George MC

@Michael Yeah CMBN does cover till the end of August. For all - Tank Riders: The issue about tank riders has been covered before in another thread about why tank riders were not included in CMBN. Main issue was the amount of work, coding and animations, to have the guys on the tank be able to behave and be shot at as though they were on a tank. It was a lot of work for a practice that was not prevalent in the tactical combat phase prevalent in most of the combat in Normandy - which is what CMBN primarily simulates.

CAS is modelled in the game. Just you have to watch for 'danger close' any air aupport called in on targets less than a Km away is asking for a Blue on Blue incident. There is another thread chatting about CAS right now. Just checking but in my beta version of the game only Forward Observers, Platoon HQ and above can call in CAS. One of the reasons for the 29th ID evolving the SOP they did was the challenge in bringing observed artillery fire down on German positions only a 100m or so away. Again only Platoon HQ elements and above (inclduing FOs) can call in arty support. Response times vary according to C2. So Company CO requesting support will be quicker than a lowly Platoon HQ (assuming they have unbroken C2 with their Company CO or an attached FO). What is great about the C2 in CMBN is you can attach units for C2 purposes. So for example you can attach tanks to an infantry platoon HQ or vice versa. The tank riders example quoted is an odd one. I read that in the report and it seems odd to have guys riding tanks into action considering how many infantry hand held AT weapons the Germans had, and how many Shermans were lost to German AT assets. Looking again at it I think this refers to the breakout actions which took place in more open terrain and at a point when the German defence had been broken. Interestingly the Brits did not have their guys riding into action on tanks in their sector. So I think that where the US units used this tactic might suggest less organised resistance and perhaps a more fluid situation? Be keen to hear if anyone else has a differant take on this? The example you outlined above was the one oft quoted when there was a discussion about implementing tank riders for CMBN. Given the main scope of the action which in this module is centred around the bocage fighting it was felt to be an outlaying example and ocurred, I belive, latter in August. FWIW tank riders are on the BFC list of things to do. The Bulge module is the one it's been suggested it might appear. Failing that I guess the Ost Front would be a good bet.

Hibees man myself

Yes Rhinos are in the game. Also engineers can breach bocage (you can 'buy' small three man breaching teams which can be attached to a platoon. In game Rhinos clear the hedgerow/bocage. Still some debate about timings etc so guess BFC might not post screenshots till the final effect is agreed. From a pure game mechanics POV it currently works and works well. I've been working on a scenario that is based purely around Busting The Bocage and allows the player to use the tactics outlined in that article.

I've just recently read the article. What was interesting is comparing the casualty report of the 29th ID in this article with what was reported in other books. I've not got the sources in front of me (at work) but during the operations decsribed although the 29th ID made progress during it's operations outside St Lo (and using the new SOPs for bocage busting), they still lost a lot of men in the process. I guess although the Germans may have used SOPs for setting up their defences I suspect as soon as they worked out what was goin on with the US new SOPs they'd very quickyl comeup with a response. Even if they stuck with it the attackers are still prone to ranged mortar fire on TRPs.

Yes and no I think it might just balance out. Those CMSF veterans might be a bit too cocky thinking that their WWII armour is as invincible as the M1. Whilst CMX1 veterans who know what their WWII vintage stuff can do might make best use of it. Although if you are playing a WWII and CMSF veteran then your stuffed I reckon. They'll know both the WWII equipment and be used to the game engine So yeah, scum sucking noob would be an apt description in this case...

Embarking/disembarking - lot's of hints and tips here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=73599 Re acquiring 'stuff'. Evryone has their own take on this. So FWIW I tend to check the brief. If I'm up against armour or the chnace of armour showing up and my guys don't have much in the way of armour support I'll load em up. If going into built up areas I'll maybe load up with lot's of AT and LAW stuff - useful for blasting buildings. You can load up with ammo as and when your guys burn through it in fire fights. Better to split a team and send em back to pick up ammo then rejoin their unit. They'll share the ammo out then amongst the others. Cheers fur noo George

You could have say in the top left hand corner a wee weather house. Everytime the weather changed a wee weather person could step out and tell ya what the weather was now doing. Sorry. Taking the piss...

Yeah great read. You'll be getting a chance to put these tactics in the near future

I'd make a mountaineering comparision as that's my real life job and passion. I've had lot's of very experienced mates, professionals and top end recreational climbers get killed or injured making 'rookie' mistakes. Partly down to becoming cocky - "I've got away with it for so long" sort of thing, othertime they just lost focus for a crucial moment. Mountaineering like war is pretty unforgiving of mistakes. Sadly an old friend of mine who was 69, top of the line in Scottish climbing circles, a 'Grand Old Master', lost his life in an avalanche incident on mountains he classed as his back garden a few weeks back. Mountaineering involves taking risks. Sometimes you make the wrong call. I'm not saying Wittman was good bad or indifferant as a tactician. But from what I've read of him I'd suggest he was a risk taker (although like all risk takers he would perhaps have argued that the odds were carefully weighed up). Guess I'm saying even the best make cock-ups, sometimes very basic mistakes and in unforgiving environments you end up paying with your life. Maybe Wittman and his colleagues just got too cocky (especially after Villers?) and well, paid for that error with their lives. Or maybe they had just been lucky before in a large armoured vehicle that was believed to be impregnable, and what worked on the Ost Front on the wide open steppe got them killed in the close in bocage?

