I hate wire

[jtcm2]

I've played CM (CMBO, CMBB) since 1999-- and I still HATE wire-- either it forces me into enemy fire, or (even if I've silenced whatever covers it), I have to push infantry to exhaustion to struggle its way through the mess. I know, you can load infantry on tanks and cross this way. I still wish there were wire cutters or bangalore torpedoes in CM.

[JasonC]

You don't need to exhaust infantry to cross wire.

Yes it is bad if you get shot at while on it, and a unit in panic can easily hit exhausted. But in the absence of fire here is the way to cross it.

The unit must be infantry rated "fast". Don't attempt to cross wire with a "slow" HMG or mortar team. (Go around, use an AFV, or just fire from range).

Position the unit just shy of the wire, about 5 meters away from the edge of the strand.

The unit has completed any previous moves and is stationary and "OK".

The order to use is "move". Nothing else.

The waypoint is on the far side of the wire, perpendicular crossing. No further.

The time it takes to cross the wire under those proper circumstances is only 1 minute.

In an opposed crossing, the full platoon goes to such positions, and overwatches from them, lack of cover be damned. Intervals are 26 meters at least, 30m preferably, along the wire. This is important to ensure that any shooter that can see the wire can be seen by the overwatch - if you stay well back to find cover, you often won't be able to see a well positioned wire-covering shooter.

One unit makes the crossing the first minute. If fired on it will break, but reply fire can get the shooter off of them.

After one unit is across, it uses "advance" to go to the nearest available cover on the far side of the wire, but in no case more than 50 meters ahead. It must advance at least 25 meters past the wire, to avoid fire at it suppressing the next crosser. Don't go much further or you will be engaged piecemeal before help can cross; that is what let's wire work (dividing the attackers into those across and those not, just like a crestline).

Cross all the rest of the platoon in the 2nd minute if you expect no fire and time is pressed. Otherwise, you can continue to move across 1-2 units per platoon per turn. Nobody starts across before the previous men have made it and are moving out under "advance" to clear the mutual suppression distance.

Low ground areas often provide dead ground to set up the crossing or shelter in afterward. Look for them in long wire obstacles. Even if the enemy can get LOS from a few locations, blocking it from many nearby ones is still very useful. It gives the overwatch or smoke a managable task.

Smoke beyond wire can be used to complete a rapid crossing if you've first moved everyone into position. The typical smoke mission is light mortars (for reaction speed and coverage) and the procedure is as follows.

The crossing force needs to be in cover within 100 meters of the place they will cross, rested and in OK morale.

The mortar FO must have LOS to the crossing site and beyond it.

The length of wire to cross must support the number of men you need to move, with only 1-2 units per 25 or better 30 meters of wire.

Now, the FO targets beyond the wire and the time counts down to less than 1 minute remaining.

The infantry get "advance" orders to the positions from which they will cross, 5 meters shy of their assigned crossing location.

The crossing locations are 26-30 meters apart along the wire.

Only one unit initially head to each crossing location. If a second will cross there, it is a minute delayed.

The first wave moves out from the crossing locations, still on the friendly side of the wire, in the mortar FO's "last minute". Smoke shells should be landing on the far side as they approach the wire.

The smoke screen will build in the second minute, and the first crossers will be at their crossing locations ready for their second, "move" waypoint.

Now, each crosser uses the short "move" perpendicular crossing described above.

A second wave moves to the crossing locations, delayed about 30 seconds, if you need to use one for the space available. You don't want them to close up with the wire before the others are across.

The ideal 3rd minute has the first group clear of the wire and the second just reaching their 5m crossing positions. Cancel the mortar smoke mission; the remaining time before the smoke dissipates will suffice.

The first wave moves to the nearest cover, inside the smoke, using advance. The second wave crosses on move and goes stationary on the far side of the wire. The smoke will be begining to clear.

Last minute, the smoke should clear with your first wave in cover across, and the second "advance" - ing to join them and get out of the open - they should already be clear of the 100% exposed wire and the vulnerable "move" order state.

If the timing or choreography are too challenging, allow one additional minute and keep the smoke going for an additional minute.

Avoid anything slower than that - the enemy may call for arty fire on the smoke site as soon as they see what is happening, and that direct fire won't cover the wire as they had planned. You want to be clear by the time a medium module would have time to land (typically 4-5 minutes after your first smoke shell pops).

