Chance Encounter in CMBB

[laxx]

** as if you need a disclaimer for Chance Encounter**

I was playing Chance Encounter in CMBB as Germans just for the heck of it.

(for the newbies, Chance Encounter is a CMBO training scenario (also found in CMBO Demo) for the Allies. There is a modded version for CMBB by Tom Klimisch, but instead of Shermans and US troops, t-34s and Russian troops are used).

Having not played CMBO for a while,the differences are obvious:

* Maps are so much smaller in CMBO, initially I thought there was a conversion mistake for the whole map to be so contained.

* HMGs can suppress the whole company. In CMBO, two HMGs could not stop a determined platoon from crossing the wheat field.

* StuGIIIs are deadly. I remember the initial CMBO discussion on tactics of how 3 StuGs could overcome 5 Shermans. Now, 3 StuG beat 5 T34s in frontal slug-fest. ( I think T-34s are better than Shermans, I wonder what would happen if I substitute the T-34s back to Lend-lease Shermans).

* Well, in the original Chance Encounter, everyone commented that it was a very balanced game, now, I think to be fair against AI Russians, you need to give +25 to +50% and +1 Skill level, IMHO.

Cheers!

[Monty's Double]

I think T-34s are better than Shermans

Bit of a blanket statement if you don't mind me saying so. Is a 1940 model T34 better than a Sherman Jumbo 76 or Firefly? What year is the CMBB version of chance encounter set in? "Vanilla" Shermans get a bad press because they were still being used in 1944/5, but a 75mm armed Sherman is a pretty good match for any version of the Panzer IV, and beats the Panzer III hands down.

[Straif]

Originally posted by laxx:

(snip ...)

* Well, in the original Chance Encounter, everyone commented that it was a very balanced game, now, I think to be fair against AI Russians, you need to give +25 to +50% and +1 Skill level, IMHO.

Cheers!

Did you consider a possibility that you are a different (I mean - better) player now?

Straif

[MikeyD]

I went in and replaced the T34s with Lend-Lease M4A4 Shermans just to get a fair comparison with the CMBO Chance Encounter.

Compared to the T34s, the Shermans kicked major butt!!! What a difference having three men in the turret! the stugs were able to shrug off T34-76 AP hits but Sherman 75mm hits at the same range penetrated -- AND they often got off the first shot.

...I think I did this before the 1.01 patch, I don't think they changed anything in the game that would have affected the outcome though.

[laxx]

Hi,

Monty's Double : Well, you are right. It depends on year, terrain which is deployed. I won't argue with you on firefly or jumbos but I wager that T-34 41 model is comparable or better than Sherman I or II (M4A1) based on 1941 build. Of coss, we could argue on the definition of "better", ie. on kill ratio, specs etc.

Straif You are right too. CMBB taught me that it is okay to sacrifice troops to achieve the overall objectives. Before in CMBO, losing troops eg. like crossing a wheat field, I would do a tactical withdrawal.

MikeyD Do you know what Sherman tank was used in the original CHance Encounter, the 1945 April (CMBB version) has either the M4A2 or M4A2(76)W. Thinking of trying it with Sherman instead. (if you have the scenario lying conveniently around, could you send it to me at laxx@myrealbox.com ?)

[ January 13, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Eden Smallwood]

I only played the CMBO demo a few times; I came up with a pretty foolproof tactic as US and thence lost interest.

The same tactic failed completely and utterly in the CMBB version- in CMBO, allies had Bazooka Joe around, who could at least intimidate the heck out of axis armor if not take some out completely. In CMBB, allies have Bazooka Josef armed with the Mighty(Not) Soviet ATR, which is almost completely useless.

Valley Of Trouble part Deux is alot closer to the original, at least in my perception; CE is a whole different scenario.

Didn't Soviets have US Bazookas anyhow?

Eden

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

I only played the CMBO demo a few times; I came up with a pretty foolproof tactic as US and thence lost interest.

The same tactic failed completely and utterly in the CMBB version- in CMBO, allies had Bazooka Joe around, who could at least intimidate the heck out of axis armor if not take some out completely. In CMBB, allies have Bazooka Josef armed with the Mighty(Not) Soviet ATR, which is almost completely useless.

Valley Of Trouble part Deux is alot closer to the original, at least in my perception; CE is a whole different scenario.

Didn't Soviets have US Bazookas anyhow?

Eden

The ATRs keep a German player from getting too aggressive with their armored cars and halftracks. If they aren't in a scenario then this admittedly limits their utility.

Lend lease bazookas did not go over very well with the Soviets for some reason. I've yet to see a definite post on this topic on the board. Certainly I think they preferred captured panzerfausts to bazookas or panzerschreks, given the design of the RPG series.

[JasonC]

Perhaps a political officer stood behind the shooter to observe the effect (joke).

Yes, Shermans are better than T-34s. Sherman 76s are as good as T-34/85s, and Sherman 75s are better than T-34/76s. If the turret of the later were modeled stronger - as I for one think it should be - they'd be comparable tanks. As it is, a Pz III long beats the T-34/76, while it takes a Pz IV long to have the edge over a Sherman 75.

[ January 14, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]