History accuracy

[at_dima]

Good day,

was hesitating for several year but finally decided to buy CMN as thought most of flaws are fixed by now.

it was quite a surprise to start a stock PLD campaign and the first thing I see was 234/1 while they got their first in October 1944. 

there are very many mistakes with German units in Normandy:

1) G.43 for IDs which was not issued to them.

2) G.43 wasn't available in numbers in Normandy, f.e. 12.SS and 21.Pz had G.41 only.

3) Schiessbecher ammo is 2 but the standard bandolier fit 16.

4) K.98-ZF wasn't really issued in numbers to second line units as German industry could never cope with a production of scopes for small arms.

5) MG.42 was not common at all among second line infantry units in Normandy f.e. 716.ID had on 2 (two) MG.42s and those were static at the beaches.

and many many more

Less for the Allies.

 

while I like the game but Im quite disappointed with a historical accuracy...thought it would be super accurate for such a money.

anyway to mod units? as f.e. even weapon allocation for PzGren (mot) in 12.SS was different to 17.SS on squad level.

 

cheers,

 

 

 

[JoMac]

I'm sure it would be hard/time consuming for BF to try and do each and every Inf Division's allocated Weapons/Vehicles, etc, but best to try and incorporate a generic stance...

However, I wish BF would also reduce the amount of G43's in BN & FI in each Formation to just a few...

Now, wait to you see the U.S. Garand Allocation per-squad...For some reason, it was accurate with 1x BAR per-squad) when CMBN first came out, then it jumped to 2x BAR per-squad by v4.0

Also, if you purchase CMRT, then you will see a big discrepancy in how many SMG's, SVT's and the lack of Bolt-Rifles in a Soviet/Russian Rifle Squad compared to what it should be

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by JoMc67

[IICptMillerII]

Do you have sources for any of these claims? From everything I've seen, the TO&E in CMBN (and all the CM games for that matter) are extremely accurate. 

The G43 is an interesting point, but you can limit the amount of them that appear in a unit by setting the units equipment to 'poor' in the editor. This will also reduce the amount of optics on rifles in a unit as well. 

Regarding the MG42's, I would be very interested to see the source that says there were only two of them in an entire division. The MG42 was ludicrously common throughout German units, and their entire infantry doctrine revolved around the squad level MG. 

The rest of your points may or may not be valid, but to me they are nitpicks. Would still love to see the sources on them all though. 

[ASL Veteran]

2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Do you have sources for any of these claims? From everything I've seen, the TO&E in CMBN (and all the CM games for that matter) are extremely accurate. 

The G43 is an interesting point, but you can limit the amount of them that appear in a unit by setting the units equipment to 'poor' in the editor. This will also reduce the amount of optics on rifles in a unit as well. 

Regarding the MG42's, I would be very interested to see the source that says there were only two of them in an entire division. The MG42 was ludicrously common throughout German units, and their entire infantry doctrine revolved around the squad level MG. 

The rest of your points may or may not be valid, but to me they are nitpicks. Would still love to see the sources on them all though. 

The second line infantry divisions in question would have had either MG34s or more likely captured Czech, French, Polish, Belgian, older German models from WW1 and other machine guns of various types that were used by various German forces throughout the war.  I don't think he means that the entire division had only two machine guns of any type.  Possibly even more commonly used would be various captured French and other types of rifles.  Of course, CMBN does not include any of that for a variety of reasons.  Sure, it would be nice to have the full catalog of various German small arms but in the grand scheme of things BFC has to weigh whether or not the art for a new weapon model and coding for various sized magazines for each of the hundreds of various smalls arms is really worth the time and effort because the 461st reserve infantry division had Maxim machine guns instead of MG42s.  That isn't a question of 'historical accuracy' but rather a question of inclusion or exclusion.  The game isn't historically inaccurate because the German sledge mounted MG08 isn't included in the game.  It's just not included in the game that's all.  Not even counting the captured weapons, the German MGs used by various units would include the MG13, MG38, MG30, MG15, MG08, MG08/15, MG34, MG42, and the MG151/15.  The Czech built ZB vz/26, ZB vz/30, ZB vz/53, and ZB vz/60 were also used by second line units and SS foreign volunteers.  The list could go on and on, but really what difference does it make in the game overall and how impactful would it be?  There isn't even a way to specify certain weapon mixes in squads in the editor so even if all these weapons were in the game there is no way to specifically set a squad to have a certain desired weapon mix so whatever weapon mix you would get would effectively be random.  The game doesn't know whether the unit you are portraying is a first line infantry division or a second line infantry division.  The game only knows you are selecting a German infantry unit.  How historically accurate would that be to have ZB vz/26s showing up in first line infantry squads?   

