More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

When I see things like "a short time later" in a description I generally presume it's longer than one would see within a particular battle. Remember, in real life battles were more often than not a series of smaller engagements with gaps of time inbetween. So yeah, I know rides were switched around quite frequently... but within a half hour or hour? I don't think that was routine.

The 3 RTR appears to have been engaged in battle for at least 6 hours, perhaps as much as 10. If we presume each leader got shot out of a tank at even intervals (concurrently) that would be losing a tank every 2-3 hours. Or in CM terms, once per battle.

This is the thing I really hate about documentation like this. RARELY does it give specific timeframes. Instead, it's generalized stuff like "morning" and "all through the afternoon". For all I know there were 2 engagements where all this happened with 3 hours inbetween or there were lots of little skirmishes. There's no way to tell.

But in any case, we're still talking about minority events. It's not something we feel compelled to spend time on compared to other things I mentioned (water, bridges, boccage, etc.) since in relative importance it really doesn't stand up well.

Allowing crews to switch between same exact types of equipment probably isn't that hard though. So if it can be done easily it probably will be allowed. HOWEVER, one never knows what the code thinks about a new feature

Steve

[MikeyD]

(water, bridges, boccage, etc.)

Ooooh, I'm REALLY curious about water (and no, just because there's 'Beta Tester' in my sig doesn't mean I get to see all). There's a LOT of different ways of doing water in a lot of different games, from CMx1 to DropTeam. How much time and effort is Charles willing to devote to giving us water? I've had this (never-going-to-happen) dream of seeing CM:Vietnam riverine operations. Or how about CM:Peloponnesian war!

[akd]

AKD,

When I see things like "a short time later" in a description I generally presume it's longer than one would see within a particular battle. Remember, in real life battles were more often than not a series of smaller engagements with gaps of time inbetween. So yeah, I know rides were switched around quite frequently... but within a half hour or hour? I don't think that was routine.

The 3 RTR appears to have been engaged in battle for at least 6 hours, perhaps as much as 10. If we presume each leader got shot out of a tank at even intervals (concurrently) that would be losing a tank every 2-3 hours. Or in CM terms, once per battle.

This is the thing I really hate about documentation like this. RARELY does it give specific timeframes. Instead, it's generalized stuff like "morning" and "all through the afternoon". For all I know there were 2 engagements where all this happened with 3 hours inbetween or there were lots of little skirmishes. There's no way to tell.

But in any case, we're still talking about minority events. It's not something we feel compelled to spend time on compared to other things I mentioned (water, bridges, boccage, etc.) since in relative importance it really doesn't stand up well.

Allowing crews to switch between same exact types of equipment probably isn't that hard though. So if it can be done easily it probably will be allowed. HOWEVER, one never knows what the code thinks about a new feature

I agree that matching scale is difficult with accounts like this, perhaps in large part because the typical timeframe of a CM battle is far shorter than the typical timeframe of a real world battle, and no doubt in CM:N many battles that were 6 hours in the real world will make 1-2 hour appearances in CM:N (but of course we want the boring bits cut out).

I'll have to dig through Carius' memoir, but I'm pretty sure at least one example was a shift actually under fire. In general, I feel safe asserting that it was not an outlier even for at least German unit leaders to switch to new ride in battle. And regardless, it would seem to be German doctrine, as found in Wolfgang Schneider's Panzer Tactics: German Small-Unit Armor Tactics in WWII, where in addition to placing great emphasis on COs leading from the front in tanks at all times, he also states:

Platoon leaders and the company commander switch to another tank if their vehicles have to be withdrawn [from combat].

The question would seem then: is a tank platoon or tank company leader loosing his tank or having his tank disabled without having his own person rendered combat ineffective (due to wounds/shock) an outlier (or minority) event in CM: N? If not, the ability to switch the unit leader to another vehicle would seem an important feature.

[silverstars]

To John Kettler,

Thank you for pointing that out. I couldn't for the life of me remember the source material I got the idea of Captured French tanks in Normandy(you read enough WWII books and play enough wargames your brain bibliography goes all to hell). Now I remember I got it from the Paratrooper Module from good ole' ASL, who in turn probably got most of their scenario ideas from SLAM's work.

As far as the whole Recrew debate, I think it's a good thing, Just not good enough to be at the expense of something better, or so major it would seem stupid not to have. The best example I can think of is Theatre of War I, which had the ability to do all these nifty things we seem to want in CM, but had no buildings you could enter. So while it would be nice, it isn't nice enough for me to swallow a Normandy without a flooded Douve River.

