QBs

[James Crowley]

Pretty much everything I have read in regard to QBs sounds great but there are a few areas that I have not seen, despite searching, any reference to.

They are, specifically; Casualties, Ammunition and Handicap (as per CMX1)

The first, casualties, allowed user or random select reduction of headcount in squads/teams and numbers of vehicles after they had been purchased. So some or all of your squads will be reduced by a certain number of men and your tank platoon may only have three rather than four tanks etc.

This perfectly simulated the ongoing attritional effects of combat such that very few units were at their 'paper' strength, ever, probably.

Ammunition was similar, although there was no random option, and, especially for the German side, reflected the effects of convoy interdiction at the sharp end.

Handicap was a simple mechanism to give one side a + or - to their force pool, for balancing purpose. Useful for giving the AI a bit of a boost if you were an uber player(I wasn't!)

[GSX]

I heard we have ammunition bearers etc in the game? Any word on how this works vis a vis re-supply etc?

[George MC]

Pretty much everything I have read in regard to QBs sounds great but there are a few areas that I have not seen, despite searching, any reference to.

They are, specifically; Casualties, Ammunition and Handicap (as per CMX1)

The first, casualties, allowed user or random select reduction of headcount in squads/teams and numbers of vehicles after they had been purchased. So some or all of your squads will be reduced by a certain number of men and your tank platoon may only have three rather than four tanks etc.

This perfectly simulated the ongoing attritional effects of combat such that very few units were at their 'paper' strength, ever, probably.

Ammunition was similar, although there was no random option, and, especially for the German side, reflected the effects of convoy interdiction at the sharp end.

Handicap was a simple mechanism to give one side a + or - to their force pool, for balancing purpose. Useful for giving the AI a bit of a boost if you were an uber player(I wasn't!)

Yes you can apply a Force Adjustment % up or down. This accounts for either forces not being at full strength or you can have the AI Player totally outnumber you.

Force experience - if you allow an automatic pick for the AI Player you can't change this i.e. choose all Elite. The automatic pick will give you typical for the period experience levels. If you want to have some input on this you will need to pick the AI's units for it.

Currently no option for adjusting ammo loadouts in QB - you can adjust this when creating scenarios but not in a QB (mind that the AI Player does not currently have the ability to aquire ammo from trucks etc).

Re ammo sharing - this is done by simply having units in adjacent action spots. If they have the ability to share ammo i.e. they are carrying the stuff the other unit can use they'll automatically share it. Least that is how it appears to work to me I've been using that to have the ammo bearers for my mortar teams supply ammo to the mortars. Also works for AT guns.

[LongLeftFlank]

Many of you probably know this, but for the benefit of those who don't, in CMSF you can split off a 2 man "AT team" from a Marine squad for example to go to a vehicle and grab 5.56mm. Once they return and reintegrate with their squad, the ammo will be shared out automatically and you can send them back for more. If you're in a hurry, send fire teams instead.

It's a bit of a hassle micro-wise, but it works.

[James Crowley]

Force experience - if you allow an automatic pick for the AI Player you can't change this i.e. choose all Elite. The automatic pick will give you typical for the period experience levels. If you want to have some input on this you will need to pick the AI's units for it.

I'm assuming, with AI pick, that this means the individual squads within a platoon can be at different levels but not the men within a squad? Or does it mean that the entire AI side, all of it's components, is at the same level?

I hope it is the former!

[MikeyD]

I heard we have ammunition bearers etc in the game? Any word on how this works vis a vis re-supply etc?

Firing units use up adjacent units' ammo as it fires (does that now in the latest CMSF). The alternative of actually 'restocking' from adjacent units would've left the AI in the lurch. The AI can 'share' but not actively 'acquire'. This was always a problem with longer CMSF battles. Another issue with 'redistributing' would've been one unit inadvertantly 'stealing' from another unit as it passes! That's been avoided with adjacent unit 'sharing' instead of 'redistributing'.

[Peregrine]

Many of you probably know this, but for the benefit of those who don't, in CMSF you can split off a 2 man "AT team" from a Marine squad for example to go to a vehicle and grab 5.56mm. Once they return and reintegrate with their squad, the ammo will be shared out automatically and you can send them back for more. If you're in a hurry, send fire teams instead.

It's a bit of a hassle micro-wise, but it works.

First useful piece of information I have read about playing CMSF better on any forum.

Often break an AT team off a main sqd to grab a javelin but never thought of loading them up with 5.56 for everyone else when they join up later.

Just thinking is this a bit gamey. How much stuff can a two man AT team carry? Is their mobility comprised by carrying such a pile of stuff.

[Michael Emrys]

That's been avoided with adjacent unit 'sharing' instead of 'redistributing'.