[at_dima]

46 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

46 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Quote

'm sure it would be hard/time consuming for BF to try and do each and every Inf Division's allocated Weapons/Vehicles, etc, but best to try and incorporate a generic stance...

yes of course but Type 43 91.LLD and 352.ID can't be same as Type 41 709 and 716.ID. 

and still G.43 wasn't issued to infantry units before VG division.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by at_dima

[at_dima]

Quote

Now, wait to you see the U.S. Garand Allocation per-squad...For some reason, it was accurate with 1x BAR per-squad) when CMBN first came out, then it jumped to 2x BAR per-squad by v4.0

yes was quite surprised that they decided to issue all 9 un-allocated BARs in Company to squads. The thing is that it was against their basic training where Assault Team was the main shock force of squad. In reality having 2 BARs per squad would reduce squad efficiency in offence.

[at_dima]

Quote

Do you have sources for any of these claims? From everything I've seen, the TO&E in CMBN (and all the CM games for that matter) are extremely accurate. 

of course I do as well as original German manuals for Normandy units with squad weapon allocation and tactics.

Quote

The G43 is an interesting point, but you can limit the amount of them that appear in a unit by setting the units equipment to 'poor' in the editor. This will also reduce the amount of optics on rifles in a unit as well. 

G41/43 was issued to 2i/c of PzGrens (200 per division) but not to infantry squads before Volskgrenadiere.

Quote

regarding the MG42's, I would be very interested to see the source that says there were only two of them in an entire division. The MG42 was ludicrously common throughout German units, and their entire infantry doctrine revolved around the squad level MG. 

just an example of what 716.ID had on beaches on May 1st 1944

23 x MG 116(f)
22 x MG 311(f)
20 x MG 28(p)
1 x MG 08/16
10 x sMG 14(p)
6 x sMG 30(p)
5 x sMG 257(f)
9 x MG 311(f) pz turm
2 x MG 42 K
5 x GrW 203(f)
2 x GrW 210(f)
24 x GrW 278(f)
12 x PzB Boys
4 x MG 34 K
18 x MG 34 Schartenstand
20 x 2cm Flak
6 x 7.5cm Flak

and because of that this static Division didn't have sKp in Inf Bats compensating that with 2 leMG per squad.

 

[at_dima]

28 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

The second line infantry divisions in question would have had either MG34s or more likely captured Czech, French, Polish, Belgian, older German models from WW1 and other machine guns of various types that were used by various German forces throughout the war.  I don't think he means that the entire division had only two machine guns of any type.  Possibly even more commonly used would be various captured French and other types of rifles.  Of course, CMBN does not include any of that for a variety of reasons.  Sure, it would be nice to have the full catalog of various German small arms but in the grand scheme of things BFC has to weigh whether or not the art for a new weapon model and coding for various sized magazines for each of the hundreds of various smalls arms is really worth the time and effort because the 461st reserve infantry division had Maxim machine guns instead of MG42s.  That isn't a question of 'historical accuracy' but rather a question of inclusion or exclusion.  The game isn't historically inaccurate because the German sledge mounted MG08 isn't included in the game.  It's just not included in the game that's all.  Not even counting the captured weapons, the German MGs used by various units would include the MG13, MG38, MG30, MG15, MG08, MG08/15, MG34, MG42, and the MG151/15.  The Czech built ZB vz/26, ZB vz/30, ZB vz/53, and ZB vz/60 were also used by second line units and SS foreign volunteers.  The list could go on and on, but really what difference does it make in the game overall and how impactful would it be?  There isn't even a way to specify certain weapon mixes in squads in the editor so even if all these weapons were in the game there is no way to specifically set a squad to have a certain desired weapon mix so whatever weapon mix you would get would effectively be random.  The game doesn't know whether the unit you are portraying is a first line infantry division or a second line infantry division.  The game only knows you are selecting a German infantry unit.  How historically accurate would that be to have ZB vz/26s showing up in first line infantry squads?   