This is an elaborate "drill", certainly. But it is do-able.

I hope this helps...

[jtcm2]

Brilliant ! Like in real life armies-- SOP and patience does it. What a life lesson.

[jtcm2]

How does the tactical equation work ?

I advance. Immediate eyeballing, then scouting reveals patches with wire, and patches without wire. Here starts the mind game element: why is there wire ? Three possibilities:

1. He wants me to go into areas where he can bring lots of firepower to bear: the wire steers me into it. Question: what does he have to cover the wire ? Answer: probably enough to make life unpleasant, but the main assets must be deployed elsewhere, in the wire-free main killing zone. Solution: cross wire with smoke routine and overwatch.

2. The wire is the main killing zone: it must be within shooting distances of heavy hitting stuff, e.g. infy in trenches. Question: where are those assets deployed, for maximum damage ? (what if it's a TRP on wire ?) Solution ? Avoid, or set up for major slug fest "at the wire".

3. Wire is undefended obstacle. Question: why is this ? Solution: cross.

Some thoughts, while eating birthday cake alone in my office.

[dieseltaylor]

Bear in mind the advantages of buying fully tracked vehicles to carry your troops - for that you need Commonwealth troops. Many people tend to forget that fact and are a bit put out when you just swarm across with Universal carriers and the various Kangaroos.

[JasonC]

dt - Russians have carriers. They are in fact my favorite Russian mover for field guns and MMGs. (Unfortunately, the dang 7 man 82mm mortar doesn't fit, which is silly, especially when its exact German equivalent is 6 men and would).

The jeep is cheaper and about as fast off road, but unarmed and unprotected. The M3 scout car is better armed, and adequately protected from the front, but being wheeled has relatively poor off road movement ability. It is also a large target and the sides are too thin, being penetrable by German HMGs at medium infantry ranges. The last is the deal breaker, really. The carrier has an MG but not much punch or ammo for it. But it is small, speedy off road due to full tracks, and 13mm armor all around - just enough to make German MGs fail at the ranges you typically see.

2-3 carriers can move your ZIS-3s or MMGs into position in larger fights. But you aren't realistically going to take enough to make them a wire crossing mechanism for a whole infantry force.

[JasonC]

jtcm - the enemy is somewhere. Maybe everywhere and thin, but he's somewhere. The cover, the ground, and how you'd do it give you ideas, but you can't be sure.

Obstacles tell you something, and early "eyeball" scouting can sometimes tell you more. The first wave of infantry, or in a large fight a half a dozen half squads here and there.

But in the end, you develop full knowledge of the enemy deployment only by doing things that he can't afford to let you get away with unmolested.

Here is a good rule of thumb for guessing whether an obstacle is covered by a full position, though. Would troops stationed immediately behind it also cover much of the rest of the field? Would they be able to move about unobserved, and reach alternate positions that would cover most other avenues of advance? If so, it is probably a classic "block", with obstacles covering a "reverse slope" aspect of the forward defense. Very strong, and a good place to drop arty behind while going around.

If on the other hand it is off on a flank, or seems to steer you toward a larger channel, or towards one that also ends in a naturally strong defensive position (cover surrounded by open or possessing a "glacis" of risky approach routes, etc), then it is probably there to deter a turning movement that would actually discoordinate the defense quite a bit. Still may be covered by a platoon or so, and perhaps by long range fire from another direction. But not a full company position of all arms.

Because, if the defender put 50-65% of his force off on one wing behind a strong obstacle and the attacker doesn't dive right in to his obstacle with almost everything, then the defender is sunk. No way to adapt. The attacker can readily cut off repositioning of the defenders, who need to move so much so far, and just a broad scout wave will find relatively uncontested areas on much of the rest of the map. The attacker can therefore readily adapt and go around.

We have it easy in CM because the giant bottomless pits on either side of the field tell us where the local defender's responsibilities end, and that there won't be fire from that flank as we pass by. On the other hand, the same pits limited our ability to just be all BH Liddel on them as always "go around".

An even quicker and dirty form of this analysis is, "wire in the middle, its a trap; wire off on an edge, it's covering a hole". Not always true but more likely to be than not...

