CM Final Blitzkrieg - ALLIED (Defense) BETA Battle Report

[Holien]

Nah, I spelled it properly; it's you leftpondians wot r laze.

Interesting the infantry fired on the TDs. Must've thought they could tag some crew through the open tops. It's been a long time since I saw open topped armour near enough to infantry to draw rifle fire, but not close enough for grenades...

We have to allow you to change the language as it gives you a sense of identity, youngsters always want to be different from their parents.

I Guess your tank was slightly higher? So neutralised the sloped armour?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Must say, while I think I've read ALL the AAR's in the past, this is my first time catching one "live."

@Bil, big fan of your AAR approach btw. Love the way you analyse, visualise and methodically plan your offensives and movements. Makes for great AAR reading.

Thanks montanaza.. I appreciate the kind words.

I currently own CMBN plus MG&CW, and am now torn between getting RT or FB next - thanks for that..! 

Yeah, sorry about that.. both fantastic games... it'll be tough to choose.  I think I will be playing CMFB more than any of the other games.. it seems "more complete" and the forces seem "better balanced" to me than in any of the other games.  The German infantry now is deadly, can't take them on at a distance, be very wary of them in close action... the armor is much more on par... etc.

I'm not selling you one title over the other, because RT is also amazing, but I'm less of an East Front guy than many... I just thought you'd appreciate my thoughts on the matter.   

[Bil Hardenberger]

I Guess your tank was slightly higher? So neutralised the sloped armour?

Yeah I am at a bit of a height advantage on Hellcat Ridge... plus he was moving, so the advantages were indeed mine in that encounter.  I'm sure he didn't expect me to be there with armor so thought it was safe enough to be driving around behind that little ridge.

[montanaza]

Thanks montanaza.. I appreciate the kind words.

Yeah, sorry about that.. both fantastic games... it'll be tough to choose.  I think I will be playing CMFB more than any of the other games.. it seems "more complete" and the forces seem "better balanced" to me than in any of the other games.  The German infantry now is deadly, can't take them on at a distance, be very wary of them in close action... the armor is much more on par... etc.

I'm not selling you one title over the other, because RT is also amazing, but I'm less of an East Front guy than many... I just thought you'd appreciate my thoughts on the matter.   

Definitely do.

 

Yesterday I downoaded the CMFI demo - I was originally set on getting that as my next one but I found the elevation and terrain variations to be MUCH more work than CMBN. BN is more flat, whereas CMFI elevation makes for a more attention-requiring experience. Perhaps I will enjoy the challenge with more experience, but for now RT or FB *look* more like what I could manage.

[montanaza]

Quick question Bil - reading your Wittman's demise AAR now at work ;p - what difficulty settings do you guys use to get the sound contacts etc? Is t advisable I use that same setting against the AI?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Quick question Bil - reading your Wittman's demise AAR now at work ;p - what difficulty settings do you guys use to get the sound contacts etc? Is t advisable I use that same setting against the AI?

Well, I'm glad you have your priorities straight.  

I try to always play on Iron, but occasionally, when someone else starts the game, it will be set lower.  I think any mode other than Basic Training will give you sound contacts.. and I always recommend you play on Iron as it gives you the most information on friendly command & control status.  Use whatever mode is most comfortable for you.. you can play against the AI in any mode as well.

[montanaza]

Great, thanks Bil

[weapon2010]

Thanks fellas... 

...in all the excitement I forgot to say that the Jumbo bogged right after killing Panther-2... hopefully it will get out of the hole it's in and still be mobile.  If not.. well its in a great position to deal a lot of Pain.   

Bill

 Ive noticed in all my CM2 games, (BN,FI,RT) that crews never abandon immobilized tanks, would not the "natural next step" be for acrew to immediately abandon their tank and try to repair?I understand about repairs being beyond the scope of the game.Who wants to sit in an immobile tank?I can see fanatic and extreme motivated tank crews not abandoning.But that's about it.

[Glubokii Boy]

Bill

 Ive noticed in all my CM2 games, (BN,FI,RT) that crews never abandon immobilized tanks, would not the "natural next step" be for acrew to immediately abandon their tank and try to repair?I understand about repairs being beyond the scope of the game.Who wants to sit in an immobile tank?I can see fanatic and extreme motivated tank crews not abandoning.But that's about it.

I think that very much would depend on the situation...

- What are the current threatlevel to the crew if they bail out as opposed to remain in the tank...?

- Will they still be able to assist friendly forces  in a meaningful way if they remain in the tank (they still have a working gun and machineguns..) or not ?

I don't think that an automatic bailout and withdraw  would be an improvement to the current system...

[weapon2010]

I think that very much would depend on the situation...

- What are the current threatlevel to the crew if they bail out as opposed to remain in the tank...?

- Will they still be able to assist friendly forces  in a meaningful way if they remain in the tank (they still have a working gun and machineguns..) or not ?

I don't think that an automatic bailout and withdraw  would be an improvement to the current system...

agreed, nothing ever should be automatic, but they never bail at all in the "immobilized state", that makes that ai behavior "automatic"

[RockinHarry]

Only game so far I´ve seen crews bail out and attempt to repair immobilizing damage was SF Kharkov 1942. But this is a true tank sim and not a combined arms tactical sim like CM is. Bailing should be left to the player, when it´s immobilization from getting bogged. Track or engine damage immobilizations through combat is a different matter as it´s the soft factors that determine if a crew stays in the tank or not.