well I do understand your point but what I mean is that when I paid quite a money for a special game I was expecting it would be super accurate historical wise. Again, I liked the game but my question is why there are so many mistakes in TOEs.

there wasn;'t 461.ID in Normandy but 716.ID did use Russian Maxims that is pictured in the British memoirs "that bloody great thing on wheels that killed my group" (IIRC)

[sburke]

just for reference to your original post- Flaws versus what makes sense are 2 different issues as other folks have posted.  I suspect some of the discrepancy here is your perspective on cost versus detail compared to what the cost would really be if the level of detail you are looking for was there.  It would be a lot more expensive.  As ASL Vet noted there is art work, models and ToEs would have to be altered and expanded extensively.  So you'd have to have ToEs on a division by division basis and also over time as ToEs change.  If they actually did create such a game I think considering CMBN was released 7 years ago and it took you that long to pony up (kidding, for all I know you only started looking at it last year ) you'd be highly unlikely to purchase a game which would easily cost 2 - 3 times as much - and it would cost that much.  For sure a lot of their current customer base would not do so.  I.E the product would fail and there would be no CM at all.  Watch what you wish for and be realistic as to what other folks would pay for and consider of value.

The idea of CM is to give you as detailed a tactical combat experience as possible given the constraints.  At the price it is unparalleled.  The home page does list everything that comes in each game - weapons, vehicles etc so this is information you should have known prior to purchase.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=276&Itemid=460

CM does not have a ToE for the 716th ID so it can't be considered flawed in that regard.  It is a semi generic infantry battalion with some variability based on settings of unit quality.  The only issue is it can not create the ToE at that level of detail for the 716th ID.  It never claimed that it could and in fact by the ToE posted specifically made clear it could not.

 

 

[ASL Veteran]

3 hours ago, at_dima said:

well I do understand your point but what I mean is that when I paid quite a money for a special game I was expecting it would be super accurate historical wise. Again, I liked the game but my question is why there are so many mistakes in TOEs.

there wasn;'t 461.ID in Normandy but 716.ID did use Russian Maxims that is pictured in the British memoirs "that bloody great thing on wheels that killed my group" (IIRC)

You can make a claim that whatever scenario you are referencing is historically inaccurate from a weapon and equipment perspective, but that's only because the scenario designer chose to create a scenario with the unit in question.  If the unit in question was not portrayed within the context of a specific scenario then the historical inaccuracy debate about the equipment used by any specific unit likewise disappears.  Therefore in order to achieve the level of 'historical accuracy' that you want any scenarios depicting units that used non standard German weaponry would have to remain unmade thus preserving the 'historical accuracy' of the equipment being used.  All you achieve through that is to limit the scenario possibilities that players can enjoy because all of that non standard equipment was not going to be included and was never planned for inclusion.  If you want to point the finger of 'historical inaccuracy' at anyone then the finger would be pointed at whomever designed and created a particular scenario and not the game itself.  By your definition of historical accuracy the game is perfectly fine so long as the units being portrayed in scenarios were issued standard weapons and equipment.