[dieseltaylor]

jc - Depending what point size you play you may well want sufficient lift to get a platoon behind the wire to take out close defenders/spotters. That the MG's have he ability to move pretty much all the Russian support equipment makes them doubly useful where you play on big maps. I don't play much CMBB as it is too flawed for my tastes but if I do I would prefer playing with caualties on. A 6 man mortar team is very welcome bonus : )

[JasonC]

CMBB is way better than CMAK, and both are way better than CMSF.

And no, 7-9 carriers for about the cost of a full company of good infantry or a platoon of medium tanks, aren't worth it, and that is what it would take to lift a full platoon.

Infantry under armor is not worth in in CM points. In scenarios fine, knowing how to use it matters for that case. And a few to move guns and slow heavy weapons can be very useful.

But light armor just to move infantry around is a waste. The Russian method is vastly superior - spend the points on an extra platoon of medium tanks and let the infantry take the risks of riding them, occasionally. The tanks have vastly more fighting power than the infantry does.

For the moves that light armor can make safely as close as things are on a CM map, without getting toasted by full AT weapons, riding is safe enough too. And when neither is safe, having a few riders brushed off with the tanks alive and spitting back at whatever did it, is vastly preferable to several brewed up APCs with dead infantry inside.

The knock out point effect of large amounts spent on light armor is also typically very bad.

And don't get me started on what will happen to both your movement plan and the knock out points if overmodeled strafing aircraft show up...

People are simply trying to push a modern mech infantry doctrine back into an era in which is doesn't yet apply...

[dieseltaylor]

I think you are right generally the purchase of light armour in CM games is a waste.

I think it very much depends on the map, point size, and the type of battle as to whether I would purchase that many MG in CMBB. Barbed wire is only going to occur in attack/assault type battles so if it is not that type of battle then the barbed wire crossing ability can be discarded as a value. Wooded battlefields or flat battlefields are not good but long contoured battlefields were moving your support weaponry is going to be important would make them interesting.

One thing here is the tempo of the battle and very occasionally I have overbought on these to allow me to get troops to a great battlefield position - normally accompanied with an ATG or mortar to constrain the opponents movement. Using tanks for the task has the danger that you arrive perhaps at a wooded knoll with no infantry and the embarrassment that his infantry are going to be laughing at your tanks very shortly , and the tanks have no safe exit route.

I have actually done this in CMAK ME without seeing the map as with casualties on you can buy a whole battalion and a few purchases gives you the lift capacity and the ATG's that will need moving anyway.

In an attack scenario I have made use of smoke from mortars to cover the litle guys through wire and to deep positions again to unhinge a defence. It does require big maps and points and a willingness to go to a map and think is there a way to launch a coup. It happens rarely so all the more fun to play for it when it does.

Its a long time since I really looked at CMBB and its just fun to note the costs/ lift/speed of the halftrack, scout car and MG. However any game , as in my most recent, where 3/8ths of my armour bogs within six turns of the game start on firm ground is going to be one I prefer not to play. Let alone the cower behaviour etc etc.

Which reminds me I have never seen the performance and bogging potential of the three vehicles above! Not likely to bother now anyway. : )

[JasonC]

I agree that bogging is too harsh in CMBB when the ground condition is wet or muddy. But my solution is simply to upgrade the ground condition to live with it.

On very big maps transport rises in value. Mostly only happens in scenarios, though. Even high point value QBs are very shallow, they just get silly in width. I don't like those, personally (too easy to "cut" from the back in a gamey way, after which the defenders can't reposition because the bottomless pit behind them keeps them from using the realistic approach, "back up 10 feet and shift").

[ActionMan]

I had understood from other threads that "bogging" relates to more than just a vehicle stuck in mud. I thought it also covers mechanical failures, which were a big problem with later German tanks, as they were sabotaged by the slave workers in the factories.

[dieseltaylor]

In my game it was actually only damp but clear. The breakdown rate was also very high for Russian tanks [ higher than the German vehicles] but if we look at a 30 minute battle the loss of nearly half in 6 minutes shows how broke the CMBB formula was.

