Changes that you have noticed in CMAK

[Synurgi]

This thing about kill totals...I remember in

CMBO you wouldnt get a accurate kill total. For

instance you could kill gobs of infantry with

a Forward Observer but get a much lower reported

kills in the AfterGame report. In CMBB I thought

this was changed so the AfterGame report would

accurately report kills. In the case of artillery

observers, they would certainly show a much more

accurate kill total than CMBO. Maybe CMAK went

back to the older CMBO way of doing things instead

of the more accurate CMBB method?

[ASL Veteran]

Best thing I've seen so far are the six shells in the M-10's ready rack in Line of Defense! Great job Kwazydog!!! :eek: :cool:

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I believe that units only get credit for "confirmed kills". If the kill was at such a range or was visually obscured in such a way as to make such confirmation impossible, then no credit is assigned.

Michael

That's true of CMBO but in CMBB (and I assume in CMAK as it follows on from CMBB) you should always be able to find out how many kills any one unit achieves once the battle is over and you're in the results phase at the end. Unless an exception applies to sharpshooters for some reason they should also have their kill stats revealed at the end.

Regards

Jim R.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I believe that units only get credit for "confirmed kills". If the kill was at such a range or was visually obscured in such a way as to make such confirmation impossible, then no credit is assigned.

Michael

Apparently, that isn't so Mike.

[ November 26, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I believe that units only get credit for "confirmed kills". If the kill was at such a range or was visually obscured in such a way as to make such confirmation impossible, then no credit is assigned.

My understanding is that this is true during the game, while FOW is in effect. But I thought that once the game was over, FOW was lifted and all kills (whether confirmed during the game or not) that a unit was responsible for showed up in its record.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

My understanding is that this is true during the game, while FOW is in effect. But I thought that once the game was over, FOW was lifted and all kills (whether confirmed during the game or not) that a unit was responsible for showed up in its record.

I don't know what Micheal Emrys was smoking, but I just checked the ending Auto Save for the Italian scenario and the reports were VERY detailed. They even showed who captured enemy troops. Ace Pilot, your understanding was right on target.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I don't know what Micheal Emrys was smoking...

At my age, son, I don't need to smoke anything to have a minor brain infarction. Sorry I forgot about BFC changing that.

Michael

[Hpt. Lisse]

I think CMAK looks great, and will put my pre-order in post-haste. However - There are a few issues.

A) The "captured" modeling needed a gentle nudge forward, not a huge leap - I've watched veteran squads in HQ range with only one or two casualties suddenly give up the ghost under modest pressure. IMO, this needs to be re-thought.

As has happened in the past, a full regular Axis squad within a heavy house refuses (in 4 turns!) to employ their Panzerfaust 30's at a Green M4A3 at 25 meters. They were not under small arms fire (i.e. pinned), and did not fire even when the tank rotated around, presenting its vulnerable rear quater to the squad.

C) As listed previously, the Grant's 75mm inability to target heavier AFV's, choosing to use it's 37mm instead.

I'm sure the boys at Battlefront are hard at work, and look forward with great anticipation to CMAK for X-mas.

Hpt. Lisse

[Aacooper]

One effect of larger US HQ squads is that the US command structure becomes more robust.

For example, the 3-man Soviet CMBB platoon HQ's are easier to wipe out than a 4-man HQ. Therefore (and I believe accurately) the Soviet infantry is more likely to be out of command than a German platoon.

So, the '42 US infantry companies will be more in command than the better-trained late-war companies.

I suppose increased realism has its disadvantages.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

One effect of larger US HQ squads is that the US command structure becomes more robust.

For example, the 3-man Soviet CMBB platoon HQ's are easier to wipe out than a 4-man HQ. Therefore (and I believe accurately) the Soviet infantry is more likely to be out of command than a German platoon.

So, the '42 US infantry companies will be more in command than the better-trained late-war companies.

On the other hand, the larger HQs make make it more tempting to use them as local "fire brigades" to plug a hole in a defense or to beef up an attack. In which case, they will get shot at more than if they were held back and even hidden, which is what I tend to do with my HQs a lot of the time.

Michael

[ December 03, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[P5]

I noticed a small, but very important change, that I've wished since CMBO and especially I was hoping that it would have worked in CMBB.

Finally the tanks are able to ram against the guns and get the crew to abandon their gun!

This don't work against the infantry, they just sit in their trenches even when the tank is on top of them, but I guess this is more realistic this way? And at least it wont make the job of eliminating the infantry too easy.

[Urban Shocker]

Regarding sniper kills...

After reading a couple of books on snipers I think they know with a high degree of confidence if they were successful. They spray of blood and body parts along with a slumping body (now that would be interesting to see a TC slumped over the turret of his tank until his crew members pulled him in) seem to be good indicators of a hit. We are not talking about very long shots, either.

Why are they not accurately recorded in the AAR?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by P5:

I noticed a small, but very important change, that I've wished since CMBO and especially I was hoping that it would have worked in CMBB.

Well, I did that plenty in CMBB

I overran quite a few guns in trenches or foxholes in scattered trees. The best part is that if the trench goes out of the woods you can even reach a gun in woods in the same trench.

This don't work against the infantry, they just sit in their trenches even when the tank is on top of them, but I guess this is more realistic this way? And at least it wont make the job of eliminating the infantry too easy.

Well, the problem is that the foxholes in the open have very low protection level anyway. It is only consequent to assume the guys in there could move away before being crushed.

[P5]

I noticed a small, but very important change, that I've wished since CMBO and especially I was hoping that it would have worked in CMBB.

Well, I did that plenty in CMBB

At least I never got it working in CMBB, although I didn't try it too often, as my tactics in CMBO and CMBB were totally different, than with the CMAK now.

I usually wouldn't engage in such a short range action, that is now a very common with CMAK.

But anyways, not it works out just fine!

[ December 04, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: P5 ]