My reference to the 461st Infantry Division was not a specific one, but rather to be read as 'random German infantry division picked out of a hat'.  Many, perhaps most, German Panzer Division TO&Es have quite a bit of variation between them, but most of those differences can't be portrayed within the game.  Scenario designers just do the best they can with what's available in the game.  The alternative is that you would get less varied content because in order to meet your standards many scenarios would remain unmade.  It is also a tall ask for every scenario designer to be so familiar with any particular unit being portrayed that they would know how many French machine guns that specific unit employed.  It's one thing if you pick up a book about a specific division and that book has every weapon listed, but if you are designing scenarios you have to design scenarios across many different units, locations, and situations and in most cases just knowing what battalion was involved in a particular battle or even where everyone was actually located on a map is nearly impossible.  Try creating a scenario about a Soviet attack in Poland and then tell us all how easy it is to identify even a specific division that may possibly have been involved in a particular battalion sized battle let alone what model machine guns any particular squad might be carrying.  Scenario research is hit and miss at times.  Sometimes you get lucky and have first hand accounts and good maps and sometimes you have to wing it and make a few assumptions.  You have picked up a book with detailed information about a specific unit and you are extrapolating inaccuracies from that.  A scenario designer might read about an engagement that sounds interesting and then try to locate the battle on a map and try to figure out exactly who was there.  Your method might work if you only want to make scenarios about that specific unit in the book you have, but if you want to broaden your horizons you have to go into territory where the information isn't quite so precise or even available under any context.

[Ts4EVER]

Dunno where this idea comes from that Infantry Divisions had no G41/G43. For instance, the 352nd Infanterie-Division of Omaha Beach fame reported 395 G41s in February 1944. These do not show up in the 43 kstn, but IIRC there was an amendment saying that 2 were to be issued to each squad if available.

[Aragorn2002]

13 hours ago, at_dima said:

Good day,

was hesitating for several year but finally decided to buy CMN as thought most of flaws are fixed by now.

it was quite a surprise to start a stock PLD campaign and the first thing I see was 234/1 while they got their first in October 1944. 

there are very many mistakes with German units in Normandy:

1) G.43 for IDs which was not issued to them.

2) G.43 wasn't available in numbers in Normandy, f.e. 12.SS and 21.Pz had G.41 only.

3) Schiessbecher ammo is 2 but the standard bandolier fit 16.

4) K.98-ZF wasn't really issued in numbers to second line units as German industry could never cope with a production of scopes for small arms.

5) MG.42 was not common at all among second line infantry units in Normandy f.e. 716.ID had on 2 (two) MG.42s and those were static at the beaches.

and many many more

Less for the Allies.

 

while I like the game but Im quite disappointed with a historical accuracy...thought it would be super accurate for such a money.

anyway to mod units? as f.e. even weapon allocation for PzGren (mot) in 12.SS was different to 17.SS on squad level.

 

I must admit that the tone of your post annoys me. Most flaws are fixed now? Many mistakes with German units in Normandy? Quite disappointed with historical accuracy? Paid quite a lot of money? I'm sure you're mostly right about what you consider to be 'mistakes', but historical accuracy must have it's limits in a game like this. Do you seriously expect that kind of detail? Or are you just keen on showing us your book knowledge?

Most of us can add something to your little wishlist, but we know that BF has found the perfect balance between historical accuracy, playability and realism. So a little more respect for this superb game would be in order in future, pal.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Aragorn2002

[Badger73]

8 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

<snipped>

BF has found the perfect balance between historical accuracy, playability and realism.

<snipped>

Well said, @Aragorn2002.  These are only games.  The balance achieved as you described is what makes them very good games indeed.

[sburke]

Before we get into tone, English may not be his first language. The ToE merits can stand on their own for CM and ASLveteran’s post is about as clear as one can get on the subject. 

[General Liederkranz]

23 hours ago, at_dima said:

3) Schiessbecher ammo is 2 but the standard bandolier fit 16.

 

I have often wondered why rifle grenadiers--both US and German--carry so few (usually 3), especially since it seems to take them a shot or two to find the range. But I've always assumed BFC has it right.

