Things I've always wondered

[Sgt. Moody]

I am farely new to the game and these are some things Ive wondered about.

1)what does the "c" after the armor slope degree mean on vehicles.

2)Why is the armor slope for the M3 halftrack at 0 but it looks like it is about 10.

3)Why is the cost of a sherman and the cost of a panzer roughly the same even though the US has far greater production.

4)What does the withdraw command do different from the move command.

This is all that I could think of off the top of my head, but I might have more questions later.

Thanks in advance.

[ December 13, 2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Evil ]

[JonnyEnglish]

1) Not sure

2) Not sure

3) I'm guessing it has more to do with game balance than simulating numbers of tanks available on the battlefield

4) 'Withdraw' differs from 'Fast' or 'Move' in that: you can only withdraw back towards your starting axis, it has no command delay (unit starts running immediately) & inflicts a higher chance of the unit panicking or routing

[sross]

1) I believe it means curved armor, not flat angles.

[Redwolf]

1) curved armor. On any hit an angle is randomly chosen.

2) the 3D model has nothing to do with the data

3) the cost does not take production into account, only combat relevant data

4) withdraw only works towards the friendly map edge, has no delay and is useless because it panics at a too high rate (in CMBB and CMAK).

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Dr. Evil:

3)Why is the cost of a sherman and the cost of a panzer roughly the same even though the US has far greater production.

Because they're about as good as each other. When you get rarity in CMBB and CMAK, you'll notice a pricing difference.

4)What does the withdraw command do different from the move command.

It's basically a fast move towards you own edge of the battle with no delay, that worries the crap out of everyone.

Can be somewhat useful, though.

[z-warfare]

I think 'withdraw' can be useful if the unit is at least veteran and in command of an HQ with extra morale. But that's about it.

[jBrereton]

Yeah, agreed, but it can be extremely useful if you're about to get annihilated by a King Tiger or what have you and would rather pull back and lay an ambush a bit later.

[Sgt. Moody]

Another Question: What is a probe mission suppost to be exactly?

[jBrereton]

Like a recon type thing.

[JasonC]

Tactically speaking, a probe is an attempt to grab poorly defended ground, to turn no man's land in to your men's land. Without getting killed in the process.

A frequent operational stance is to toss arty at the forward enemy positions daily and conduct small probes in their wake. The idea being to slowly but steadily gain ground if the enemy rolls away from the punches, and to bleed him in place if he does not.

No great odds edge is needed. But it only works if you are cautious enough that your don't bleed yourself white in the process.

In CM terms, probes feature lower attacker odds (1.35 to 1 or 10% below attack odds), flags farther forward, and a smaller defender's set up zone. More of the map is thus no man's land and the defender cannot step back appreciably without surrendering some valuable flags.

It is possible to design much better realistic probe conditions, though. By having losses play more of a role in victory and flags less, and by having the flags occur as several small ones split between some in no man's land, readily reachable by the attacker, a few where the defender starts, and a few farther back in his positions. If the front line doesn't move but the attacker does take no man's land, the defender should get only a modest number of net flag points - like 100-200. If the attacker takes the defender's start line but nothing more, the attacker should get plus about the same amount, net.

The QB generator won't make that happen, though. It puts all the flags in the defender's set up zone and often puts a lot of points in them. Which continues to provide a strong VP incentive to mash forces together vigorously - it just also penalizes the defender for taking a single step back. Hardly the best VCs to simulate a real probe, in which losses or avoiding them are the main thing, and ground relatively indifferent.

[Lindsey]

I'm a vet of cmbo, but new to cmbb. Does anyone agree that the AI in cmbb is too "omniscient?"

Ex. #1- Hornet's Nest T-34's scoring hits on hull down vehicles at 1780m? C'mon! We're talking about a mile and a quarter here.

Ex. #2- Hill 312 I did a charge with 4 German squads, followed by a delayed charge [20 sec.] with 3 others. The Russian mg's in the bunker and pillbox were firing three or four bursts in a 1 minute turn. I'm okay with that, but when one of the charging squads would go to ground and start crawling, the AI would adjust the target to one of the other squads until it went to ground, and so forth. It seems to me that when I target an enemy squad in a similar situation, my units will continue to fire at the same enemy unit until I change the target in the following turn. A big advantage for the AI. Any thoughts on this?