Bad man

I'd echo Moon's comments. I work in the mountains for a living and weather does not variably change by the minute, hours yes, but even then you have a series of chnages depending on the type of weather system. Showers and stuff come and go for sure so I guess that sort of weather could be simulated. But to have it chnage by every minute would be daft from a RL POV. But any weather change would have to affect the whole map so I think in the end rather than being realistic it would be at best odd.

Yes Cool eh?

Can't speak directly for BFC, so this is not from the horse's mouth so to speak, but there may be a chance it makes it for the Bulge module. If not then yeah for sure it'll be Ost Front. The issues around tank riders not being in the first Normandy module were suitable animations and behaviours (for being under fire and for reacting to fire, jumping off etc). All of these created a lot of new code/work so were put on the back burner. For the time period that Normandy covers it was not a well used tactic for guys going into action (maybe for approaching the combat zone i.e. hitching a ride) whereas on the Ost Front well, Soviet tank riders were a part of Soviet assaults.

I'm testing CMBN and I'm using Windows 7 64 bit. No problems at all.

I've posted the question about wet ground drying out. Yeah the sun rising/setting thing is very neat. I had the same reaction when I was playing a late afternoon/evening scenario. I thought something was wrong with my PC's gamma settings!

Hi TRL Just checked my typing and spelling in my post above. I'm impressed you managed to decipher what I was talking about! I think the daylight changing as the sun rises or sets is very atmospheric. As is the moon rising or setting. Having mist clear as the sun rises or rain stop and the cloud clear to allow air support could all have tactical consequences for sure. I don't know for sure but I'm wondering if such changes are possible given the game engine? Also if the ground starts damp does it dry out if the weather is hot and sunny? Might have to go ask a question...

The screenies were taken by a Beta Tester using a debug version of the game exe whilst he was testing and designing this campaign. All the testers are using their own machines with varying capabilities. I've found that the debug version tends to eat up more memory in your PC when running the game. So depending on how powerful your PC/graphics card is you tend to get a variation in the quality of screen shots. This means on larger maps )or maps with lots' going on e.g. lot's of units and combat) the game will step down the settings, hence you get some screen shots where the models are not at their super best. Once the Beta Testers stop using the Beta version of the game with it's debug you'll see crisper shots I'm sure. But then you'll probably be playing the game yourself then...

From what I've seen so far - no. The weather stays as the scenario designer intended e.g. rain at start of scenario = rain at end; fog at start of scenario = fog at end. Would be an interesting variable but given most scenarios are a couple of hours long at most (although it is possible to make em four hours) I'm not sure the weather changing so dramatically would be a big issue agem wise. Still I think it would be interesting to have. Pitfall would be the weather chnaging very dramtically in the space of an hour. If it was set in Scotland, especially on the West Coast I could see it being accurate. Over here as the saying goes, if you don't like the weather just now, wait a few minutes...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/announcement.php?f=124&a=394 Moon mentions the weather effects etc. As it's set in Normandy June to August there is no snow, ice etc. That's for the Bulge/Ost Front modules. To be more specific for Normandy: Sun rises and sets depending on the time of dat set in the day e.g. scenario starts just before dawn if it last long enough the sun will rise. Likewise in the evening. Cycles of the moon e.g. full moon, rising moon etc are all modelled. So again depending on the time of day and the date you will see a full moon rise or set etc. If it rains it wets the ground. Again in a long enough scenario this will see the ground become more saturated thereby increasing the risk of vehcile sbogging etc in muddy terrain. Weather sound effects are modelled. So rain sounds like err...rain Hope this helps.

What type of behaviour you giving the AI Group? I've found 'max assault' tends to stop everyone in their tracks when contact is made. Advance or assault are better if you want units to keep moving. FWIW when assigning AI groups I tend to keep units in their C2 set-up i.e. I try not to split platoons etc.

Wow - blast from the past Welcome back mate

Ice Climbing season is over - sadly. Busy with work at the moment and very busy with virtual bocage. Not forgotten the "project" though

There are several Blue AI Plans if I mind. When desiging this scenario I did take into account both sides doctrines so hopefully the AI Plans reflect that. Nice to hear your perception is that Blue did. Must admit AI units aquiring AT assets is one of the things I would most like to see. Cheers for all the comments

It's a very large scenario (think it's tad bigger than the others). Best bet is to load it then walk away - go make a brew, come back, Should load OK. I just tried it and works fine on mine, Just takes a while.