Pak40

No fair, I was going to make that scenario!

But seriously, I think they typically fall under engineers, so using those symbols would be appropriate. I did find this one that has a flame tank

I tried posting a reply to Sulla about their choice to not let the player zoom in all the way, but the forum wouldn't let it post. It suggested I was using bad or "spammy" language? Anyway, I think the game looks promising, but they are promising a lot and have just over a year to implement it by their time line. I'm skeptical until I get some answers and see a demo etc.. I've been burned before with promises like these. Remember GI Combat?

MG 42 can be fired in semi deployed status which I think would cause more erratic spread of fire.

I also noticed this, but that particular quote was from the developer's official website. The article itself does mention CM in the last paragraph as having "tactical supremacy" i.e. the game to to beat. In any case, I kind of thought that was an insult to CM even though it's primarily played in WEGO. It works just as well in real time (at the scale of Close Combat battles). However, once you get to a couple of companies worth of units, then real time becomes a real chore. Close Combat would have the same issues if it actually allowed that many units in the game. The Tactical Art of Combat seems to be aiming for small scale battles along the lines of Close Combat. I think they're still ironing out the details according to the posts I've seen on their forum.

A new 3D tactical game is in the works by a new developer. I just saw an article about it over on wargamer.com. It's being pitched as a true 3d successor to Close Combat although it has nothing to do with the current developers of the Close Combat line. I'm not holding my breath because I've heard this pitch before from games like GI Combat and Squad Assault West Front. However, I will say that if they can deliver and execute what they're pitching then it should be a fun game. It's definitely a competitor to Combat Mission so I'm not posting any commercial links to it. Also, Slitherine is developing a 3D Close Combat but this has been in the works for at least a couple of years now. There's not too much information about it.

Yea, this has caused me many setup problems in the past. I'm not sure why they don't just change the colors. Can't be that hard to do.

TOT was definitely used in WWII, and as JasonC mentioned, very effective in front of Elsenbone Ridge. I have just read about it in The Shock of War. There's a whole chapter about the artillery on both sides. As for the reason why it's not used in CMx2, opinion is that it was never used in an ad hoc basis. It was probably only used as a preparatory barrage. These things took some time to coordinate and set up. A prep barrage of this magnitude of multiple batteries can easily be simulated in CMx2 in the the setup phase.

Interesting. Probably the US Army experimented with having the priest in recon units but decided it's lack of mobility hindered the them. If this is true, then why not just up the rarity for it? That alone will cause players not to overload on M8 HMCs in a quick battle. I'm not sure why an M8 HMC would ever be included in infantry only engagements to begin with since it's technically a tank. Are M8 Armored Cars available in infantry only QBs?

It's my understanding that US parachute battalions did not have the .50 as part of their organic weapon allocation. But, I've read at least one account where a rather large parachute soldier in the 506th "found" a .50 and carried it around.

Did you check the Glider Battalion?

I sometimes feel that trying to ambush is a double edged sword: If you only use Covered Arc then your unit will probably be seen before the enemy is within the arc - or if you set the arc too large then the ambush wont be as effective. If you just use Hide(with the intention of unhiding at the end of a turn) then your unit runs the serious risk of having the enemy get closer to you than intended, and getting the drop on your men and wiping them out. If you use both Hide and Covered Arc then you still run that same risk, especially if your unit is behind a wall, hedgerow, or in a building. It seems some terrain is favorable to certain types of ambushes. Maybe someone should run some tests and make a matrix of cover and suggested method of setting an ambush?

Not at all. You're trading killing the enemy for saving your own men's lives. A valid strategy. Obviously it wasn't done in this way for fear of killing our own troops on the beaches. But, if you treat it as a "beach prep" barrage planned well before your troops were to hit the beach, then it serves the purpose that the air corps was trying to achieve. It's certainly a great "What if" scenario to try.