Edited June 25, 2018 by General Liederkranz

[Ivan Zaitzev]

Sadly the game can't be modded in a serious and easy way, but if they would allow us to modify the ToE, all this issues would be resolved. Except the units using weapons not featured in the game, of course.

[sburke]

48 minutes ago, Ivan Zaitzev said:

Sadly the game can't be modded in a serious and easy way, but if they would allow us to modify the ToE, all this issues would be resolved. Except the units using weapons not featured in the game, of course.

BF has explained their rationale for not opening up the ToE for modifying.  It was a pretty good explanation as I recall and either way clearly laid out why they won't do it regardless of whether it was a simple thing for them to permit or not.

[Ivan Zaitzev]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

BF has explained their rationale for not opening up the ToE for modifying.  It was a pretty good explanation as I recall and either way clearly laid out why they won't do it regardless of whether it was a simple thing for them to permit or not.

Still it's a shame regardless of how clearly explained it is. One of the great things about Close Combat was the possibility for mods. Of course modding the Spanish Civil War or Stalingrad in a 3D game is way more work than in a 2D game and probably nobody would do it, but still, it would allow some interesting modifications.

[RockinHarry]

On 6/25/2018 at 6:31 PM, General Liederkranz said:

I have often wondered why rifle grenadiers--both US and German--carry so few (usually 3), especially since it seems to take them a shot or two to find the range. But I've always assumed BFC has it right.

True. Would like to know as well. If my memory serves me right the german sets composition was 10 HE and 5 HEAT, but it definitely was more than the games 2-3 in general. Probably same for US and others that used rifle grenades. Another common mistake in wargames (not in this one thus far) is distribution of german cup launchers and grenades before april/may 1942 when they in fact were distributed first time in masses to frontline troops.

Maybe the AI would be not so good at handling rifle grenades and uses them sort of pocket artillery, thus causing some imbalance at circumstances. Can´t tell. Personally I find them ideally suited for MOUT, as a single rifle grenade can take out several enemy guys in buildings at once, when hitting at or near a window (with usually several guys bunching up behind). Thus I´d wish for more than the usual two or three.

[DougPhresh]

I don't think "balance" should be an issue at all. The K98 is hardly balanced against the Garand, but I wouldn't want full German squads of G43s.

[Warts 'n' all]

Good point. 

[DerKommissar]

Speaking of K98s and rifle grenades? Where in the bloody hell is the Propaganda-Gewehr Granate?

How am I supposed to indoctrinate the populace without shooting propaganda through their windows?

I have yet to find them in game! Where's the 'accuracy'? You're telling me this game doesn't model the single, most direct, form of media ever projected from the barrel of a gun? (/sarcasm)

(would you like to know more: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/propaganda-rifle-grenade.html )

Edited June 28, 2018 by DerKommissar

[Combatintman]

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 8:07 PM, at_dima said:

of course I do as well as original German manuals for Normandy units with squad weapon allocation and tactics.

G41/43 was issued to 2i/c of PzGrens (200 per division) but not to infantry squads before Volskgrenadiere.

just an example of what 716.ID had on beaches on May 1st 1944

23 x MG 116(f)
22 x MG 311(f)
20 x MG 28(p)
1 x MG 08/16
10 x sMG 14(p)
6 x sMG 30(p)
5 x sMG 257(f)
9 x MG 311(f) pz turm
2 x MG 42 K
5 x GrW 203(f)
2 x GrW 210(f)
24 x GrW 278(f)
12 x PzB Boys
4 x MG 34 K
18 x MG 34 Schartenstand
20 x 2cm Flak
6 x 7.5cm Flak

and because of that this static Division didn't have sKp in Inf Bats compensating that with 2 leMG per squad.

 

What are the equivalent numbers for 06 June 1944? I'm pretty surprised you are quoting strength figures for May 1944 in a post about accuracy.

[Ts4EVER]

These are monthly reports and the one from June might have been destroyed. Also, these don't change that much over a month except for enemy action.