Besides, just looking at the difference between CMSF 1.0 and CMSF 1.11 I have high hopes of something being implemented in between modules.

[Dietrich]

Crewing basically compatible weapons isn't such a big deal when any one aspect of it is looked at. . . . It's just that when we look at the time needed to get that feature into the game and working as it should we see far more valid features not getting implemented.

So (until further notice) no switching vehicle crews and no re-crewing "de-manned" crew-served weapons. Okay.

I'm still a bit concerned that when my BAR man or MG-Schütze gets WIA/KIA, his weapon won't be retained by someone in his squad/Gruppe. I think this would be more important for German forces, since the MG34/42 was the lynchpin of German small-unit tactics, while the BAR's contribution to the squad's firepower wasn't nearly as great as the MG42's contribution to the Gruppe's firepower.

According to a couple sources, if during the course of a battle a Gruppe lost its MG, the remaining men be redistributed among the other squads which still had their MGs. I, for one, wouldn't want to have to defend against (presumaby) numerically superior forces with just a bolt-action rifle and a half dozen grenades.

Another one we're planning on doing are Command Posts and Observation Posts. Basically, "vehicles" which have nothing more than higher and lower levels of communications equipment in them. That gets us a MUCH better simulation of field phones and non-portable radios than CMx1 had because if they aren't manned or are destroyed their C2 functionality is lost. In CMx1 you could move around HQs with very little regard for historical reality

Will these Posts look like MG pits (w/o MGs, obviously)? This sounds good to me, since field telephones and pseudo-emplaced radios were important to defending forces, especially in broken terrain.

[Sergei]

So (until further notice) no switching vehicle crews and no re-crewing "de-manned" crew-served weapons. Okay.

I'm still a bit concerned that when my BAR man or MG-Schütze gets WIA/KIA, his weapon won't be retained by someone in his squad/Gruppe.

Squad LMG's are not "crew served weapons" in the sense discussed here, I think. Picking LMG's from fallen gunners is done already.

[MarkEzra]

RE: "Outlier" and it's actual impact on the game.

All my PBEM's are "outlier" Fought to the last man, bullet, vehicle, Victory Objective. Obviously this is not historical reality EXCEPT for "Outlier" battles (The Alamo). So doesn't this become the conundrum for the game designer. As a Gamer I say "whadya mean I can't pull out one crew for another?" No amount of excellent argument regarding "simulation" or historical "accuracy" matters much to me because I am, obviously, an "Outlier".

So here's my counter-intuitive pitch for Player (not AI) crew swap.

If it is NOT too difficult and time consuming to code than this feature should be put on the short list. It will have a very positive impact on H2H games and, like all "Options" does not need to be used by those who see it as a-historic. It would not be used by the AI in complete deference to history and to simulation accuracy. In other words an option to please the great un-washed... or at least, Me

[Dietrich]

Squad LMG's are not "crew served weapons" in the sense discussed here, I think. Picking LMG's from fallen gunners is done already.

Yes, I understand that "squad automatic weapons" (whether automatic rifles like the BAR or true machine guns like the MG42) are not crew-served weapons. And I know that retaining certain weapons from WIA/KIA soldiers is already done. I meant to point out sometimes the LMG doesn't get picked up by whichever soldier gives the WIA/KIA guy "buddy aid". In playing CMSF, I observe that oftentimes one of the M249-armed guys in a squad gets wounded, and then a squadmate gives him buddy aid but doesn't retain the M249. As important as the MG34/42 was to German squads, I would want the squad to retain its MG34/42 as often as possible (assuming that sometimes it could not be retained, perhaps to simulate the MG being damaged).

And yes, I think it would be great to be able to swap vehicle crews (especially if a tank with a Crack or Elite crew gets immobilized or its cannon gets damaged). But I'm not going to be an @$$ about it, as if to say "Without this 'outlier' feature that I demand, I will proclaim the game is broken." =P

[Runaway!!!]

Commandeering grogs.

New subject:

On map artillery:

What do we get? Can it be used like off map?

[Dietrich]

On map artillery:

What do we get? Can it be used like off map?

To quote the rather ignored "CM:Normandy wonderings" thread I created last month:

- How will artillery support be handled? Will calling for support be limited to forward observers? Will HQ units (with C2 to higher echelons) be able to call on and/or spot for artillery (presumably not as accurately or quickly as FOs)? Will units with C2 to their parent HQ be able to ask for artillery support (with perhaps an even greater accuracy/promptness penalty than the HQ itself requesting said support)?