Of course shedding tracks, track breakages etc did occur aswell as drivetrain mechanical breakdowns. Injudicious drivers may also land you in ditches or ground the tank but that has to be comparatively rare. I remember very well the big discussions on these boards regarding the bogging and various theories on avoiding it or how to get out - none proven of course. : )

[Michael Emrys]

...they were sabotaged by the slave workers in the factories.

They didn't require much sabotaging. The mechanical complexity of especially the later German designs made front line maintenance problematical. And especially when new designs were committed to battle before adequate testing and correction had occurred, as with the Panthers at Kursk, they were subject to high rates of breakdown.

Michael

[Der Alte Fritz]

Yes the Panther was prone to breakdowns throughout most of its life. This was mainly due to the overloaded engine/transmission. The original design was about 10 tonnes lighter but did not have the very thick front armour.

German commanders reckoned you need to use trains to move Panther unit more than 100km.

[JasonC]

dt - there is no reason to use damp or worse, unless you explicitly want to simulate muddy ground to force most movement onto roads. The bogging rate on dry is fine, nothing unworkable about it. It is silly to complain about the terms needed for different bog rates; the scenario designer effectively sets the bog rate by choosing ground state and can put it low enough not to matter much or high enough to matter a lot.

[dieseltaylor]

I did not set the parameters for the QB so in that respect I had no hand in it. I suppose I could have complained and asked for a new set-up and weather but one does not wish to appear churlish when playing a new player.

As for whether all scenario designers in CMBB are aware of the bogging rate I doubt. However regardless of that the fact remains that 3 out of 8 within 6 minutes is excessive in anyones book . I have a theory on the way bogging was programmed by BF and randomness does not come into it : )

I have actually conducted experiments in muddy and wet terrain for a variety of tanks in CMBB to see if weight [ground pressure], speed, class of driver, make much difference. Also average GP is not actually in RL a good predictor of boggability as the heavily nosed PZIVlang had a very bad reputation. However as that is probably on a computer two generations old ...........

However overall I think I will give up CMBB as the minor tweaks to lethality between the two versions means I seem to play CMBB sub-optimally as my mind does not adjust very well. Out of idle curiosity I might do some comparative work on some of the systems to see what all the differences are. I know HMG's are reportedly toned down for CMAK, as is bogging.

[Der Alte Fritz]

Infantry seems to be quite different in CMAK as it is much harder to drive into cover but seems to die faster. Getting infantry forward in CMBB is a major art form but seems quite easy in CMAK.

I find I play more CMBB than CMAK but that has more to do with the history than the game. The Germans seem to master the Western Allies easier unless they are completely out numbered or out gunned. And the Western Allies are very similar in organisation and outlook to the Germans. On the other hand in the East the Germans often seem up against it and the Russians play a very different style of war. I think that is why I keep coming back to CMBB for all its faults. I even toyed with the idea of an Eastern Front mod for CMAK, you could use a particular mark of Sherman for the T34-76 but how would you replicate the SU76, SU122 or ISU152?

I think this would be the easiest mod to make as you could just swap renumbered bmp files from one game to the other.

[womble]

CMBB is way better than CMAK, and both are way better than CMSF.

Hi JasonC.

I'm just coming back to CMx1, and I plumped, rather arbitrarily (as the later game I thought it might be 'improved) for AK rather than BB, having played BB a little, some years ago (not bothered with CMSF). Can I ask what you consider the reasons for BB's superiority over AK? If it's not rehashing old ground too much...

I have to say that I find myself wasting half the product, because deserts don't appeal as much as eurasian landscapes, but beyond that, what makes one better than the other?

[JasonC]

The QB system doesn't work in CMAK due to artillery module pricing. Basically, they upped to point value of responsive arty to absurd levels, then gave the allied modules plenty of ammo and charged through the nose for it. Thus CMAK allied arty modules start at around 200 points and run up to 400-500. About the only exception is the Brit 3 inch mortar module, which is OK I guess on defense or gun suppression or smoke, but doesn't hit very hard against dug in infantry.

Meanwhile the Germans have a plethora of medium modules available around the 100 point mark. With less responsiveness but still livable, with less ammo but still enough for several minutes of FFE, etc.

The effect of both combined is that the side that historically relied on the superior performance and power of its firepower arms, doesn't get any, and the side that historically had to fight the artillery war on a shoestring, gets some.