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Lindsey:

Ex. #1- Hornet's Nest T-34's scoring hits on hull down vehicles at 1780m? C'mon! We're talking about a mile and a quarter here.

If they're not moving, it's imminently possible. You just make an estimate on the first couple of shots and refine your aim for the final one.

If the target was moving at that kind of range, you'd never hit, though, yeah.

Ex. #2- Hill 312 I did a charge with 4 German squads, followed by a delayed charge [20 sec.] with 3 others. The Russian mg's in the bunker and pillbox were firing three or four bursts in a 1 minute turn. I'm okay with that, but when one of the charging squads would go to ground and start crawling, the AI would adjust the target to one of the other squads until it went to ground, and so forth. It seems to me that when I target an enemy squad in a similar situation, my units will continue to fire at the same enemy unit until I change the target in the following turn. A big advantage for the AI. Any thoughts on this?

If your squad is still firing at a crawling enemy after any length of time, it's because you will have directly ordered it, and your squad doesn't think that there are any more grave dangers which could invalidate those orders.

No idea if the AI gets a benefit on this, I'd doubt it, but, hey, how would I know.

[GreenAsJade]

(never mind)

[Aco4bn187inf]

About your example number 2-

I think if you don't give any targetting order, your unit will be more likely to fire upon multiple targets per turn. It won't try to limit itself to a particular target. (Provided it decides it's worthwhile to fire at all.) A unit like a bunker, which has plenty of ammo and doesn't get suppressed easily, is probably pretty trigger-happy that way, regardless of whether it belongs to you or to the AI.

[Bannon DC]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

4) withdraw only works towards the friendly map edge, has no delay and is useless because it panics at a too high rate (in CMBB and CMAK).

Disagree. Withdraw should be used in the right circumstances. If a squad is pinned in a building about to be turned to rubble by a tank, use withdraw to save your men. Better panicked than dead. If a tank is rounding a corner and will catch your men in the open, withdraw and get the hell out of there. They will most likely be just fine if they are not under fire. Depends on how you use the command. There is some delay with withdraw but it is cut down significantly. You can even use it as a short cut to cut the order delay... minimal risk for vets or regulars if not under fire.

[Joachim]

IIRC "withdraw" halves the command delay not nullifies it.

IMHO the probability of your troops continuing to run when receiving incoming is higher than with run.

Gruß

Joachim

[John Kettler]

Lindsey,

Regarding AI's behavior against your attacking forces, the behavior is both logical and militarily sensible. Men facedown in the earth are simply not the threats that men up and closing are. Thus, the AI is correctly addressing high priority threats first. Another example of this is the unwelcome attention you'll find heaped on your flamethrower and bazooka/Panzerschreck teams by the AI. The reason is simple. It's tiny "brain" knows that they're dangerous and treats them accordingly, pouring fire on them whenever the opportunity affords.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt AA]

Originally posted by Bannon DC:

IMHO it's possible to go in any direction, IIRC.

[Wicky]

Panicked, routed and broken units scarper uncontrollably back towards their friendly edge.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sgt AA:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bannon DC:

IMHO it's possible to go in any direction, IIRC. </font>

IIRC it works only into a "general direction" towards the friendly edges. If the shortest way to the friendly map edge is 0°, you can move from -89.9° to +89.9°. If there are two friendly map edges, you can withdraw in any direction.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sgt. Moody]

In the CM operation editor what does the fanaticm option do?

[jBrereton]

Fanaticism?

Stops your troops running away, ever. They'll run into HMG fire and keep running, as long as a single one of the men in the unit is left.

[Sgt. Moody]

Does anyone know how to change the color of a unit in the editor when diciding who will be in what set-up zone.

Also, sorry if you can't figure out my horrible spelling.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dr. Evil:

Does anyone know how to change the color of a unit in the editor when diciding who will be in what set-up zone.

Also, sorry if you can't figure out my horrible spelling.

You just have to physically move them from one set up zone to another in the editor, thereby locking them into that particular set up zone.

[Brent Pollock]

...except for FT attacks, as mentioned in the rules.

Originally posted by jBrereton:

Fanaticism?

Stops your troops running away, ever. They'll run into HMG fire and keep running, as long as a single one of the men in the unit is left.