- Will on-map mortars need their own LOS to a given targeted area? (I suppose this would apply more to 81mm/3-inch "medium" mortars than 50mm/2-inch mortars, since "light" mortars would be deployed more forward, on account of their limited range.) Will mortars be able to fire indirectly (though presumably with relative inaccuracy)? Will HQs be able to spot for mortars within their command radius?

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei,

Squad LMG's are not "crew served weapons" in the sense discussed here, I think. Picking LMG's from fallen gunners is done already.

Yes, correct.

As for artillery... C2 becomes far more important because it's more "brittle" in WW2. Lose it and you lose the ability to call in artillery. You'll also have far fewer units that are capable of calling down artillery. Generally speaking, dedicated FOs only.

Light and Medium mortars and Infantry Guns will be on-map and can fire indirectly (with restrictions) as well as "direct lay".

Steve

[costard]

Light and Medium mortars and Infantry Guns will be on-map and can fire indirectly (with restrictions) as well as "direct lay".

Steve

Absolutely amazingly awesome - a very tasty bone, that.

[Michael Emrys]

Another one we're planning on doing are Command Posts and Observation Posts. Basically, "vehicles" which have nothing more than higher and lower levels of communications equipment in them. That gets us a MUCH better simulation of field phones and non-portable radios than CMx1 had because if they aren't manned or are destroyed their C2 functionality is lost. In CMx1 you could move around HQs with very little regard for historical reality.

Aww-rrrriiiiiiiiight!!!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Now I remember I got it from the Paratrooper Module from good ole' ASL, who in turn probably got most of their scenario ideas from SLAM's work.

FYI, I'm pretty sure Balkowski's book about Utah Beach mentions something about the episode too. Seems that I've come across it elsewhere as well, but it might very well be the case that those authors are quoting Marshal.

Michael

[akd]

FYI, I'm pretty sure Balkowski's book about Utah Beach mentions something about the episode too. Seems that I've come across it elsewhere as well, but it might very well be the case that those authors are quoting Marshal.

Michael

I believe the captured French tanks in use around Carentan were from 100. Panzer Ausbildungs und Ersatz Abteilung:

On 18 May 1944 it was with 91. Division on the Cotentin. At that time it had the following tanks:

14 R 35

8 Hotchkiss

1 Somua

1 Char B2

1 Pz III

Additionally there were five light French tanks whose type is not possible to read out from the document. It is clear however that they were equipped with short 3,7 cm guns. Probably they were FT-17.

The only other unit using significant numbers of French tanks was 21. Panzer, having as of June 1:

35 Somua

3 Somua (Befehlswagen)

2 Hotchkiss

Pretty minor numbers all in all.

[SlapHappy]

And I've heard some grogs say that they believe 21st Panzer left even those few behind when they mobilized. I've never myself seen any sources that talk about this in any detail, however.

[silverstars]

I believe the captured French tanks in use around Carentan were from 100. Panzer Ausbildungs und Ersatz Abteilung:

The only other unit using significant numbers of French tanks was 21. Panzer, having as of June 1:

35 Somua

3 Somua (Befehlswagen)

2 Hotchkiss

Pretty minor numbers all in all.

I didn't imagine they had a large number left over after 4 years of war. And frankly, I will not be heartbroken if they never appear in the series at all( unless CM:France '40 shows up somewhere down the road, where in that case they damn well better be there). I just remember the "Depth over Breadth" discussions from earlier and was curious how far down the rabbit hole they were willing to go. And from Steve's comments here I gather they are obviously shooting for more Depth then CM1, especially in areas I hadn't considered( C2 observation posts, for example).

[John Kettler]

silverstars,

Kingfish has put together a series of scenarios involving 21 PD, and there's a thread on the matter, to which I made a number of contributions. Even found color footage of some of the vehicles!

Combatintman,

I'm with you regarding Syrian ATGs. They may be obsolete, but they work just great against anything up through a Bradley. Besides, I'm the guy who pushed for the Syrian AAA to be included, especially S-60s and ZU-23s. Terrific for "eating" weaker AFVs, not to mention softskins wholesale.

