A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[[hirr]Leto]

It's a leadership modifier, of sorts. It's a way of saying he does not have the best leadership skills. 2nd Platoon HQ has a +1 (Von Steuben). He would have better leadership skills compared to an HQ that has no number at all, much less a negative one. Edit Added: That number is for the leader (CO, XO, Sergeant, etc) of that particular unit/squad/what have you. It counts towards the morale of their subordinates.

Thanks M8!!

But how exactly does this translate into anything tangible? What are the effects? How do we best utilize them?

Cheers!

Leto

[Alan8325]

In CMx2, suppression and morale are separated. From what I understand from playing CMSF, higher leadership quality decreases the rate at which subordinates' suppression builds up and morale goes down under stress, and increases the recovery rates of suppression and morale hits. I'm not sure if it has any effect on spotting time or firing accuracy or anything like that. Those factors might only be determined by experience.

[RogCBrand]

Great AAR guys! Thanks for the hard work and time you put into it!

[Battlefront.com]

Ditto the congrats... it was fun to watch this play out!

Steve

[Waycool]

The AAR was a daily read and quite an enjoyable taste of the game. Thank you Bil and Warren, this has wet my appetite for CM:BN and I am now counting the days till the end of April haha.

[RogCBrand]

Don't forget the brilliant discussion on forests!

[willmontgomery]

Does "Men Missing" mean POWs? If so, where did the two American men missing come from?

They came from America. It's where they are now that's unknown.

[Lt Belenko]

Does "Men Missing" mean POWs? If so, where did the two American men missing come from?

Atomized. Teeny Tiny Bits.

[Vark]

Is it realistic to have crews still manning tanks that have taken multiple penetrating hits? My understanding was the first effective hit often caused crews to bail out, fearing another on the way, whereas some of Capt's armour doggedly stuck it out after multiple casualties.

Is the HE filler in German AP rounds simulated in BF:BN?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the filler is simulated.

Crews will bail even when the vehicle is still functional. Bil had this happen to him once. But no, crews don't always bail when there is a penetrating hit. For starters, they might not even know it was a penetrating hit. The last thing that would be realistic is for crews to bail out of tanks too easily because for sure that isn't realistic.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

I noticed that in the tank info boxes, the German tanks are listed as "destroyed," whereas the US tanks are described as "knocked out."

Is there a reason for the difference?

[Elmo]

Thanks to both of you for a great AAR.

[LongLeftFlank]

Don't forget the brilliant discussion on forests!

You're welcome!

[c3k]

Thanks for doing all this work!

[Rambler]

Tanks for the AAR! Very well done, and the discussion was really educational as well. Learned a lot between this and the German armor thread!

[LeeW]

Like to thank the Battlefront crew for their hard work and those who take the time to post the AAR's for our enjoyment. The game is looking good and can't wait for it's release.

[Peregrine]

US Forces

FINI

Confused about the result in that you got exactly 1000 points. How are ground points and parameters broken up?

I am cringing at the thought that too many points are attributed for holding the victory locations and nothing else matters. Large MEs were the most balanced battles in CMBB/CMAK and in my opinion while the victory locations were important they never truly decided the game. Whoever preserved their force best and most mobile at the end of the game did.

Just hoping that the QBs aren't slugfest over victory locations because that would make them gamier than they already are.

[Alan8325]

Steve,

One thing I did not understand at all in CMSF (and CMx2) was how or whether a vehicle being knocked out is tied to component damage. I've seen vehicles get knocked out and, before the crew has left the vehicle, looked at the components and seen them all green. Also, I've seen vehicles lose almost all components and still not be "knocked out". Are the two types of damage (component damage and knocked out yes/no) totally separate from eachother? In other words, upon a penetrating hit does the system calculate the probability that certain components will be damaged and SEPARATELY calculate a probability that the vehicle is knocked out?