The tactical relationship of greatest thematic interest in this period of the war in the west, was the allies winning the HE war through firepower arms, and along with numbers getting infantry superiority because of it, most of the time. While the Germans had to rely on occasional armor quality superiority, or the skill with which their infantry was used, in some cases.

None of that applies in CMAK QBs, simply because the dumb point system neuters the allied firepower arms. This has as big an effect on their "way of war" as removing every German AFV with front armor sufficient to stop a short 75mm round from the front, would have on theirs.

That is the biggest single problem I have with it. Notice that it arises specifically in QBs and scenario designers can readily get around it by just not believing the point costs for allied artillery.

There are similar pricing issues with some other items, but none as big as the arty module problem. For instance, ammo load depth, turret, crew survivability, extra MGs, top road speed etc - all boost the prices of CMAK AFVs, while minor things like a thicker well sloped front plate and a gun that kills anything it looks at, are cheap as dirt. Thus a Jadgpanzer costs like 60% as much as a Sherman 75W at many dates, while being oh about 3 times as effective in actual combat.

In the desert war era, the silliness of CM's armor model and its anomolous belief that two layered plate protects more than single, has some notably unhistorical tactical relationship effects. The Brit 2 pdr and US 37mm fail against vanilla Panzer fronts at ranges they readily "went in", in reality. (About 500 to 700 yards was the real distance, from all tactical accounts). There were also issues like this in CMBB, notably with the Russian 76mm and with their 85mm using 1943 ammo (the SU-85 gets completely hosed by this, instead of being the "answer" it actually was, in the second half of 1943). So that one isn't a worse in CMAK so much as a "not any better".

The desert fighting period is still the one most accurately portrayed by CMAK. Because the war was more a symmetrical matter of armor dominance in that theater and time period. The one addition CMAK brings that is a clear improvement in realism is dust - though the sort kicked up by artillery fire clears far too rapidly. Again, vehicle focus as a result, less role for combined arms.

In desert fighting the infantry has relatively little ability to influence the battle, and in practice it fought most at night, using its superior stealth. This isn't easy to portray in CMAK, but it is possible. Night morale is brittle in CM generally. It can't get the confusion factor, but the more basic problem is the opponent always knows there is an about even fight about to occur for this exact sector. Again this isn't a matter of particular failing of the CMAK game engine, just of the tactical reality of its chosen theater. If one is to show what infantry was for and did in desert fighting you "stress" the game system to get night stealth operations exactly right, and none of the CM games are really up to that challenge (a hard one, to be sure).

The end result is that CMAK is a fine tank vs tank simulator for the western desert, especially in periods that don't rely too much on 2 pdrs or US 37mm against uparmored panzer fronts. This is just a narrow subject of quite limited tactical interest. I had fun playing CMAK for that sort of fight, but in the end it is a arcade tank driver video game, more than a turned based combined arms strategy game, if limited to fights of that sort. A vastly less interesting genre of game - Space Invaders compared to Chess.

The best use I've gotten out of CMAK myself, is making scenarios set in the ETO or Italy, just using its scenario editor to roll my own Normandy or Bulge match ups. Even then there are quirks that make it frustrating, a dozen things where the design decision is just clearly wrong, in ways that make it much harder to do what I want to do.

For example, the US airborne used a belt fed bipod LMG in every squad, the M1919A6. Sometimes 2 actually, though more normally there were 2 additional MGs held at the platoon level, and sometimes they were the small tripod mount M1919A4 instead of the bipod mounted M1919A6. This is exactly analogous to the German use of bipod mounted MG42s at the squad level.

In CMAK, the German squads have an MG42 or 2 "organic" in the squad weaponry, which thus moves about the battlefield with the whole squad, on "fast" speed, losses to the squad are most likely to come from riflemen allowing the MG to remain in action, the command span of the platoon stays low, etc. All, just as you'd want it. But the US airborne instead gets dinky 3 man MMG teams with medium speed, as separate units, with dinky firepower that does not add to the squad. This also doubles the command span of the US airborne platoon to unmanagable dimensions, not to mention the extra micromanagement. Controlling one platoon it is livable, but by company scale it is crazy. Meanwhile, the balance of the squad, deprived of its historical MG hitting power, is a nerf infantry squad with the hitting power of a wet noodle. The M1s make it OK at about 100 yards, best that can be said.

