Sgt Joch

Agreed that the chances of military intervention in RL are slim to none, but I am more interested in the wargaming possibilities. Certainly a military intervention or civil war in CMSF 2011 is more plausible than in CMSF 2008. What I found interesting about the text was the extent of Alawi involvement in the military. I knew that since the mid-70s, the Syrians had been concentrating resources in a few key units so that they would have at least some competent units, a strategy which worked well in the 82 war, just like it was known that the Assads were Alawi. I had not realized how deeply the Alawis were involved in the military to the point of staffing entire key units. This would have a direct impact on how the key units (Republican Guards, Special Forces) and the regular army and reserves could be expected to fight in a hypothetical NATO invasion or civil war.

With the ongoing rebellion in Syria and the possibility (though still remote) of intervention (strange how the fictional CMSF 2008 invasion may become reality in 2011), more attention is being paid to Syria's military. I came across an interesting article this morning: the interesting parts are bolded. http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=38034&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=26&cHash=7a09cb47523c8a5c26560b00f445ae79

from p. 99-100 of the manual:

the figure Jentz (I have both vol. 1&2 at home) quotes is from a report Guderian presented to Hitler on AFV strength in the west, as of june 10, 1944, the numbers are: 39 Pz III 758 Pz IV 655 Panthers 102 Tiger I 158 Stugs 179 Captured tanks(mostly obsolete french models) The actual numbers of AFVs in each Panzer division in the West on june 10 are: division---------------PzIII----PzIV----PzV----Stugs--------- 2nd Panzer-----------------------96------79----------------- 9th Panzer-----------------------78------40-------5---------- 11th Panzer-------------26-------89---------------8---------- 21st Panzer---------------------112-------------------------- 116th Panzer------------13-------86---------------6---------- Panzer Lehr-----------------------98------88----------------- 1st SS Panzer--------------------45-------54-----45-------- 2nd SS Panzer--------------------54------78------42-------- 12th SS Panzer-------------------98------66---------------- 17th SS Panzer-Grenadier--------------------------42------ (note: does not include independent units, like Tiger battalions. It also does not necessarily matchup to their TO&E when they went into combat, since some were still rebuilding.) The official TO&E of a 44 Panzer Division had a PzIV battalion and a PzV Battalion, so 50/50 PzIV and Panthers although in RL, the split was more 60/40. However, from the numbers Jentz quotes on production numbers (he has tables in the back on monthly production of tank models), IIRC that PzIV numbers were going down and PzV numbers were going up after june 44 as production was being shifted to Panthers. I will have to check when I get home.

First, I seem to see a lot of little red crosses among your men, so that does not seem to be a problem in our game. Second, where is my turn so I can continue...testing this out.

the issue with the spotting rounds should be fixed in the next patch. the way artillery worked in CMSF and should work in CMBN is: 1. spotter calls in strike, gets an estimated time (say 4 minutes); 2. spotter can move. I do it sometimes to get a better view: 3. spotting round lands, spotter calls correcting fire until spotting rounds are on target; 4. at this point, spotter calls Fire For Effect and strike is on its way. In CMBN, for some reason, the spotter will sometimes call in FFE even if the spotting round is off target or he has no LOS to it. This is not an issue in CMSF. This will be fixed. If the spotter cannot complete #3, say he has no LOS to the spotting round, is dead, suppressed, etc., #4 should not happen. If the spotter has called FFE (#4), the strike is on its way even if the spotter loses LOS, is killed, suppressed, etc. After #1, the process is automatic and requires no player input, "adjust" should only be used if you want to change the mission.

sent you a PM. game on.

I am not saying it never happened, just that I have never seen credible evidence so far of US/CW troops in NWE shooting German prisoners in cold blood. You just see a lot of stories, but they usually fall apart as soon as you start to test the evidence. The only uncontested Allied War crime I am aware of is Mush Morton shooting survivors in the water after he sank the Buyo Maru. We know he did it because he described it in his patrol report. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/usswahoo.aspx However, I think we all know the war in the Pacific was particularly savage, even by WW2 standards.

dont rely on Wiki for this stuff. A lot of it appears to be posted by neo-Nazis: 1. the 328th Rgt order was given right after Malmedy. It was rescinded a few weeks later, it does not appears to have been followed; 2. the famous quote by Ambrose is the one which is always quoted, but is impossible to pin down. Given his general poor academic reputation, I would certainly not give any credence to it. It is either a fabrication or a gross exaggeration. 3. the Audouville-La-Hubert massacre? give me a break. wiki references a Der Spiegel article which gives no references. Has anyone ever even heard of this "historical event"?

Its all a matter of perspective, the Allies were able to keep their Armored Divisions at 80%+ TO&E on a consistent basis from june 6th 44 to may 8th 45. They were also able to equip almost all their infantry divisions with a tank battalion, keep them at 80%+ TO&E, giving them firepower equivalent to most German PDs after a few weeks of combat. Meanwhile the German PDs typically went into battle at 60-80% TO&E, which over a few weeks or months would be ground down to nothing, since they received few if any replacements. After which they would be pulled off the line for 2-3 months to bring them back up to 60-80% TO&E. So compared to the Germans, the Allies had Shermans coming out of their ears. Was there a "shortfall" of Shermans in the field compared to the TO&E? Certainly, but Von Rundstedt could only dream of having that "problem".

Agree completely, 8 groups is not enough, we have been asking for more AI groups for a long time.

I guess you did not get the memo...