[LongLeftFlank]

Hmm, I know it's just an artifact of the VC being location-dominated, but this seems like this should be a German Minor Victory. As others have noted, those 5 panzers and 13 crewmen are irreplaceable in the bigger picture; the Allied losses eminently replaceable.

[Peregrine]

CoPlay is not up for consideration for a while. It's a huge thing to put in and we're not convinced it's commercially viable. A military contract would almost certainly require such a feature, so if we ever get one (low chance there), it could happen quicker.

Steve

Understand the above but for all it's realism CM lacks something even the crappiest first person shooter has that requires victory. Teamwork.

[sfhand]

Hmm, I know it's just an artifact of the VC being location-dominated, but this seems like this should be a German Minor Victory. As others have noted, those 5 panzers and 13 crewmen are irreplaceable in the bigger picture; the Allied losses eminently replaceable.

You are, of course, entitled to feel any way you like about this, but in my view a QB should not be held to the same victory conditions as an "historical" scenario. But then, I don't think QB vegetation should fall under the type of scrutiny you apply to it either...

[LongLeftFlank]

Moriarty,

EDIT: And while I'm spamming YouTube links, here's the Hands Down Indisputable Best War Movie Scene Ever - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY. In case you needed to get any more stoked to play this game....

[sfhand]

Oh, and a thread spamming off topic gigantic hat tip for the Ramadi map and scenario!

[LJFHutch]

Confused about the result in that you got exactly 1000 points. How are ground points and parameters broken up?

I am cringing at the thought that too many points are attributed for holding the victory locations and nothing else matters. Large MEs were the most balanced battles in CMBB/CMAK and in my opinion while the victory locations were important they never truly decided the game. Whoever preserved their force best and most mobile at the end of the game did.

Just hoping that the QBs aren't slugfest over victory locations because that would make them gamier than they already are.

Absolutely, it was similar in CMSF, in my opinion there shouldn't be so much "take out 60% of enemy force and win 500 points, take out 59% of enemy force and get 0 points", more along the lines of "take out 59% of enemy force and get 490 points or whatever instead.

Personally I also really detest the heavy emphasis on controlling locations. If at the end of the game, side 1 was in the capture zone with 1 infantry squad and the rest of the force wiped out completely while side 2 was just outside with 100%, surely force 2 would be in a much better position and should have points awarded accordingly.

Back to those results though, it really does seem odd that the American's suffered an absolute failure while the Germans a complete and utter victory. Shouldn't it be more like: 400pts/700? The Germans lost a lot of tanks, regardless of the broader implications that should mean at least some points to the Americans or away from them, likewise, the Americans, while taking heavy losses, still managed to inflict quite a bit of damage on their enemy.

[Peregrine]

Absolutely, it was similar in CMSF, in my opinion there shouldn't be so much "take out 60% of enemy force and win 500 points, take out 59% of enemy force and get 0 points", more along the lines of "take out 59% of enemy force and get 490 points or whatever instead.

Personally I also really detest the heavy emphasis on controlling locations. If at the end of the game, side 1 was in the capture zone with 1 infantry squad and the rest of the force wiped out completely while side 2 was just outside with 100%, surely force 2 would be in a much better position and should have points awarded accordingly.

Back to those results though, it really does seem odd that the American's suffered an absolute failure while the Germans a complete and utter victory. Shouldn't it be more like: 400pts/700? The Germans lost a lot of tanks, regardless of the broader implications that should mean at least some points to the Americans or away from them, likewise, the Americans, while taking heavy losses, still managed to inflict quite a bit of damage on their enemy.

I didn't QB CMSF as I don't single player QBs and never two playered CMSF (actually tried and hated it).

Looking at the CMSF manual the explanation is pretty basic. There is the "terrain objective zone" and the "enemy-casualty victory goal" which is "lowest for meeting engagements".

I suspect that it will probably work out with the correct person winning but the degree of victory being presented will be different to the CM. We'll see.