[Rinaldi]

For me to counter-attack!!!

Channeling the spirit of Ferdinand Foch?

Exciting stuff as always.  

[weapon2010]

I forgot you can tell them to bailout after immobilization, which makes no sense to issue that order in the game

[General Jack Ripper]

Just goes to show how much I love that Jumbo Sherman.

Cheers.

Edited December 30, 2015 by SLIM

[Bud Backer]

agreed, nothing ever should be automatic, but they never bail at all in the "immobilized state", that makes that ai behavior "automatic"

Funny how each person's experience is different. I've had several crews bail on immobilization, and seen the same with my opponents. It was a struggle for both of us to recrew those tanks because we needed them, even if they could not move.

 

[Ted]

Thanks fellas... 

...in all the excitement I forgot to say that the Jumbo bogged right after killing Panther-2... hopefully it will get out of the hole it's in and still be mobile.  If not.. well its in a great position to deal a lot of Pain.   

Bil, is there any method to increase the chances of removing the bogged status such as slow move or reverse or some other command?

[weapon2010]

Funny how each person's experience is different. I've had several crews bail on immobilization, and seen the same with my opponents. It was a struggle for both of us to recrew those tanks because we needed them, even if they could not move.

 

yes, bail on immobiliztion due to direct at fire causing the immobilization, yes ive seen that plenty of times, they bail due to multiple shells hitting their tank without causing  immobilization as well 

[Wicky]

I forgot you can tell them to bailout after immobilization, which makes no sense to issue that order in the game

An HQ tank crew could bail then mount a standard tank after its crew has bailed..

[snarre]

I think thats not possible . crew can mount only them own vehicle , but i can rember this wrong. 

[weapon2010]

I think thats not possible . crew can mount only them own vehicle , but i can rember this wrong. 

correct,not possible

[Wicky]

Nope it is possible -  I've done it in CMBN using an HQ crew and transferred them into a bog standard Assault Churchill.

Edit - It seems quirky but limited to Humber mounted troop HQs

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by Wicky

[weapon2010]

I just tried it in cmbn, I bailed out a reg tank crew and a hq tank crew, could not get the hq tank crew to go in the reg tank

 

oh so its a bug limited to Humber crews?

[Vanir Ausf B]

It doesn't really work and might be a minor bug. Churchill AVREs are unique (maybe?) in that their crews are divided into 2 sections in the game engine: an engineer team that mans the loader, radio operator and "engineer" positions and the dedicated tank crew with the commander, driver and gunner . You can order the commander, gunner and driver into another dismounted tank and they will enter it but the tank will still say "dismounted" and you can't issue orders to it.

[John Kettler]

Lazarus checking in here. Or is it Rip Van Winkle? Even I don't know anymore. Regardless, after being pinged by Bil for Proof of Life, I managed to drag my somnolent for days qua corpse over here to investigate all this Upheaval in the Ardennes (Redux)™. So far, I've read around 7 pages of this thread and have a few comments to make.

1) The M-8 was a terrible off-road vehicle, so much so that after bitter experience the Army treated it as being effectively road bound. Very high ground pressure.

2) The M-18 was not only is the best tracked AFV in terms of mobility, but its ground pressure was so low it could go where an infantryman couldn't. This is in Gabel's CGSC monograph Seek, Strike & Destroy.

3) From what I recall, the Recon sections (if that's the right term) had a 60 mm mortar in them, partially to conduct Recon by Fire, but primarily to cover a hasty departure by the scout teams. 

4) Military historians need to be urgently contacted about the heretofore unknown presence of large numbers of captured KTs the Americans had during the Bulge! Bil's a phlegmatic sort (or is it WX related) and doesn't bat an eye in listing all their locations.

5) The Russians explicitly targeted tracks on German armor at Kursk and elsewhere, in the expectation that differential thrust would expose the big AFVs' flanks while advancing.  No surprise the Germans would do the same vs Stalin tanks, especially if we're talking Panzer IVs. The russian 45 mm ATG's optics were good enough to allow aimed fire at specific tank parts such as tracks at 500 meters.

6) Article on VT fuze use in Battle of the Bulge.

7) Mark IVs and such were fitted with Ost Ketten or Winter Ketten. These greatly improved winter mobility. In the Roer River battles, it was noted that German tanks could and did flank the American tanks which were roadbound because of mud. Would imagine snow would be much friendlier than mud when it comes to AFV mobility.

8) At Trois Ponts, Belgium, a 57 mm ATG detracked the lead tank, recorded in John Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods, I believe, as a King Tiger, stopping the entire column, since there was no way to go around the beast. Very good account here.

9) German optics perform especially well in marginal WX conditions, thanks to special filters and excellent light-gathering properties. I hope the game reflects this, since it's tactically significant.

Have just devoured half of a large pizza and feel something's missing. Ah, yes, beer! Too bad the pizza's gone.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by John Kettler

[Bil Hardenberger]

[snip]bunch of B.S.[/snip]

Regards,

John Kettler

Welcome to the party John.  Good to see you, once again prowling the corridors.