Cool! One thing to remember is that rooms and interior walls are abstracted in CMBN, it is not one open area as it appears. Here you have 2 US soldiers charging into a house occupied by 2 german soldiers (hardly numerical superiority btw), one of each gets shot. We don't know if the 2 US soldiers could see the last german because of the interior walls, although it appears not. We also don't know if the last shots aimed at the german were being absorbed by interior walls, which appears to be the case. I dont see anything unusual in the results.

Stacey is good, but the best overall books on the Canadian Army in NWE 1944-45 are the two books by Terry Copp: http://www.amazon.ca/Fields-Fire-Canadians-Terry-Copp/dp/0802037801/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307455691&sr=1-2 http://www.amazon.ca/Cinderella-Army-Canadians-Northwest-1944-1945/dp/0802095224/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307455691&sr=1-1 Stacey, like many post-war historians falls into the traditional view that Canadians were green, tentative and only won because of numerical superiority. Copp is part of the re-appraisal of the performance of the Canadians. Relying on many primary source documents, he shows that the Canadians fought as well as the Germans facing them.

How about sending the turn back so I can see for myself...

I presume you are moving the group as a whole? For example, one thing you can do is break up the Coy and plan moves as you would do if you were playing the game. For example, break up each platoon in a separate AI group and the support assets in a 4th group. You could then order all groups to move to the start line. Move your support group to a position where it can support the attack, choose something easy, for example woods or a building. You can then order each platoon to successively move towards the objective while the other two platoons provide covering fire. With some fine tuning, you can usually get the scenario editor to do what you want it to.

I have it on good authority that the Bren Tripod will be in...i'm just not sure if it will be in the Canadian module or the Space Lobsters game.

That is always the problem with modern warfare, a lot of stuff is classified. I remember we had a lot of discussions while working on the British module on how the Challenger compared with the Abrams. However, I know BFC makes an effort to get things as right as possible. Regarding the modeling of US v Russian tanks, don't forget most of the Syrian tanks in CMSF are various flavors of T-72s which are seriously outmatched by all M1 models. The T-90 is more of a match, in tests I ran it was more or less equal to the older M1 models in CMSF, but it was modeled on the export version to Algeria, so the model in Russian service is probably more potent. Also some Beta testers from Russia have been added to keep the rest of us honest. They seem to think Russian hardware is the best in the world. CMSF2 should be more challenging for the NATO side.

oh? Not to be unkind, but how long have you been working with the scenario editor? How many scenarios have you designed and released? Paper Tiger is about as close to a resident expert that you can get around here, he knows what he is talking about.

Yes, making the path obvious is the only way you can be sure the AI will choose the path you want.

SteveP, the scenario editor is not a new feature, it is the same that was in CMSF and that has been used by many people to create hundreds of scenarios and campaigns over the past 4 years. ADVANCE works as it is designed, there is no "bug" and nothing to fix. You obviously are a new to the scenario editor and are having trouble understanding how to use it to its best effect. The manual only skims the surface of what it possible. I would suggest you read the link I posted above on the scenario editor and do a search of the CMSF forums, there were many threads over the years discussing various tips. As pointed out above, you can probably achieve what you wish by using multiple AI groups and moving your AI force in steps. If ADVANCE is not the order you want, they are others to move your force slower or faster.

SteveP, I PMd you my email address, send me your scenario and I will see what the problem is and report back. I have an idea what the problem is, but it will be quicker if I can check it out. This can also be useful, the manual just brushes the surface of what you can do with the scenario editor. http://homepage.mac.com/gibsonm1/CMSF/FileSharing24.html Always glad to help out.

I did not say that, I said Advance will get them to move more or less where you want more or less when you want them to, although not in any useful tactical formation. The AI is not good in attacking. If you break it down in many AI groups, you can control more or less how they advance, so some will provide overwatch, some will attack, some will stay back. The biggest problem is the limited number of AI groups. If you want those of us who have designed scenarios to help you figure out how to get the most out of the scenario editor in its current form, adopting an aggressive tone is not the way to go.

On the Sherman, don't forget the US was fighting a global war, so they needed a AFV that could be shipped anywhere on the planet and that could be used in Europe as well as the Pacific, so they were limited in size and weight. The Germans did not have that problem. Second, as odd as it may seem, the main job of a tank was not to kill other tanks, but to help breakthrough enemy positions and then exploit in the enemy's rear. A direct tank v tank comparaison is not really useful. The Germans savaged the Russians in 41-42 even though they fielded inferior tanks. The Russians returned the favor in 43-45 even though they were facing Panthers and Tigers.

Its really a question of getting used to the scenario editor and what it can and can't do, paying attention to what orders you give, giving the AI enough time to move its troops, paying attention to the area you order them to (for example, not letting the objective area be a building for mortars). You can approximate a human response, but it will never be perfect. It does require some micro management, but once you get used to it, setting up the AI plans is usually not the most time consuming factor in scenario creation, usually creating the map in the first place takes the most time. On your specific questions, I never really noticed any difference between Assault and Max Assault, both are supposed to emphasize combat over movement, but in my experience the AI moves too slowly for my taste. Advance is usually the best compromise to get the AI to move where you want it too. IMHO, the biggest problems in the scenario editor now are, first, the fact that the number of AI groups is limited to 8, which makes it hard to structure the AI plan as finely as I would like and second, the lack of triggers, where for example the player reaching a certain objective would trigger the implementation of a AI plan. Right now if want to, say, provide for a counter attack by the AI, you have to guess where the player will be after a certain time. Both are on the wish list, if and when the editor is revised.