I'm not clear on the distinction. Could you go a bit more into this, please?

Michael

[Erik Springelkamp]

The neighbour shoots, but spends the ammunition of the bearer while shooting.

[scottie]

First useful piece of information I have read about playing CMSF better on any forum.

Often break an AT team off a main sqd to grab a javelin but never thought of loading them up with 5.56 for everyone else when they join up later.

Just thinking is this a bit gamey. How much stuff can a two man AT team carry? Is their mobility comprised by carrying such a pile of stuff.

Never thought about doing that in CMSF ! thanks for the tip. Things are normally too hectic or there is a lack of safe path to ammo dump and back again i guess. Also i never really notice when sqauds are out of ammo. Thing this will be more obvious in CMBN with dedicated heavy MG teams.

[stoex]

Michael,

To clarify a little further how this works (at least in CMSF): Whenever units that are carrying the same type of ammo (5.56, 7.62, Javelins, mortar rounds, whatever) are close enough to each other to share ammo, each unit's ammo total for that type of ammo (again be it the coloured bars for rifle ammo or numbers for Javs and such) in the GUI goes up - to show the combined total of ammo available to the each sharing unit). For the purpose of firing this ammo, each unit now has ALL the available shots at its disposal (not really ALL, because at least in the case of missiles and such, ONE round will always be retained by a unit not firing, meaning they won't share their last Jav with another unit). However, the ammo is not pooled and divided between the units, only shown as available and used when it is fired. Plus, each unit fires its own ammo first and only starts using another unit's ammo when its own is depleted. This means that if you bring, say, a unit with three Javs close to a unit with one Jav, each unit will show four missiles. Either of the two units could now fire three missiles, whereupon one missile would be left with the other unit and could only be fired BY that other unit. If you separate the two units without firing any shots, unit one will walk away with three missiles, and unit two with one, like they started out with.

I'm not sure if and how much small arms ammo would be retained and not shared, but I expect there is some sort of limit there as well.

Make sense?

[stoex]

Michael,

To clarify a little further how this works (at least in CMSF): Whenever units that are carrying the same type of ammo (5.56, 7.62, Javelins, mortar rounds, whatever) are close enough to each other to share ammo, each unit's ammo total for that type of ammo (be it the coloured bars for rifle ammo or numbers for Javs and such) in the GUI goes up - to show the combined total of ammo now available to each sharing unit). For the purpose of firing this ammo, each unit now has ALL the available shots at its disposal (not really ALL, because at least in the case of missiles and such, a unit's VERY LAST ROUND can only be fired by the unit itself, not given to another unit). However, the ammo is not pooled and divided between the units, only shown as available and used when it is fired. Plus, each unit fires its own ammo first and only starts using another unit's ammo when its own is depleted. This means that if you bring, say, a unit with three Javs close to a unit with one Jav, each unit will show four missiles. Either of the two units could now fire three missiles, whereupon one missile would be left with the other unit and could only be fired BY that other unit. If you separate the two units without firing any shots, unit one will walk away with three missiles, and unit two with one, like they started out with. On the other hand, if you separate the two units after unit two (which started with one missile) has fired one missile, unit one will walk away with three and unit two with zero missiles (I think, correct me if I'm wrong, someone...).

I'm not sure if and how much small arms ammo would be retained and not shared, but I expect there is some sort of limit there as well.

Make sense?

[Peregrine]

Using Javelins actually feels like cheating. I am not going miss them.

How are the poor people that have only played CMSF going to figure out how to kill enemy tanks?

[Erik Springelkamp]

Using Javelins actually feels like cheating. I am not going miss them.

How are the poor people that have only played CMSF going to figure out how to kill enemy tanks?

In CMSF you can run out of Javelins, or you don't have them at all (US marines sometimes, NATO members).

Red on Red scenarios are very interesting, and probably much closer to the CM:BN experience.

CMSF is a very rich game system.

[Peregrine]

In CMSF you can run out of Javelins, or you don't have them at all (US marines sometimes, NATO members).

Red on Red scenarios are very interesting, and probably much closer to the CM:BN experience.

CMSF is a very rich game system.

Played heaps of CMBB/CMAK single player and PBEM. Played heaps of CMSF single player as none of my regular opponents (myself included) enjoyed the two player CMSF experience.

Not sure of your own experience but after coming from CMBB/CMAK to CMSF it felt too easy getting tank kills with 2 infantry from long range. No matter how realistic it is and while I loved the CMSF and Marines Campaigns where you simply can't afford to take many casualties for various reasons CMSF wasn't quite as fun as playing 2 player CMBB.