Similarly, the US armored infantry actually had a huge number of MGs and bazookas, making them very heavily armed. Each platoon had 2 50 cals and 5 30 cals. They also had 1 60mm mortar and 5 bazookas. 2 of the 30 cals were dedicated for dismounted use, but all of the others could be and were dismounted from their halftracks when in a defensive position or otherwise not likely to be supported by the 'tracks in action.

In CMAK, all you get are dismounts and the mortar, pretty much. The squads themselves have no BARs, just M1s, again making an infantry force that was much more heavily armed in the automatic weapons department than other US infantry forces, or than most of the Germans for that matter, a "nerfed" infantry force.

Then to add annoyance to this injury, they had to deal with the fact that the US armored infantry integrated the platoon HQ into the first rifle squad, because they had to ride in the same 'track. There wasn't a separate 'track for the platoon HQ.

Understand, in the ordinary US infantry, the platoon HQ is a 6 man section with several M1 carbines, that isn't a great fighter but is a decent half squad in strength, not fragile on the battlefield, and especially good under 100 yards where the larger mags and higher ROF of the carbines work. Compared to this, the armor infantry had the platoon HQ in a full rifle squad, in reality - but in CMAK, they didn't want to make a full squad size HQ for some unfathomable reason. So to exploit the fact that in CM, a single 2 man team can ride the same vehicle as a squad "free", they made the US armored infantry platoon HQ a 2 man section.

Which is extremely fragile on the battlefield, has no firepower whatever, is an extra unit to scurry around, and docks the first squad 2 shooters. Oh and it also means you can't put a bazooka in that 'track (as its two man freebie - since the HQ takes that slot), when in reality every single 'track in the US armored infantry platoon carried its own bazooka. Or a radio FO. Or a sniper (the platoon HQ section actually had a dedicated single bolt action 1903 rifle with scope).

They could have given the US armored infantry platoon HQ 6 guys like the normal US platoon HQ and made the other rider in the 'track a half squad, or even just a 6 man squad (though that would allow it to split to 3 men, a problem also seen in the "pre split" German 6 man pioneer squads - but that also shows there was precedent for such a solution). Or they just could have let the full squad be an HQ - there are 7 man HQs in the Russian force. What they did instead is almost calculated to frustrate the heck out of anyone trying to depict a US armored infantry force accurately, and especially to actually fight with that force within CM as it is.

When all of these fiddly organization mistakes are added up, their cumulative effect is to make only the US vanilla infantry a force you can fight about as they actually fought, not the airborne or the armored infantry, or the cavalry for that matter (where the issues are "vehicle crews" are pistol armed bailout survivors only, inability to dismount vehicle MGs, etc). And even that portion of the force won't get its realistic main weapon, fantastic artillery support, unless a scenario designer ignores the point system and makes seemingly "lopsided" scenarios to lavish realistic amounts of it, on them.

It is in fact better to use late war vanilla rifle infantry to depict any era US airborne or armored infantry, then switch the date back. That way the heavily armed US infantry varieties at least get the boobie prize of 2 BARs per squad, instead of just losing their historical MG support for nothing.

Compared to all of the above, here is all I've found necessary to make CMBB fully playable, in the sense of letting the different nationalities and branches of service fight as they actually did, relying on the main weapons and tactics they actually relied upon.

One, turn "rariety" off.

Two, ban Russian KVs in 1941, ban German long 75mm armed, 30+50 or 80mm front StuGs in 1942 and 1943, and ban German Tiger Is in 1943.

Even the latter restriction can be raised if "no holds barred" has been specified beforehand, and the Russians therefore know not to bother with vanilla T-34s or 76mm guns.

If the Germans can "cherry pick" armor, in other words, then the Russians can "cherry pick" 57mm ATG answers or go asymmetric with IL-2s or 300mm rockets or whatever they please. If the Russians are expected to fight in T-34s and with 76mm guns, the Germans drive Panzer IIIs or Marders in 1942 and they drive Panzer IV longs in 1943.

FWIW...

[dieseltaylor]

There are other countries than the US who fought in the Mediterranean ...

