rune
-
Posts
3,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rune
-
-
Erwin,
becasue the game models c2 better now, that cherry picking had to be out, at least for CMSF. Charles pulled some of his brain in the jar magic and him and Steve devised a way to keep the c2 and let you pick forces. [steve designed and Charles coded I believe]
Also you are wrong features were removed, it is a NEW engine, they were never added. Some think that is semantics, but it isn't. New engine means some of the features of cmx1 will eventually be added in, nothing was removed from the game. How could it have been, it is a new engine. Already the kill stats are back, and other cmx1 features are on the list. The decision to add or not comes down to time vs. return. You and I may not agree with Steve/Charles, but it isn't our livelyhood on the line. Personally I will trust their judgement, it may not be always right, but when I have presented a case against them with facts, I have never had a problem with getting stuff into the games. Ask me about german Rifle Grenades someday.
I did some serious research on that one. So, you are right, it comes between simulation and game. I prefer more simulation into the mix, let me see if I could hold off the German Counter attack at neuville Au Plain, dealing with keeping platoons coehsivemess, rather then gaming the system. others will want to play the opposite, and that is fine too, for as many people that play the game, we will have different styles of playing. Like you, I am just happy to have anything to play that keeps my interest... heck, I've been testing since CMBO Alpha. I have faith in the guys that they are going to continue to turn out great games that only get better... and trust me, they hear from me when I think something is going the wrong way.
Didn't mean to get so long winded, but wanted you to know there were legitimate reasons for design decisions. Some didn't work [CMSF Qbs], but most did eventually. Just hang on to your hat, its going to be a great ride.
Rune
-
This is what I found and posted in the beta forum:
"Here is the available information on the M4A3E2 shipped to the ETO. Note first off that apparently only 250 were actually shipped, the remaining four probably stayed in CONUS for tests and evaluation.
The M4A3E2 Jumbo in the ETO. This information is taking from a number of sources including: the Armored Fighting Vehicle and Weapons Section of the US Forces in the European Theater of Operations (USFET), the Armored Section of the US 12th Army Group, the Armored Section of the US First Army, and the Armored Section of the US Third Army.
In January 1944 the War Department offered the M4A3E2 ?Jumbo? to fill the ETO request for the T26 Medium-Heavy Tank (as it was referred to in the message traffic I have examined). The offer was accepted by the ETO and preparations were made to ship the vehicles.
The effect of producing 254 M4A3E2 at the Fisher Tank Arsenal at Grand Blanc may be looked at in a number of ways. The production of the type itself took two months for an ?average? of 127 produced per month. That could be seen as ?low? priority or low-rate production. However, when examined in light of the total production at Grand Blanc and the overall capabilities of that plant, then the M4A3E2 is more significant.
Prior to February 1944 Grand Blanc was entirely occupied in producing the M4A2 75mm. A total of 4,614 were produced between 4/42 and 5/44 (25 months), an average of just 184.56 per month. Then, between 6/44 and 12/44 2,894 M4A2 76mm (w) were produced at Grand Blanc, an average of 482.33 per month. This appears to reflect a number of realities. For one, the M4A2 had low priority for the U.S. Army, since it was only used by the USMC and for Lend-Lease. But the rapid production increase between June and December is very interesting, since that was the main 76mm-type supplied through Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union (2,095, mostly M4A2, but also apparently some M4A1). It was also supplied in lesser numbers to the United Kingdom, which eventually received 1,335 76mm-armed Sherman tanks (450 M4A1 in spring 1944 and 885 mostly M4A2, but also apparently some M4A1, from fall 1944 through 1945).
Even more significant is an examination of M4A3 production at Grand Blanc. Production of the M4A3 75mm (w) began in February 1944 and ran 13 months until March 1945. In that time 3,071 were built, an average of 236.23 per month. From September to December 1944 another 525 M4A3 76mm (w) were built, an average of 131.25 per month. But it is most significant to look at M4A3 production overall, recalling that this was the type chosen by the U.S. Army as its preferred standard. Between February 1944 and March 1945 a total of 3,880 M4A3 were built, an average of 298.46 per month. In other words, the M4A3E2 were completed at 42.55 percent of the average production rate of all M4A3. This implies that if all M4A3 completed at Grand Blanc were built to M4A3E2 standards, then the total production would have been nearly half that actually produced run ? or the time required to produce the same number would have nearly doubled.
Note also that between September and December 1944 the average production of all M4 types at Grand Blanc was M4A2 76mm (w) at 482.33, plus M4A3 75mm (w) at 236.23 and plus M4A3 76mm (w) at 131.25 per month for a total ?average? of 849.81 per month. For June and July 1944 that ?average? was M4A2 76mm (w) at 482.33, plus M4A3 75mm (w) at 236.23 and plus M4A3E2 at 127 per month for a total of 845.56 per month. By this calculation it could be assumed that production rates and priorities remained about the same throughout the period, but that emphasis shifted from producing the more heavily armored Jumbo to production of the 76mm-armed Sherman. However, that is not precisely true, since the Jumbo was really just a ?one-off? specialty type.