To this day I still play CMBB occasionally. I don't expect I will ever launch CMSF ever again after Normandy is released. I expect CMBN will live on until it is replaced by CMx3.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Played heaps of CMBB/CMAK single player and PBEM. Played heaps of CMSF single player as none of my regular opponents (myself included) enjoyed the two player CMSF experience.

Not sure of your own experience but after coming from CMBB/CMAK to CMSF it felt too easy getting tank kills with 2 infantry from long range.

Only if you have them in place.

Just yesterday I played a scenario (Djin Valey) where some Syrian tanks were out of view of my infantry, and they were surprisingly hard to kill with even Abrams tanks. They were perfectly hull down, and relatively close.

I lost two Abrams in the process, because they missed their first and only shot, even though they were carefully hunting through the bushes with a narrow covered arc.

[Peregrine]

Only if you have them in place.

Just yesterday I played a scenario (Djin Valey) where some Syrian tanks were out of view of my infantry, and they were surprisingly hard to kill with even Abrams tanks. They were perfectly hull down, and relatively close.

I lost two Abrams in the process, because they missed their first and only shot, even though they were carefully hunting through the bushes with a narrow covered arc.

I think CMSF is good and can understand why it will be preferred for some but the above is exactly why I will prefer CMBN. The tank duels are not always quick ruthless affairs like the above. Plenty of misses, ricochets, penetrations that may not necessarily kill leads to more excitement for me.

And for sure I know that Blue CMSF tanks are definitely killable. Call me super-gamey but if I know there are tanks concealed somewhere I wouldn't try hunting for them with other tanks while I still had meatshield infantry to do the job (PBEM that is, single player I try and observe a pretty strict if you don't know something is there you don't come and help rule). A little surprised your tanks got shots off actually.

There was a bit of talk about CMSF only players struggling with CMBN PBEM because they will not understand enough about penetrations. Personally I think the ease in which stuff gets damaged/killed in CMSF should embed a nervousness (ie my best units could get killed or rendered useless anytime/any range) that will hold them in good stead in CMBN QBs

[Field Marshal Blücher]

There was a bit of talk about CMSF only players struggling with CMBN PBEM because they will not understand enough about penetrations. Personally I think the ease in which stuff gets damaged/killed in CMSF should embed a nervousness (ie my best units could get killed or rendered useless anytime/any range) that will hold them in good stead in CMBN QBs

Agreed. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. I'm mostly a modern warfare guy, but even before I started testing CM:BN I had a pretty good understanding of what would penetrate what. I was wrong in a few cases, but they weren't too significant and I don't think they would have put me at any substantial disadvantage in a PBEM.

[Peregrine]

Agreed. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. I'm mostly a modern warfare guy, but even before I started testing CM:BN I had a pretty good understanding of what would penetrate what. I was wrong in a few cases, but they weren't too significant and I don't think they would have put me at any substantial disadvantage in a PBEM.

It seemed to pop up a little in the "what no penetration data" thread or whatever it was called and how the lack of data would disadvantage new WWII players as they would do stupid stuff with armour.

I played single player CMBB for about 1 year before I ventured out into the PBEM world.

For a very long time I kept a detail record of all my games. This included a basic plan, why I needed to deviate from my plan and who eventually won and why. Often (not always) my opponent was also prepared to swap passwords so I could see turns from both sides.

Unfortunately for scenario designers when it comes to 2 decent human players most scenarios are biased a little one way or another and tends to show in the results. I think my scenario record was relatively close and I won about 46%.

QBs on the other hand after dozens of games (I lost my spreadsheet a couple of months ago when my old computer got fried in an electrical storm) a recurring theme kept on popping up when I won and it was universally - opponent lost, picked too much armour or opponent lost, was too aggressive with armour, opponent lost, showed me what his armour was doing.

I strongly suspect a CMSF only person will be super careful with their armour by habit of getting it killed so quickly if you are careless with it.

[Erik Springelkamp]

And for sure I know that Blue CMSF tanks are definitely killable. Call me super-gamey but if I know there are tanks concealed somewhere I wouldn't try hunting for them with other tanks while I still had meatshield infantry to do the job (PBEM that is, single player I try and observe a pretty strict if you don't know something is there you don't come and help rule). A little surprised your tanks got shots off actually.

Well, number 3 got the job done, restoring my faith in the Abrams.

That Syrian tank had to go, because it blocked my way, so I was stubborn, believing that the previous attempts were just unlucky.

And I had totally run out of Javelins, as the Syrians had about a battalion worth of tanks. And this last one had found a nice bomb crater for itself. Hull down and leaning backwards. The gun was literally all that was exposed.

[Michael Emrys]

Make sense?

Yes. Thanks, stoex. I think I have it now.Any lingering confusion will doubtlessly be cleared up when I've played the game a few times myself.

Michael