muscle memory of how to treat units and how to use what I have. Plus the memories of being back in my teens and reading about the battle that I am now playing is its own special thrill.

Playing against said unscrupulous lot has sharpened my scenario making skills though. It is now much harder to "break" one of my battles by throwing lives into the fire to achieve objectives.

My real fun comes through the editor if truth be told. I spend as much time there as I do all other CM use combined. Maybe someday I will buckle down and finish some of the dozen maps I have going.

My editor work is what gives me all these gamey tips, not my prevailing opinion or choice.

[MikeyD]

Which enhancements gives a tank a greater degree of rate of fire and accuracy?

Experience

Motivation

Fitness

Leadership

My suggestion is watch out for 'motivation'. If you make your guys fanatics they will stand their ground and die. And a heroically dead tank is of less utility than a live tank that's retreated behind a smokescreen to fight another day. Also don't forget the higher the enhancements the more expensive. You might be able to afford one 'elite/fanatical' Tiger I but two or more 'regular' Tiger Is.

[womble]

If you're defending, Motivation is golden, IMO. High motivation troops stay up longer, and rally from suppression more times before falling back. If the enemy slacks off on the suppressive fire even slightly his advancing units will get shot to bits as your troops rally.

I wouldn't, though, as MikeyD says, go for the top end motivation levels, for the reasons he offers. Just don't skimp on it.