Overall, the 254 M4A3E2 was a fraction of the total of 10,906 late-production M4A3. But if these figures are considered illustrative, then the result of producing those M4A3E2 (and the M4A3 76mm, which also materially slowed production rates) was to reduce the monthly output of tanks by a significant fraction, not unexpected, since they were essentially hand-crafted. Now it is probably true that more M4A3E2 could have been built, if the authorization had been given, but it is likely that the slowing of production resulting - however temporary - would have further exacerbated the problems with medium tank shortages in the fall of 1944, just when they were most serious. Like everything the possible benefits of such an action - improved armor protection - must be balanced by the possible problems caused by such an action - an increased shortage of tanks.
On 14 August it was noted that 115 M4A3E2 were at the embarkation port (Boston or New York) and were loading or preparing to load on board convoys to Britain. At the same time there were 135 in the CONUS authorized on release for shipment to the ETO. However, a memo of 10 September remarks that the first 12 were not shipped until sometime prior to 24 August, an additional 29 had ?been floated? between 24-30 August, 35 between 30 August and 2 September, 48 between 2-5 September, and 84 between 4-8 September, a total of 208. All of these were expected to arrive in UK waters between 8-15 September. In addition, 11 were at the port waiting to load, 28 were en route to the port, 5 were processing at CONUS depots, and 2 were canceled as unavailable. There is no explanation for the cancellation, they were probably retained in the US for further testing and evaluation or may have been so worn out by previous testing as to have been written off.
The first shipment of 128 (another memo cites the number as 126) arrived at Cherbourg and began unloading sometime on or before 22 September 1944. The whereabouts of the remaining 80 (or 82) presumably shipped to that date are not remarked.
By 14 October 36 had been received by the First Army. They were issued 15 each to the 743rd and 745th Tank Battalion?s and 6 to the 746th Tank Battalion. It appears that 9 more were received and issued to the 746th by 9 November, giving each battalion 15 and the First Army at least 45 on that date. By 18 October it was noted in a visit to the beach depots that they had 17 on hand, 24 released to the armies and 19 en route to Third Army for a total of 60. On 20 October, it was noted that 99 were on hand with the troops. That implies that 140 had been unloaded on the continent (counting the 17 on hand and 24 released at the depots, but not counting the 19 en route to Third Army ? which evidently were counted as ?with the troops? whether or not they had actually arrived). Note that the total unloaded was 68 fewer than the 208 noted as being ?afloat? over a month prior and only 12 more than what had been unloaded on 22 September. It is evident that shipping and unloading priorities for the Jumbo were in practice somewhat low. On 24 October the allocation for the delivery of the Jumbo was confirmed as lots of 15 each until the following was achieved: First Army 105, Third Army 90, and Ninth Army 60. Why they planned for 255 when only 250 were being shipped is unclear, the USFET may have been under the impression that more were to be manufactured in the US, an error that apparently persisted into April 1945.
On 5 November it was noted that 180 were in the theater. However, on 10 November 1944 it was noted that 118 had been delivered to the armies and that 26 were in depots or were unloading, implying that a total of 144 had arrived, only 16 more than on 22 September. On 22 November, 40 were reported as having been issued to Third Army units. Five each were issued to the 10th AD, 702nd, 712th, 735th, and, 761st Tank Battalions, and 15 to the 737th Tank Battalion. On 28 November 154 were on hand, 4 were en route from ETO ports to depots and 55 were afloat in ETO waters for a total of 213. Note that this is only 5 more than the 208 that had been noted as being ?afloat? by 8 September.
On 3 December 1944 a clearer picture was given. A total of 250 had arrived in the ETO of which it was noted that 10 had been destroyed in combat (in fact 14 had been destroyed to 28 November and 17 to 5 December). There were 40 with the First Army (which had lost 6 to 28 November and 8 to 5 December), 59 with the Third Army (5 had been lost to 25 November and 6 to 2 December), and 30 with the Ninth Army (3 had been lost to 28 November), a total of 129. En route were 14 to the First Army, 5 to Third Army, and 6 to Ninth Army, a total of 25. En route to ETO depots from the ports and unallocated to the armies were an additional 28. Afloat in ETO waters, but as yet unloaded, were 46. Finally, it was remarked that 12 were unaccounted for, either unloaded, but unreported, or simply unaccounted for. This is the last information on shipments to the Continent and appears to account for all 252 shipped (or 250).
