Sgt Joch

From what I read (Copp, "Fields of Fire"), the Canadians practiced the "bite and hold" offensive doctrine, namely infantry would attack and occupy the objective, supported by artillery and plain jane Shermans to deal with enemy infantry positions/MG nests. Once on the objective, the infantry would dig in, AT guns/Wolverines/fireflies would be brought up to deal with German AFVs during the counterattack. Because firefly tanks were relatively low in number in Normandy and were the only ones that could reliably deal with Tigers/Panthers, they were primarily used in a mobile AT role to deal with enemy armour.

In the Canadian/British doctrine, plain jane Shermans accompanied an attack as infantry support. Fireflies were generaly attached to the follow on AT support units to defend against the usual German counter attack. Not sure what the U.S. did though.

very nice.

I dont see a clear analogy to Afghanistan/Iraq. In a successful insurgency, the Rebels usually have a secure base (i.e. northern Pakistan) which the Syrian Rebels do not have. Unlike NATO troops, the Alawites know the language, culture, terrain. The Alawites also know that this only ends one way for them: victory or exile/death. The Rebels have already carried out executions of Assad supporters in the areas they "liberated", (i.e. the "Houla" massacre) so the Alawites are under no illusion as to their fate under the "new" Syria. If the Alawites were going to split from the Assads, it would have happened in the early days of the uprising.

Without overt foreign military intervention, it is not that clear to me that the Assad regime will not be able to survive. The bulk of the Rebel forces seem to be centered in one region, around Hamah, which is where the last rebellion occured in 1982. Most of the rebels also appear to be Sunni Muslims. with strong influence from the Muslim brotherhood. The Assad regime still seems to to have the support of most Alawites, who also form the bulk of the officers in men in the Republican Guards. If the regime is overthrown, there will be retaliation against the Alawite minority, ranging from expropriation/exile to jail/torture/death so the Alawis are more or less tied at the hips with the Assads.

two points here: 1. I am a bit surprised about the OPs esperiences with U.S. HTs since I am in a PBEM game now where I have a bunch of U.S. HTs, all with gunners providing covering fire from behind the front line and so far not a single one has been hit. How exactly are you using your HTs that you wind up killing all your gunners. :confused: remember WW2 HTs were just fancy trucks, not modern AFVs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track 2. There was no "leader killing shrapnel" bug. Many players seemed to think that leaders are always being killed off first, but if you run multiple tests, you will see that it is spread out.

I am sure JasonC will be along shortly, especially now that Carell has been invoked , but being a bit of a OstFront nuter myself, let me add my 2 cents. 1 . Glantz is a god, on the same level as Kubrick IMHO. He has access to the most recent Soviet stuff and his research is amazing. Yes, he is a bit dry, but what historian is'nt. . Start with his Kursk book if you want a taste. Just that book will give you a better understanding of the entire OstFront on an operational level, than any other book. His first volume of the Stalingrad trilogy : " To the gates of Stalingrad", is the best operational history I have ever read; 2. Erickson is very good, but more if you want a strategic overview. His stuff is also a bit dated since it was written in the 70s, before the Soviet Archives were available; 3. Carell is a nice light read for a rainy afternoon. Good if you want to know the Nazi WW2 viewpoint, not good if you want to know what really hapened. :cool:

I am sure he is very good.

I have a few recent ones, all from CMSF: -my U.S. forces are assaulting through a town before dawn, Syrian infantry keeps popping up in a roughly 60 degree angle to the front. All of a sudden, one of my teams on a rooftop turns around and starts firing at another friendly team a block over... :eek: Fortunately, the other team hunkered down and suffered no casualties. -in another one, I called a 155mm artillery strike on a building. A squad is in the open 300-350 meters away, but all are lying the ground waiting for orders. Shrapnel from the explosion kills one of the soldiers... :eek: Even though I have played these games for a long time, I still see things I have not seen before.

cool! Having read Balkoski's book "Beyond the Beachhead" on the 29th's campaign, this will be fun to play.

a few points: 1. No game is 100% realistic. If you want 100% realism, join the Army; 2. As a corollary of #1, every simulation which has ever been released has had design compromises, some reflect the vision/prejudices of the designers, some are due to time/money constraints. If someone is uncomfortable with ANY compromises, refer back to #1 above; 3. The 3D infantry modelling in CMx2 is not perfect, could be improved, is being worked on, etc., etc., however, it is light years ahead of CMx1 which had NO 3d infantry modeling, just a totally abstract 2d model. If someone prefers the CMx1 model, then by all means, play CMx1. 4. Suppression/morale effects are hard to get right since the reports/history/anecdotes are subjective/contradictory and everyone has a different interpretation of what is "realistic". 5. Suppression/morale effects are actually very easy to modify. When the CMSF: Marines module was being worked on, Charles went through several builds where he jacked up and down the suppression/morale effects. At the highest level, the Syrians would just melt away as soon as you started firing in their direction. Fun, but not very challenging. Increasing the suppression/morale effect on the defenders is easy, but a corollary is that attackers will become stalled/pinned/broken just as quickly. 6. If anyone wants to increase the suppression/morale effects on their own, it is very easy, just notch down the experience/morale/leadership factors of troops in a scenario 1-2 level. When I originally designed the "Bridge at Varaville" scenario, I gave the Canadian paras very high motivation and the Germans poor motivation, but it was too lopsided. The Canadians refused to break or be suppressed and the Jerries could not carry out an attack so I had to tweak it to get to the final product, however, even a small tweak can have a big impact. 7. Posters who freely throw about the term "fanboy" lack the basic social/debating skills to carry on a rational, cogent debate.