Covering some of the points:

1.Artillery

I have long moaned about the bias against the Allied artillery and I believe some of my posts covered them in depth. There is a way around this and that is to use the casualties parameter which does move all the purchase parameters up.

So if I were playing Allied I would ask or arrange for casualties to allow me to purchase modules of bigger artillery. Then again I would not be playing with small point battles. BTW it is almost worth asking for random casualties or a specified amount as it means your opponent cannot be sure that you have not spent points on heavy artillery. And Germans hate VT artillery. : )

2. Attack/Defense

This is busted in CMBB and has never been fixed. Essentially if you buy some of the fixed defences the points get credited to your opponent. Just to rub salt into the wound these appear on your opponents score immediately.

In CMAK it works. I do regard the busted version as a complete turn-off. It was interesting to see with the advent of CMAK how few people had ever bothered with attack/assault battles because of the glitch.

3. Bogging

Broken in CMBB unless one drives in perpetual sunshine which reduces the chances somewhat. This is some research that Treeburts155 carried out in 2003

CMAK: Twenty Regular StuG IIIs (early mid) were given orders to "MOVE" 1,000 meters over muddy dirt. Ground pressure for these vehicles is on the high side at 14.7 ppsi.

Nine vehicles made the trip without any bogging. Seventeen managed to finish within a few turns. The three vehicles that became "Immobilized" managed to travel 1,640 of the 3,000 meters they attempted. Out of 20,000 meters attempted, 18,640 meters were completed.

Preliminary tests indicate dirt, arid rock, or sand make no difference. Mud is mud I think. Don't count on mud to limit the enemy's options in a CMAK battle.

The same test with CMBB:

Three vehicles of twenty never bogged. Twelve eventually finished. The eight vehicles that became immobilized travelled 2,375 meters of the 8,000 meters they attempted.

Out of 20,000 total meters attempted, 14,375 were completed.

Recently in damp weather and in CMBB I had 3 Stugs bog and become immobilised with 6 minutes of the start of a game out of eight vehicles.

3. Defective Russian effectiveness until January 1944

BF decided that, for some reason, that all Russian units are downgraded by one level. It may be that it was because the officer corp had been disrupted by Stalin that the lower echelons, the level that CM is at, were rubbish commanders. My personal opinion is that many designers add there own belief in Russian incompetence and reduce all Russians to green amplifying the BF decision.

My opinion is that the Russian squads are quite capable of shooting straight and staying to fight and that the penalty should be in the lack of boni or little boni for the Russian officers. Therefore have squads as Regular at least. Of course the designer can boost boni for the Axis forces. If you think this bizarre ask yourself whether the Rumanians and Hungarians are really one level better across the board in man to man fighting.

4. Problems with the Russian 76mm versus Stugs ith 80mm armour

There is a huge amount written on this subject but essentially the two most common weapons systems on the Eastern Front are compromised. People do workarounds but given all the other problems I find it more enjoyable to play CMAK.

5. Larger Battlefields

CMAK has larger battlefields which means that movement becomes a more interesting avenue to explore. The greatest scenario - Tiger Valley - shows this off beautifully.

I have played probably 150+ of each and play at WeBoB, and play for fun rather than being the winningest player. This means I can afford to play scenarios and QBs with all manner of forces so perhaps that is why I get so much fun out of it. I am swearing off CMBB again after my recent flirtation as the lethality of weapons etc means that it plays differently from CMAK! Rather as the German troops found when they shifted fronts in RL.

[JasonC]

Yes Germany did fight in the Med, it is true. Then again I don't give a damn about the Med, and use CMAK to simulate the ETO.

Casualties do not fix the point cost of artillery modules. You risk losing the module itself in the random allocation of casualties, and if you don't, your remaining force will be docked huge amounts to compensate for the inclusion of the ridiculously overpriced artillery.

If you want vehicles to bog, use the "mud" setting; otherwise it is beyond perverse to complain that vehicles bog if you explicitly set the ground to "mud". And to reiterate it over and over is mere crossing behavior and petulance.

As for Tiger Valley, I found it a lousy scenario, and I think uber armor fights are the least interesting possible, generally. There was a time when I was about 7 or 8 and playing with plastic toys when I thought that sort of thing neato, but it doesn't have anything to do with the intricacies of combined arms tactics. Next we will play a more exiting game of chess where all pieces are queens, and then a game of Go on a 3x3 board but using really big pieces...