Steve,

Fast crew swap from tank to tank, including using a leader as just another tank. Note that only platoon leader and assistant platoon leaders have transceivers in their Shermans; the rest just have receivers. The meat's in the accounts of Flowers and Sheppard.

http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/chap4.htm

Rapid switching of a surviving leader from tank to tank. See Braatz.

http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/chap9.htm

This is by no means all, but the online book TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES and the oral histories on the site have more such accounts and some good stuff on combat resupply arrangements.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lukmak5]

I believe the captured French tanks in use around Carentan were from 100. Panzer Ausbildungs und Ersatz Abteilung:

The only other unit using significant numbers of French tanks was 21. Panzer, having as of June 1:

35 Somua

3 Somua (Befehlswagen)

2 Hotchkiss

Pretty minor numbers all in all.

Hi Guys

1. Not at all. With 4 Pz IVDs 21st had as well, thats about 25-30% of all German tanks in Normandy on 6th June. (HJ and Lehr arrived following days)

Von Luck states that on D-Day 21st had only one company of Pz IVHs, rest of them being Gs with L43. Old french tanks had been used for training purposes and most of them took part in combat.

2. No regular infantrymen would be able to use any light or heavy AT without prior training. (Chritian de la Meziere from SS-Charlemagne in his memoirs describes training with PAK40 in 1945. It took them three months just to learn the basics and how to operate the gun, not mentioning the gunnery skills which they never had time to master)

3. I doubt that any regular grunt would be able to operate MG34/42 HMG mounted on tripod effectively. Please note that it's not only pressing the trigger but there are some levers as well.

Cheers

Luke

[Dietrich]

As for artillery... C2 becomes far more important because it's more "brittle" in WW2. Lose it and you lose the ability to call in artillery. You'll also have far fewer units that are capable of calling down artillery. Generally speaking, dedicated FOs only.

Light and Medium mortars and Infantry Guns will be on-map and can fire indirectly (with restrictions) as well as "direct lay".

"Direct lay"? Pardon my ignorance; I just haven't come across this term before.

On-map indirect-firing IGs sounds good. =) Can you give us any more about the above-mentioned restrictions on on-map indirect fire?

"Generally speaking" only actual FOs? Would an exception to this perhaps be a US Army company CO with radio C2 to battalion, a la Captain Winters in that one episode of Band of Brothers where his company runs into two companies of Waffen-SS and he gets on the radio and calls for artillery which decimates the Germans? (I'm not saying BoB is realistic or strictly historically accurate, but I figured company commanders could radio battalion for artillery support without an FO being necessarily present.)

[akd]

Hi Guys

1. Not at all. With 4 Pz IVDs 21st had as well, thats about 25-30% of all German tanks in Normandy on 6th June. (HJ and Lehr arrived following days)

This is certainly true, although I put it at around 20-25% in the invasion area on D-Day (counting Stug and SP panzerjaegers). However, their importance diminishes rapidly as subsequent units arrive (not just Lehr and 12th SS).

[John Kettler]

Dietrich,

Direct lay is when the gunner can see and aim directly at the target, as opposed to indirect fire.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lukmak5]

Steve,

Fast crew swap from tank to tank, including using a leader as just another tank. Note that only platoon leader and assistant platoon leaders have transceivers in their Shermans; the rest just have receivers. The meat's in the accounts of Flowers and Sheppard.

http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/chap4.htm

Rapid switching of a surviving leader from tank to tank. See Braatz.

http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/chap9.htm

This is by no means all, but the online book TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES and the oral histories on the site have more such accounts and some good stuff on combat resupply arrangements.

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi all.

I am strongly against crew tank swaps, small arms exchange, manning ATGs, IAWs, or HMGs etc.

Firstly it would be definitely abused by players to the degree that the game would be unrealistic.

Secondly put yourselves into tankers or grunts boots. In the heat of battle (especially a lost one) , I doubt that anyone fantasies to find another tank to ride, or to get more schmeissers to kill more Krauts. One just runs for it and prays for survival.

Remember Guys, to read the memoirs and other accounts critically. Even if the facts are recalled correctly, authors often tend to colorize their own role in the events.

Cheers

Luke

[Sequoia]

So cows are now "officially" more realistic than Space Lobsters. Now the Bovine grogs must fight over what kind we need to include.

Been there, done that. More Cowbell!

[Sequoia]

The second Family will ride out the war in the West to the very end.

Steve

This is where the potential Maus comes in I imagine. Okay guys what other late comers could they fit into a Maus module? The Soviets had the JSIII. There's the Centurian of course. What else?