it falls in line with previous reviews from Armchair General: Combat Mission Shock Force: Marines - 95% Combat Mission Shock Force: British - 92% MD is just upset because BFC has still not suffered the wrath of god for abandoning CMx1. For someone who hates BFC so much, he does follow their products closely. He was the first to comment on the CMBN review as well.

I would love to see a CM based on the oct.73 war or Vietnam, but it is very unlikely BFC will create it. Partly, it may be based on controversy. CMSF1 generated a lot of controversy, even though it was fictional, because a lot of people saw it as an ersatz Iraq 2003 invasion game. However, the real reason you wont see CM:AIW or CM:Vietnam is based on their perceived commercial potential. Steve has stated in the past that the most commercially viable projects are based on WW2 or modern, like CMSF1. That point may be arguable, but since BFC is risking their own money, we can presume that future BFC products will pretty much stick to that timeframe. The only way I see a CM:AIW or CM:Vietnam happening is if another company is interested in using the game engine, as happened with CM:Afghanistan.

can you take a screenshot? would make it easier to figure out if it is WAD or a bug. off the top of my head, did you check their morale/fatigue state? that could have an influence. what order are you giving your troops? If the AI can't figure out how to get there, it will cancel the order. Have you tried giving very short, direct orders to see if that helps? Almost all of these "stuck on a map" bugs have been squashed, but some still crop up. Usually, it is a problem with the map though, not the game itself.

Another thing to check is to make sure the plan is set to "frequently used" and all other plans are set to "not used" so the AI will only run that plan. I presume you are also running your test by playing the U.S. side? I spent time over the weekend running through AI plans and it is often the little things that trip you up. If you want to make sure each platoon goes to a different spot, you have to use three AI groups, it may work with just one group per company, but that is hit or miss.

In a scenario I am designing, I had the same thing, an order to fall back to another line after a set time and it works fine. Don't forget you have to set both a "exit after" time (say 28 mins) and a "exit before" time (say 32 mins) and paint the area where you want the troops to move to, then they will move between 28-32 mins to the area selected.

It is possible to make credible drainage ditches using the elevation tool to create the ditch and suitable vegetation (marsh/mud) to line it.

Copp's "Fields of Fire" states that DD tanks were supposed to accompany the first wave. In some cases, like on Nan beach, the 1st wave landed without support because the tanks had been launched too far offshore. However, it appears DD tanks landed with or shortly after the infantry in most cases.

Official kit in combat was supposed to be the para helmet. Most photos of troops being loaded for a combat drop appear to show this: http://www.pegasusarchive.org/normandy/frames.htm http://www.pegasusarchive.org/normandy/frames.htm Whether any of them wore their berets in combat is a different story. We all know the British have always had an informal approach to uniforms. I am reminded of a story of a british officer who was captured in North Africa, he was wearing corduroy pants, civilian shirt and sweater, his only piece of uniform being a beret. The Germans had to take him at his word that he was not a civilian.

Since this is not a REAL Peng thread, we all feel free to come here and post.

Well look, every one likes different games for different reasons. I personally can no longer play the CM1 series for all the features it lacks vs CM2: no relative spotting, no 3d infantry, simplistic artillery/air/c2 modelling, etc., etc. CM2 may lack some features from CM1, but IMHO, it more than makes up for that for all the new features it does bring to the table. Is CM2 perfect? of course not. Is it a major improvement over CM1? IMHO, clearly yes. Will BFC keep refining it and adding new features in the future? of course.

oh oh, I hope this is not going to morph into a CLONE Peng thread, please one at a time is enough... btw, 4 out of 6 was the new name for 7 of 9 after that horrible transporter incident.

Not quite. PENG is actually the BFC forum from an alternate universe with its own language, culture, mores. Very few regular forum members post in PENG or vice versa since crossing the barrier can be dangerous, just look at poor Boo Radley...

Cool, CMSF is like a fine bottle of wine, it gets better with age.

I would personally love to see the PTO. re: Banzai charges, too much as been made about this as in the "Human wave" attacks on the eatern front. There were many interesting small unit actions in the PTO and Japanese troops could be very deadly. I was reading recently about the fighting on Bougainville. The japanese troops had an intricate system of camouflaged bunkers, trenches and even their troops in their jungle lines. They would let U.S. troops, even tanks, move over their forward lines and then maneuver to cut them off and drive them back. They even managed to knock many tanks from point blank range.