[dieseltaylor]

Tiger Valley - I take it you lost then. : )

Of course there are many many people who have enjoyed it and rate it highly but what do we care for their opinions!

As for the artillery module ... my own preference is to have the possibility of buying it as it sows doubt in the enemies mind. On some battlefields it may actually be worth buying particularly if you are playing on an agreed map where you have seen the terrain. In actual fact it is rare that you would lose the module given the way random casualties works.

I think Treebursts example was to illustrate that CMAK was improved over CMBB's. Incidentally in dry in CMBB I have had three out of 5 bog in a test I have just carried out over 30 turns. Pretty impressive. In other dry tests the immobilisation in five tests of 20 Stugs the results were 0,1,1,2,2,3, over 30 turns of movement.

[JasonC]

I won the first time I played it as the Americans, that has nothing to do with it. It is just a comic book version of what mattered in the war. I kept looking around for the magical "power up" mcguffin to roll over...

On arty, you simply cannot use the historical tactics. Doesn't matter if you squeeze a module into the 25% or 15% point threshold or not. In the real deal it was perfectly normal for an infantry battalion to attack with one company moving and another supporting by fire, with an entire artillery battalion (3 FOs in CMAK terms) firing in dedicated support. With at most a platoon of medium tanks or TDs, and sometimes nothing. Meaning in CMAK terms anything from 30 to 60% artillery points - not that they'd face an entire reinforced battalion of defenders to make it "even"... And don't even think about adding air...

Your bog numbers fail to make any case, in part by being incomprehenisble. (Five tests with results 0,1,1,2,2,3, huh? A 5 strangely like 6 I suppose). Assuming it is really 6 tests, it means 9 bogs in 3600 move-minutes or 1 per 400 move minutes. Doesn't seem remotely unplayable to me. If you need to move a whole company of armor and don't expect any bogs, use a road.

[dieseltaylor]

I won the first time I played it as the Americans, that has nothing to do with it.

I am impressd that you won with the Americans in Tiger Valley as it is entirely UK units. Perhaps your view is of another scenario.

It is correct that there are some Tigers in Tiger Valley but I understand it was historically correct for Tigers to be operating in North Africa at the time. The UK does have to use its combined arms to be successfull - but I have only played it three and a half times. The best time is the first obviously as the atmosphere of not knowing what is going on is superb.

I find that within the CM system that I cannot expect the game design or engine to give me the ability to do historical tactics so there is already a fudge factor to be dealt with. One of the playing problems is to translate knowledge of what should happen in RL on to the CM battlefield. The ability of super-gunned Stuarts is one glaring example.

SO the CM system is a fudge and it is the best there is in the game market in terms of playability. And CMAK has less fudges than CMBB.

My bogging test facts were a little rushed as it was waay past bedtime. Basically I ran five tests where twenty Stugs drove around on dry steppe for 30 minutes. The results showed that even in dry there could be bogging and immobilsation - in the five tests showed 0,1,2,2,3 as the results.

It is unlikely that any vehicle would drive so far in a game so from that point it is not that useful. The bogging I did not note other than an extreme example where one bogged on turn one and then unbogged 4 minutes later - which with small numbers involved in a scenario may be very painful in terms of moving troops up regardless of anything else.

During the tests the annoying habit of commanders to unbutton all the time lead to a high of 171 points for the Russian infantry solely by shooting tank commanders. Just another irksome feature of the CMBB design.

As for my sixth test to have three tanks immobilised out of five in dry, that comes from following my hunch on the CM method of calculation. I don't think it much of a practical danger but in case there is anyone gamey out there I am not revealing the test parameters.

The move minutes is therefore 30*20*5 which is 3000 divided by 8 immobilisations therefore 375 minutes of running time. I have no problem with that however the test may also be obscuring the more practical aspect by having big numbers running and I should do some tests with the more probable numbers of 5-10 vehicles in a smaller scenario. The other point is the time when the immobilisations occur as Turn 1 immobilisation is probably 30 times worse than a tank going immobile on Turn 30.

Previous experiments have shown me no significant difference with bogging/ immobilisation rates for tanks even with different track psi - in case anyone was going to suggest it as a factor. : )