By 22 February 1945 the First Army reported losing 22 Jumbos, in fact the weekly reports indicate that 24 had been lost. As of that date Third Army had lost 8 and Ninth Army had lost 6. An additional 5 were lost by First Army, 3 by Third Army, and 15 by Ninth Army prior to the end of the war.
Tank units in the ETO with Jumbos on hand (the assignment of units to armies is as of mid December). This listing appears to account for all units issued with the Jumbo.
First Army
3rd AD 6 (16 Dec)
5th AD 3 (19 Dec)
70th TkBn 4 (11 Feb)
743rd TkBn 15 (14 Oct, 3 lost as of 3 Dec)
745th TkBn 15 (14 Oct), 1 (15 Dec)
746th TkBn 6 (14 Oct), 15 (9 Nov), 5 (21 Dec)
774th TkBn 10 (16 Dec)
The 70th Tank Battalion?s tanks were in very poor condition in mid December. Unit diaries note that they were all ?original issue? and worn out. Thus it appears that the Jumbos assigned to the 70th Tank Battalion may have been from some of the last available. These units account for about 37 in mid December and a total of 22 were lost to 28 January. That total of 59 is very similar to the 54 on hand and en route as of 3 December. It is likely that all 40-odd of the remaining 105 allocated to the First Army were utilized as replacements and to equip the 70th Tank Battalion.
Third Army
4th AD 20 (22 Dec)
6th AD 11 (29 Dec, this may include the 5 reported en route on 3 December)
10th AD 5 (22 Nov)
702nd Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 5 (29 Jan)
712th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 1 (11 Feb)
735th Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov), 2 (12 Feb)
737th Tk Bn 15 (22 Nov), 5 (15 Dec), 3 (29 Jan)
761st Tk Bn 5 (22 Nov)
The available reports tend to indicate that this is a fairly accurate picture of all the Jumbos assigned to the Third Army. By mid December some 68 may be accounted for including 7 that had been lost. This closely matches the 59 on hand and 5 en route count for 3 December. It may also be concluded that 10 were probably withdrawn from the 737th Tank Battalion prior to 15 December and were assigned to the 4th (or less likely 6th) AD. The remaining 30-odd allocated to the Third Army were probably utilized as replacements in these units during 1945.
Ninth Army
709th Tk Bn 1 (19 Dec)
747th Tk Bn 5 (27 Nov, plus 10 en route)
778th Tk Bn 4 (27 Jan)
This appears to account for only 20 of the 36 on hand or en route as of 3 December. Three had been lost to that date and another was lost between 21-28 December. The remaining 12 or 13 may have been issued later (likely to the 709th Tk Bn), may have been issued to other units (possibly the 3rd AD), or they may have been retained as replacements. It appears probable that the remaining 24 of the 60 allocated to the Ninth Army were never in fact shipped, given the strategic situation in mid December, the losses sustained to date, and the reduction in the number shipped from 254 to 250.
It does not appear as if the 2nd, 7th-14th, 16th, or 20th Armored Divisions were ever issued Jumbos
Rune
-
Didn't reach units till September, I posted in the beta forums actual counts and locations.
Rune
-
My thoughts go out to Japan, suffering major damage and tsunami damage after a 8.9 earthquake hit this morning. Warnings actually extend to Hawaii and California. The videos I have seen already have been chilling. Thoughts and prayers go out to Japan.
Rune
-
There are no line triggers. Counter assaults are timed in the AI. It could be a different ai plan, I know the scenarios I made had 5 separate ai plans.
Rune
-
Damn it, I should of asked someone to send me a liverpool scarf. I follow them when I can for the footie season. Hmmm...a couple scnaerios for the scraf? hehehehe
Rune
-
Was a Panther to be precise.
Rune
-
Elvis, the scenario I made?
Rune
-
Elvis, I recommend the one you tested while in alpha [where you called me evil]. I'll be home later [2 hours] so feel free to email me or call me. I'll toss contact information in an email to you. I then went hotseat on the bigger scenario with 2 as German and 2 as americans taking turns so everyone got to play.
email coming...
Rune
-
Just another victory for House Rune over the lower species...
Rune
-
Moscow? But how would you put up with the "Typical, patronizing fanboi attitude"?
I got my passport ready if you can get permission and supply airline tickets. Rune
-
You doubted I would bring up the T28? I will wait for the modules before I brng it up again, and eventually when we head East, the Spanish Blue Division. However, I will also admit it was at one of the previews where we determined being a Finn was the same thing as being an ewok. Who else fights the enemy with logs?
Rune
-
Nope not drunk, just tabbed out of a game at the point I wrote that and did it in a hurry to get the players back in. Hopefully everyone had a great time and learned a lot about CMBN.
Rune
-
No it is NOT finished yet. Still ghoing on. Seteve was nice enpught to be onloine to answer questions that cropped up.
