SgtMuhammed

I don't think infantry got as many chances as they do in CM. Players tend to send troops and vehicles with no real support plan. In RL armor troops new what terrain lended itself to infantry assault and avioded it when possible. The use of vanilla grenades is overmodled. Infantry without at assets would usually engage the supporting troops and hide from the armor. Even HTs were normally left alone without AT support.

M.D. What are you guys using now? When I left we were just starting to field the lightweight Gortex for use during movement with optional liners for static or severe cold.

I have always felt that the limbering and unlimbering process is rather abstract. The thought of a crew pushing a gun while carrying tens of rounds is rather comical. I think guns should consist of the gun, crew, and limber/ammo hauler. If the hauler is destroyed and you move the gun you lose your rounds or you can share rounds with another gun. It would be nice to see a system but it is low on my list.

They work if you are moving a lot. I always hated having too much on. The long ones do look better though.

Most artillerymen I knew said they normally left the rounds in the carrier unless there was a big reason not to. They also said that they used to unload them by hand instead of using the automated equipment because they were faster that way.

No such thing as "Just an infantryman." Pretty interesting all the stuff they have done to my army in the five years I have been out. It would be really nice if they started doing more combined arms training. Usually we grunts only saw armor during trips to NTC or to the real thing.

Kind of OT but I saw two M60's ram into each other during a battle (training) in Hohenfels. The ramming tank stopped cold and the rammee tipped up to about 30 degrees (it was a T-bone hit). I drove up to see if everyone was ok. They were busy yelling at each other so I figured they were all right. The guy that got hit was right in front of me in the column (it was at night by the way, lots of sparks flew when seen through NODs) and luckily he stopped in the intersection or I would have been the target in my little M113. Not a pretty picture.

Remember that a lot of roof mounted guns (US at least) had to be fired from outside the turret and were intended for AA. Many were later modified to a more sensible arangement.

So in other words it is going to be a FPS with division level overtones. Got it.

A few years ago a Polish fighter (at least I believe it was Polish) had trouble during a training flight and the pilot ejected. He pointed the bird at the sea before ejecting but it turned and levelled out heading towards Germany. It crashed in Belgium. NATO fighters that intercepted it were rather surprised to find it uninhabited.

I would much rather have someone bindly firing in my area rather than tracking me as I try to relocate. Smoke isn't much but it can give you just enough of a chance to live.

What Jason most often tries to point out and what people most often try to resist is that CM, for all its realism still falls short of being realistic. This is fine because it makes a playable and enjoyable game. But don't confuse it with a faithful simulation of reality. I am currently playing a large Op that covers a single day of combat. Half way through I have already taken more causalties than were inflicted during the entire day at Omaha. CM combat is much more concentrated than it actually was. In CM taking a flank position will not cause the enemy to abandon their entire front, in real life this was most often the objective and result. Commanders will hold worthless ground with the zeal that you see in CM. Of course this makes it, as I said, an enjoyable, action packed game full of fairly realistic weapons but nothing more. To take it as THE representation of combat at nearly any scale is foolhardy. War is for the most part rather boring. The vast majority of an army never is under fire and even those at the pointy end spend much more time waiting and preparing than actually doing. The closer you get to simulating reality the worse your game gets. Jason and I have had many dissagreements but he is correct in his general theme in this argument. Of course I have no idea what this has to do with "Carrier Design."

Well that pretty decisively nixes East Front and Soviets as the first module. Not that it comes as a shock or anything. *Sigh* </font>

That and American carriers expected to operate in more open waters and under a strong cap and so maximized air group size. The Brits expected to be in close waters with less reation time.

Do grapes grow in orchards in some parts of the world? I always thought they were in vinyards.

Back in the mists of time (CMBB) BFC made it clear that the roadblocks represent major construction efforts. After all, they can stop a tank. In that case you can either see them as a large ditch or as a whole lot of very heavy things. Now designers and players often put them in and say that they are smaller than what they really are but that doesn't change anything. Small roadblocks are currently best simulated by wire, which is impassible to wheels but not tracks and slows feet. I hope there will be more engineering options but I'm not going to be upset if their aren't. I would much rather be able to simulate the battle for Hosingen, not the clearing of the roadblocks around it.

I don't believe carriers were mentioned in those rules because no one thought they would amount to anything.

TMI Dan!

With today's radios I agree, but with the more limited FM in WWII there would be more delay. Company frontage, however, was, and still is, quite small and platoons can often see the same things. More so in WWII when things were more dependent on runners and wire.

If you really want to go strictly by what is normally done during the course of a game as compared to RL this is a platoon level simulation that can be scaled up. Company commanders do not regularly order individual squads/vehicles/weapons about.

That explains it.

Yeah the 2A6 is a whole new beast. And damn sexy looking too.

I don't think they have fielded it yet if there is, at least not in numbers. Kind of like the A2, the original plan was to only field about 60, and they were going to FORSCOM rather than line units. All the ones I ever saw were L44, but that was about 2 years ago.

I would love this game. I'm going to get Dawn of War on your recomendation Matt. I trust you that much!

I would rate the new Hunter-Killer system as the best feature of the new Abrams, the new gun us just more overkill. My tanker friends came out of the first Gulf War convinced that the 105mm would have done just as well. While the 2A4 isn't the same as the new 2A6 (or do they have an even newer one?) it is best of the old Leo 2 line. The U.S. Army basically considers the three to be interchangeable (meaning they consider a Co of each to have the same capabilities). All three were developed along the same lines and ended up with about the same firepower, protection, and mobility, the three main components of a tank. The same cannot be said for the PzIV and the Sherman. Andreas: When did you move to Paris? Weren't you in Northern Germany?