Major SNAFU

Here are a *few* resources which reference the bocage field system and what was being grown in them, etc. http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/oth/farmstruct.html http://cghs.dadeschools.net/normandy/bocage/fighting.htm http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/normandy/bocage/overcame.htm http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=46171 The take home message is that most of the fields were livestock enclosures (BF give us moving sheep and cows or sumfink!) and orchards. There were some grain fields (I would guess these would be the ones with the larger openings). So there would not have been much demand for hoisting of harrows, etc. I am guessing that some of the grain field might even have been turned over manually by spading and adze work (which I have done and you can cover a surprising amount of area in a day - provided there is ibuprofen available )

I alternate between #3 and #4. It depends on the scenario, the day ( what kind of real life stuff is going on).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the original posters meaning, but in regards to the diagonal road it sounds like he has placed the road, and then placed heavy woods to either side and then placed water to outer edges of the heavy woods. So, to my mind, the question is why are they acting like they are in any terrain except the road, when they have been given orders to travel along the road? If they are acting like they are in the heavy woods or marsh, why?

Thanks all. I think I see where I need to change my tactics. I was trying to suppress, but I think my chosen route to cross the ford made for too large a bound to allow me to suppress effectively. You've given me some good ideas. Thanks,

Hi all, I am finding this a tough nut to crack. I have played this through at least 10 times now and have about 50% in draws but no better. I have tried both right and left approaches and can pretty much get my unit up to the bocage at the rivers edge with little or no casualties. I have tried using what little mortar rounds I have early and late, trying to suppress the LMGs. I usually find the the Fast command gets most of my unit across the river intact with some covering fire to the left on the enemy CP. Where it all comes apart is after the river crossing. Any movement I make beyond the river bank is decimated by the LMGs. any clues?

And, as I have been learning, when you maneuver you LMG into a position where the LOS looks good, it is often the case that once the weapon is deployed that the LOS is completely different. There should be a way to determine deployed LOS when scouting out positions.

I realize that, but it also means that players need to keep in mind when making plans that they may have to pull mortars out of position and return them and this will affect the tactical planning.

Actually, I haven't had a single jam yet. Does this happen in CMBN?

So they way to envision this is that the mortar team commander, having run low or out of ammo, says "Hey, let's breakdown our equipment and all go back to get some more ammo, then we'll come back here and try to set everything back up just they way it was and resume shooting."

Although the addition of a stockpile option for stationary units would be great. Tanks used for preparatory bombardments would use ammunition stacked next to the tank for this part of the battle and then would use internal stores once on the move.

Hi all, I have been playing the platoon patrol scenario (have only achieved a draw so far). One of the problems I am having is that I command a unit to hide, but throughout the turn they keep popping up and occasionally getting hit. What do I need to do to get them to stay hidden? They are behind some tall bocage, but a LMG can spot them when they pop up. I am trying to alternate them suppressing the LMG and then getting down while I move other elements.

I just wish that these things (the second link) were all summarized by BF in a FAQ so it was all concise and transparent to players. I have been guilty of asking many questions both in CMSF and CMBN, not because I want it to be like anything else, but because I want to understand what it is I am working with here. I find it strange that the users have to be the ones to figure out the firing rates, etc when this should all be readily available so that one can concentrate on forming and executing a plan and not on learning what may or may not be modeled (and how) in a particular engine. This is not where I derive "fun". Does and artillery officer go into battle without being instructed on what his weapons can and cannot do and how best to implement them? There have been a few comparisons to CMBN to chess on the forum that I have run across. As a person with an avid interest in chess I always find comparisons interesting. I would say it is and it isn't. CMBN is like playing a type of chess where the player has been educated in the rules of standard chess (i.e. like people who are educated in real-life military tactics), and who then sits down and plays for an open position with the plan of maximizing the long-range potential of the bishops, only to spend/invest time and mental effort to reach this position and *then* be informed that in *this* game of chess the bishops can only move 3 squares maximum in a single move - thus making the whole implementation of the open position worthless and the time and mental energy expanded thus far a waste. This does not mean in any way that this game of chess is not good or fun, it just means that the rules were not clearly communicated before play began. I think CMBN is great, and I think BF does a great job with the development. I wouldn't own most of the CM products if I didn't. But I do wish that there was greater details on the rules in a concise and written form and transparency on what is and isn't implemented. Note that I haven't once mentioned "why". I don't care at this point why or why not BF implemented, included or occluded any particular thing. I trust that they know how to make the tradeoffs necessary to make the engine and the game viable, fun, and as realistic as possible and still playable. I just would like for the tradeoffs to be listed up-front, in detail, so that I can concentrate on playing the game (FUN) and not on figuring out the minutia of the engine (seriously NOT FUN - for me). To me, one good place to start (there are many) is to think about all of the assumptions that a person trained in military tactics might make concerning weapons employment, movement, etc. and then straightforward explain where the engine will require a re-think of those assumptions. This would, I think, eliminate a huge amount of the questions that come up on the forums again and again.

When you click on any unit, I would like to see vector lines pointing to where the unit believes it has received incoming fire for the last 2 minutes. If you click on an HQ, I would like to see the vectors lines for all units currently within command range, with a variable level of FOW employed. This would be a big help in general assessment of concentration of enemy fire.

But Clark's point,if I am understanding him correctly, is that in the conditions you describe if you fire your first 30 rounds of HE, both the HE and Smoke allotments decrease until you have 50 HE left and 0 smoke. This makes no sense from a time or total round allotted paradigm. It should go something like this: Firing HE mission first: 80 HE, 30 Smoke 79 HE, 30 Smoke 78 HE, 30 Smoke, etc. . . . 30 HE, 30 Smoke 29 HE, 29 Smoke (regardless of which type of fire mission it is.) . . . . 1 HE, 1 smoke empty OR Firing Smoke mission first: 80 HE, 30 Smoke 79 HE, 29 Smoke 78 HE, 28 Smoke . . continue firing smoke until: 51 HE, 1 Smoke 50 HE, 0 Smoke This would truly be mapping out a total of 80 rounds available, with no more that 30 of them being smoke rounds. If it is: Firing HE: 80 HE, 30 Smoke 79 HE, 29 Smoke 78 HE, 28 SMoke . continue to fire only HE. . 51 HE, 1 Smoke 50 HE, 0 Smoke Then this penalizes the player because it is saying either use smoke at the beginning or forfeit it. So to have smoke available for a withdrawal, you either need to have a separate battery just for this purpose or use very little of the artillery to reserve smoke. This doesn't seem realistic to me as all the reading I have done emphasizes that the US was profligate in its use or artillery almost as a matter of doctrine.

Is there any chance of getting an official comment? Clark's reasoning seems to make sense to me. If it is a total time allotment, the smoke should not decrease until the end.