Comments made by previewers include:
[Note most were CMX1 players that did NOT play Cmsf]
*The game plays at a different rhytem the CMX1.
* Balance is back again
* Wow, this is what we have been waiting for.
* The interface will require getting used to, but muc better then CMx1
*The artillery system is 100% better then CMX1
For those with CMSF experience:
* The weapons are not as deadly as CMSF. [Hehehehehe]
* You have t play the game slower and reson. [Rune note: This may be due to the scenarios I created for the preview]
There were questions I answered as well as questions I deferred and questions I forwarded to Steve. I told the 5 that attended to post either positive or negative on their views, but I think the bottom line is everyone left here happy. I will say that QBs were not looked at, as none of the attendees played qbs. They all played pre-made scenarios.
I will let them post the impressions they had. I hope all enjoyed the preview, and many thanks to Mouse, the General of the House.
Rune
-
t minus 2 hours to go. If you that are attending need directions, I gave you my phone number. There are open spots to park now, but you may have to look around a little.
House clean, wife going to make food, beer being brought in. All systems are go for the preview. Scenarios made, and ready tog o, sound turned up. wide screen monitors ready.
For those not attending, sorry you couldn't make it. I am sure those that are attending will fill you in with what they can.
Rune
-
5 so far, no problem. Again you may have to part a block to the west in case there is no parking. Supposed tp start melting all the snow tomorrow, but it is a few feet deep. There has been parking but in case for a Sunday.
Testing the scenarios I created now. All is set, food is being made and beer will be picked up later today
See you on Sunday.
Rune
-
Since the first preview is Sunday, that doesn't leave a lot of time for an AAR.
Rune
-
OK, since tomorrow is a holiday for me, a final show of hands on who is coming to the preview. Touches are being finalized on two scenarios I have made for the preview. Since the wife will be making sloppy joes to feed ya, need to know how much stuff to buy.... so sound off once again so I can get a count. Sunday 1 PM, send a message again if you need directions.
rune
-
unlike the house of jdmorse where it comes naturally?
Rune
In a serious moment, if you would like, I can send you the briefings. It may or not make it on the cd, I have not released anything since CMSF, for various reason including asshats from another forum.
So... you were just pretending to be stupid?Wow... you are DAMN good at it, Sirrah! I'm very impressed.
-
Boo,
If I mention the units correctly, everyone would know exactly what battle it is. It would be like mention Joebob and everyone instantly knowing about his Mormon wives. So if i mentioed it had the 96th Luft infantrie Division, how many people would know where it fought in Normandy? Around here, too many...
Just in case I change my mind and put the battles on the cd, I don't want to ruin any evil that may be coming down the pike.
Rune
-
Duh Misses Emrys, I am not going to give out accurate information before the preview. Those who will attend will see the actual scenario... and I have you flying in a Stuka.
Pity poor Stuka.
Rune
-
All systems continue to be a go for Sunday. You will ahve to look around for an open parking spot, but there have been some. may have to walk a little bit. I am finishing up on 2 scenarios for you to play head to head, as I will mnot show anything from the campaign or scenarios from the game as not to ruin it for you.
Let me know if you have any questions. Supposed to be 40 degrees Sunday.
Rune
-
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Pool...
Naa...can't do it with a straight face, Ladies and Pondscum,
I take a break from adding Panzer Lear and the 21st SS panzer division vs. a M5 Stuart and a single bazooka team named Boo and Joebob, to inform the MBT [Long may it wave] that none other then Mace is to blame for several scenarios I am building. He has helped me immensely by taking some screen shots for briefings for the maps.
I therefore officially take back 1/2 of the things I have said about Mace, and 1/2 of the things i have accused him of doing with sheep.
In other news, IL2 Cliff of Dover is already ordered. mayhaps a chance of shooting you all down again will happen in March? I remember being the only pilot of the Cess Patrol that could actually land.
You may return to your normal bantering...
Rune
-
Why? Not very realistic at all. We would still be waiting for the beginning of the first gulf war if every aa gun had to be destroyed. Poor helicopters would never leave the airport and A-10 pilots better retire now. I can picture the briefing now..
"Your ip is the muab'dib oasis, on a heading on 340 degrees at angels 15. Target is a column of tanks bearing e-w on a highway. You armament of mavericks and cbus are being loaded. However, if there is any anti-aircraft in the area, you are to rtb via point zero without dropping weapons"
If I was ever in a briefing like that, there would have been a mission planner overboard so fast he would make the catapult look like ancient technology.
Rune
I did some serious research on that one.
The "clean" looking graphics?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Paul,
Because the game is being made by two separate companies? CMBN by Battlefront itself with their engine, and tow from 1c with their engine. Charles is in a jar on the East coast while 1C is in Russia. You are mixing apples and oranges.
Rune