Well, maybe the tree bursts were abstracted too, there was probably a general % chance that the round would hit a tree. I don't ever remember the effectiveness of tree tile coverage being degraded because of high explosives. I remember that forest LOS was very formulaic and predictable, i.e. you could always see x number of meters into light forest and less(but just as predictable) into heavy forest. Moving the LOS line didn't seem to be affected by individual trees, therefore I do not think that individual trees could be destroyed or loose their leaves.

I think trees were really abstracted back then. A single tree couldn't block LOS. The further you targeted into the trees the more it degraded LOS. For area targets I think any large caliber weapon that fired into a tree area would hit the ground and never a tree. Same if you actually targeted a unit. But, I could be wrong. It's been a long time since I played CMx1

When Shock Force(CMx2) began development, multi-core processors were in their infancy. By the time Shock Force was released multi-core processors were more mainstream but the code for CMx2 was already written. CMx2 would have to be completely re-written to allow for them. Steve has stated other reasons in recent posts explaining that there wouldn't be that much to gain from using multi-cores.

Reiter, I compared the graphics quality between max and the next lowest setting (I forget what it's called). Anyway, I couldn't tell the difference in quality, but there was a noticeable difference in FPS on larger maps with lots of units. It seems a lot smoother to me and since there's no visible difference in graphics quality, I've kept the settings there.

It was always my understanding that Hitler deserved blame for insisting to use the Me-262 in the bomber role rather than the fighter role where it would have a clear advantage. I've never really heard that the Me-262 was delayed because it had to be adapted to the bomber roll, just Hitler's insistence that it be used in the bomber role when it did become available.

If the enemy is firing from behind a hedge then you can easily use a LINE barrage immediately behind that hedge. It is very effective at eliminating the threat immediately behind the hedge. If, perhaps you wan the barrage to go deeper behind the hedge, then you can use the CIRCLE barrage. Place the centroid of the barrage behind the hedge as far as it will allow, then place the second point anywhere in front of the hedge where you have LOS. You can get the circle quite large if you want. Obviously only a little more than half of your rounds will land behind the hedge but some of them should go deep. The piece that you reference is indeed interesting but it doesn't really say if it was common practice for a FO to call in artillery where he couldn't see. Yes, he could pick a spot on the map even if he didn't have LOS to it but permission to expend rounds on an unseen target were probably normally denied. Also, consider the fact that if Combat Mission allowed all FO's or HQs to call down artillery anywhere on the map even if they didn't have LOS to it, there would be massive abuse of the system by players. Why risk putter your FO on the front line when he can just call it in from anywhere?

Cool, thanks. The Kindle version is $27, yikes. New version is only $19. Used paperback as low as $8 or so.

OK, I checked in the editor and they are indeed there for both the independent and the armored version. Each troop has an assault platoon with 2 M8 HMCs, a halftrack and HQ. The version in the Quick Battles is missing the entire assault platoon. It was always my understanding that these were intended to be assault vehicles, i.e. direct infantry support, not artillery. However, I have no real data to back this up. But why call it an assault platoon if it's going to be in the indirect role? Also, the Quick Battle version of the Calvary Squadrons are missing the entire company of M5 Stuarts. Why leave this out of the QB versions? This makes no sense.

I think you're right about them being replaced by Sherman 105s and possibly the Priests too. However, they were still regularly used in Cavalry Squadrons as per this source: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/cavalry.aspx I'm not at home but can someone check the Cavalry Squadron OOB? Or does CMBN only have Cavalry troops?

roflcakes, Wart 'n' all touched on a topic that all newbies should know about. Mods will make this game a lot better. I recommend Juju's interface mod and any set of the sounds mods. Stock sounds are a little flat and nondescript for me. Both of these will help with immersion. There are also tons of graphics mods out there too that will help.

Come on BFC, tomorrow is my birthday! The sad thing is that we're not waiting on the game to be developed, we're waiting on the damn web site to be redesigned. sigh.