Pak40

This is such a generalized and ultimately untrue statement. Average age was 26 for US infantry in WWII, hardly just out of high school. They were so "terrible" that they were able to push back the German Army and SS. And yes, there were many Eastern Front germans in Normandy but there were also a lot of conscripts as well as very young soldiers that had never seen combat. As for thinking about tactics, I can simply point out that Easy Company's assault on Brecourt Manner was well planned by Dick Winters and the others that participated in the assault.

In spring that far north? I doubt it's common.

We CMx2 players have learned early on that splitting squads is essential to their morale, well being and anti-suppression benefits. However, I wonder how realistic this truly is? Splitting a squad in the game is just a game mechanic, but in real life a squad is always whole, even if one team is assaulting and the other supporting. For example, In real life if B team of a "split squad" saw it's A team get butchered by a machine gun in seconds then I think they would be quite upset no matter if they were "split" or "unsplit". Although I suppose they wouldn't suffer from the same suppression if they were separated enough. The problem in game is that you can have two split teams right next to each other, yet if one team takes all of the incoming fire then it is the only on that suffers with suppression. The other team wont be rattled.

If I were a tank commander in combat, that's exactly how low I'd be when unbuttoned. Some commanders in other armored vehicles are exposing most of their torso which seems like a good way to get shot.

There was a debate in a War Thunder forum about this. There are some good photos of a reconstruction of the Panther turret and links to Panther diagrams. It seems from the evidence presented that there is a 20mm splash shied behind the mantlet and then nothing but the gun housing (which itself is a hunk of sturdy metal) but not the 110mm of the turret armor.

OK, so I've definitely confirmed that there slight variations in the squads weapon load out. For example, US Airborne squads in September generally have 2 BARs per squad but some only have 1 BAR. Same seems true for US regular infantry, although maybe not so many have 2 BARs. The obvious variation is some squads have 1 bazooka and two others don't. US airborne seem to have the same number of Thompsons and carbines(two each per squad). Germans regulars PG in June 44 have variations as well. Some squads have a STG44 and others don't.

I don't think this is 100% true. I definitely remember different weapons in some squads, specifically US Airborne in CMBN Arnhem. Extra BAR or different configurations of carbines and thompsons, etc. I'm sure the German squads were similar but I'll have to check when I get home.

Of course there are going to be similar elements because they're both based on historical events. I's almost like saying Saving Private Ryan apes The Longest Day because there's a beach landing in it too. And of the two productions, BoB is based on an actual unit about actual people. Claiming that BoB apes Battleground seems a little harsh. Your first post makes it sound like outright plagiarism, but maybe you mean to say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

I thoroughly enjoyed Battleground when I first saw it back in the 80s but I've seen it at least twice since then and it gets more and more dated. There's a lot of Hollywood lingo that really bugs me. It's more of a film about soldiers and their personalities than it is about the defense of Bastogne. It's not necessarily a bad thing but you could almost put that script on any front line setting. Bastogne fit the bill because they could just fog up the set and film the entire thing in a Hollywood set. You've lost me here. How does it ape Battleground?

It seems to me that the basic function of a flare is already in the game. You can see this in night battles where vehicles catch fire - the area around burning vehicle is lit up. All that really needs to be done is to make it a slowly falling object in the sky. I assume the game already give increased spotting bonuses to the areas that are lit up but I haven't tested this out.

well, it's not in the time fame either, so I didn't include it. HBO did a decent movie about the Hurtgen forest called When Trumpets Fade but I didn't include it either because it wasn't technically a bulge movie.

Yes, the Bulge movie was quite possibly the worst WWII movie ever made. And unfortunately there aren't any really good Bulge movies. The only ones that come to mind are Battleground, A Midnight Clear (good movie but fictional), and that one based on that game (which I can't even remember the name). Band of Brothers is really the only non-fictional decent representation of any Bulge action.

Jim Cobb has a nice interview with Steve over on the wargamer site. Unfortunately, no details on possible CMx3 engine in development.

Maybe you should counter some of that THC with caffeine?

Troops will now go through the hedges in CMFB also. It's not bocage like in CMBN, as IanL has pointed out. I also suspect that these hedges in CMFB do not have the same protective benefits that the bocage did in CMBN. They will be good for concealment but probably not good for cover.

Yea, I'm not thrilled about this at all. Players will want this feature to check LOS. However, in real time combat this will be time consuming and get players into trouble if they pay too much attention to one unit's LOS. Yesterday, in response that their game is going to have an emphasis on realism, I posted two questions on their board - one about LOS (relative or borg), and the other about C2. Unfortunately they're going to stick with borg spotting system and it doesn't seem like they have implemented a C2 system as of yet. So, already it seems realism is taking a back seat.

According to Sulla, there will be a map editor. I think some of the later titles had full squads but my memory could be wrong.

Bingo. What unit is doing the spotting? If they have binoculars then they do get a bonus. What kind of concealment are they in or behind?

Agreed, but I'm going to attempt it anyway I will, for darn sure, make it more like the actual town. The topography on the master map is all wrong.

No way a 105 Sherman will penetrate JT, unless maybe through a vision slit. Lower Glacis on the JT is only 100mm and not sloped as much as the upper hull glacis, so it's a definite vulnerable frontal target.

I've checked the Monschau master map but unfortunately it's not accurate in many respects, no offense the map maker. It's just a really hard to do unless you have accurate information. The Monschau topo that I have is 1:25k and you can't even see any detail of the town. The contours are so tight there - it's just black lines. And the fact that the streets and buildings are tightly packed at odd angles make it really hard to pull off in the CM editor.

This is the link to the index page: http://igrek.amzp.pl/mapindex.php?cat=M841W

Well I was about to respond that I can't check out the master maps because only the demo is out. How wrong I was... Thanks for round about tip. Anyway, I need the town itself. I'll check out the map when I get home tonight and download the game. Honestly, I hope it isn't done yet. I kind of like the challenge of making it myself.

Just place normal vehicles. When doing your test, use the scenario designer setting designed for testing. Then you can command all vehicles to hide, give them cover arcs, etc...

Oh, I definitely want to do Monschau. I was there two summers ago and have lots of photographs. Absolutely beautiful town. It will be hard to make in the map editor though. The tight compactness and streets that don't conform to 90d or 45d angles will be a challenge. No problem , I suppose I could make it into a mini campaign too. So long as you don't also do Buchholz station. My grandfather was good friends with Captain Neil Brown. They served in the same battalion.