[Ts4EVER]

Since I apparently got nothing better to do I looked at some reports to get more data regarding the idea that "Infantry Divisions had no G41s or G43s". Let's see:

197. Infanterie-Division (01.06.1944)

II. Deutsche Waffen
7.485 x Karabiner 98k
94 x Karabiner 98 k mit Zielfernrohr
213 x Gewehr 41 und 43
2 x Granatbüchse 39
1.289 x Pistolen
697 x Maschinenpistole 38/40
30 x Maschinenpistole 44

III. Beutewaffen
25 x Maschinenpistolen (r)
26 x Gewehr (r)
2 x 5,2cm Granatwerfer (r)
3 x Panzerbüchsen (r)
4 x 28cm Mörser (f)
7 x 7,5cm Kanone 231 (f)

256. Infanterie-Division (01.06.1944)

I. Deutsche Waffen
(in Kriegsgliederung nicht eingezeichnet)

7.106 x Karabiner
81 x Zielfernrohrgewehre
162 x Gewehr 41
360 x Gewehr-Granat-Gerät
702 x Maschinenpistolen (davon 38 = MPi 43)
1.679 x Pistolen
65 x Panzerschreck
1 x Nebelwerfer 35
21 x leichte Maschinengewehre 08/15
8 x leichte Maschinengewehr 13
2 x leichte Maschinengewehr 15
1 x schwere Maschinengewehre 08

(zur Instandsetzung und Waffenreserve)
11 x leichte Maschinengewehre
6 x schwere Maschinengewehre
7 x mittlere Granatwerfer
1 x 7,62cm Feldkanone 288 (r)

II. Beutewaffen

499 x Gewehre (r)
83 x leichte Maschinengewehre (r)
3 x schwere Maschinengewehre (r)
50 x leichte Maschinengewehre (f)
19 x leichte Maschinengewehre (t)
1 x leichtes Maschinengewehre (e)
1 x leichter Granatwerfer (r)
3 x mittlere Granatwerfer (r)
9 x mittlere Granatwerfer (f)
9 x 4,5cm Pak (r)

42. Jäger-Division (01.06.1944)

I. Deutsche Waffen
(In Kriegsgliederung nicht eingezeichnet)

10.678 x Gewehre
68 x Zielfernrohrgewehre
23 x Gewehre 41
2.470 x Pistolen
436 x Maschinenpistolen
64 x Granat-Büchsen
403 x Gewehr-Granat-Geräte
10 x 3,7cm Pak

II. Beutewaffen

58 x Gewehre (j)

343. Infanterie-Division (01.06.1944)

I. Deutsche Waffen
(in der Kriegsgliederung nicht enthaltene deutsche Waffen)

6.211 x Karabiner 98K
84 x Gewehre 98
9 x Gewehre 98a
65 x Gewehre 41
130 x Karabiner 98 mit Zielfernrohr
528 x Gewehr-Granat-Geräte
735 x Maschinenpistolen
1.959 x Pistolen 08/38
1.077 x Pistolen 7,65mm

II. Beutewaffen
(nur Granatwerfer, Maschinengewehre und Gewehre)

804 x Gewehre (j)
305 x Gewehre (f)
870 x Gewehre (r)
674 x Gewehre 24(t)
41 x selbstladende Gewehre (r)
3 x Karabiner 454 (r)
27 x Pistolen (r)
29 x Maschinenpistolen (r)

264. Infanterie-Division (30.11.1943)

7.751 x Karabiner 98K
199 x Zielfernrohrgewehre
200 x Gewehre 41 (W)
3.557 x Pistolen 38
875 x Maschinenpistolen 40
545 x Gewehr-Granat-Geräte
71 x 8cm Granatwerfer 34
12 x 7,5cm leichtes Infanterie-Geschütz 18
6 x 7,62cm J.H.K. 290 (r)
4 x 5cm Pak (leihweise vom OKH zur Ausbildung zugewiesen)
10 x 2cm Flak

I could go on.