Sgt Joch

Steiner14, agreed there is a difference between the Soviet Army of 1941 and 1943/45. In addition to the points you mentioned is also the fact that in 1941, officers were chosen solely on the basis of their political reliability (i.e subservience to comrade Stalin) and political commissars, who had no military training whatsoever interfered in military decisions (for example, Lev Mekhlis's role in the Kerch disaster in may '42). The Army was completely restructured in 41-43 to remove Commissars from all military decisions and to appoint officers solely on the basis of military competence.

I have read Steve's reply, but I really don't see the insult. :confused: Anyway, I just wanted to point out that almost all keys and commands are customisable. For example Hoolaman, using the tips here, you can probably customise your mouse to do what you are asking for. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97512

I have thought about this issue a lot. One problem with the WW2 Soviet Army is trying to separate the truth from the Stalinist propaganda which, to a certain extent , still lingers on. You look at your typical Soviet soldier in 1941, 18-25, probably from a rural region; grew up under the Communist regime, learned to read and write in a soviet school; saw his parent's farm being taken away by the communists when they were forced into collective farms; lives in a "egalitarian" society where the local communist officials live in luxury while his parents often had problems feeding their children; was trained in an army with very brutal discipline where promotion is not based on skill, but on the whims of the commissar. When he goes in battle against the very efficient German defence, he knows that the officers and commissars are far behind, the NKVD is behind him ready to shoot him on the spot if he retreats, but certain death awaits him if he charges forward, how tempting is it to just lay low and wait to see how things turn out? We have all read stories about brave Soviet soldiers fighting to the death, but let's look at the facts: the Germans were outnumbered for much of 1941, the Soviets had generally better equipment, yet the Germans went all the way to Moscow and captured 3,500,000 prisoners, even though Stalin had ordered everyone to fight to the death and not surrender. The Germans were good, but not supermen. Everything points to your average 1941 Soviet unit as having poor training and motivation.

Agreed, there is more than enough room for all opinions, especially now that so many posters at GS seem to really like CMBN.

Area fire: others have addressed it, area fire is less effective and less accurate than direct fire. That is also to prevent gamey exploits where you concentrate the area fire of all your units into a AP where one of your other units has spotted something, thereby getting around relative spotting. AP grid: CMx2 uses a 8x8m grid which is a 6x improvement over the 20x20m grid in CMx1. BFC would like to eventually move to a 1x1m grid, but no computer in existence now could run it. LOS is traced from each soldier, but LOF is traced from the center of the AP, which is why you sometimes have LOS, but no LOF. It's not perfect, but better than any other game out there. Bocage: a lot of time was spent on Bocage in CMBN and it is more finely detailed than in CMBO. You have many different terrain tiles: high bocage, low bocage, hedge, to which you can add elevation changes and all sort of foliage to come up with infinite variations. With the existing fortifications: trenches, foxholes, bunkers, mines, you create defences as effective as the ones Doubler described in his article. You just need to play around and get used to the system, all the tools are there. Again, is it perfect? Of course not, but there is a point of diminishing return in simulating Bocage which was only a factor for 2 months and only in the US sector.

There has been a separate " opponent finder" forum for as long as I have been a member, that is how I first found MP opponents. There has never been enough traffic to justify breaking it down by games, most serious MP players eventually gravitate to one of the many gaming clubs out there.

When you click on a unit, say a squad, the lines on the left, usually "platoon HQ" and " company HQ" show you if that squad is in C2 of those HQs, green:yes, red: no. The contact icons in the lower left show how strong the C2 is to your HQ only, in this case Platoon HQ, i.e. close enough for visual orders ( eye, head), close enough for voice orders ( mouth), close enough to radio in. These have an efect on combat, morale, sometimes movement. The link to higher HQs is to be part of the information net, it determines if and how long it takes to call in artillery/ air strikes (obviously less of an issue in CMBN), but more importantly the sharing of contact info. If a squad spots a tank under a tree, that info gets passed up to higher HQs and then down to its subordinate units, so that other squads who do not have LOS to the tank will still eventually get a "?" icon. That can reduce spotting times and make the difference between getting a kill or getting killed. The effect is more pronounced in CMSF where all the US forces are plugged in by computers/blackberries, but you can still see the same effect to a limited extent in CMSF. After 4 years of playing CMSF, the new system feels entirely natural to me and I have no wish to go back to the dumb as rocks/graphically ugly CMx1 system. Disclaimer - this represents the personal opinion of the poster only and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of BFC.

I would be careful about applying the experience definitions too strictly. They were established in CMSF to try to come up with comparable experience levels for Arab armies and irregulars which do not fight the same way as western armies, although it could also apply to the Eastern front. It would not really apply to Normandy since regular German and Allied soldiers all received comparable training. I would also be careful about giving too high an experience level since that skews combat results as shown in the HMG thread. In NWE 44-45, I don't see a justification for classifying entire units as Crack or Elite, although certain veteran units who are highly skilled could be, for example a Crack tank crew or sniper. I would classify units along the following lines: 1 - D- Day: A unit like the US 29th would be regular with normal leadership/motivation. It had no combat experience, but had trained extensively for 2 years prior to D-Day. Most of the US divisions entering combat in Normandy for the first time should be rated more or less the same. A unit like the US 101st could be veteran, but since it has no combat experience, it would be more inclined to rate it as "regular", but since all the men were volunteers and highly motivated, bump up its motivation level. A unit like the German 352nd Division had a cadre of veteran officers/NCOs with extensive combat experience, but most of its troops were green, recruits just out of basic training. That would average out to regular, although you could also mix veteran/ green units. Since the leaders were veterans, you could also bump up its leadership level +1. Motivation would be normal. Most of the regular German divisions entering combat in Normandy would be similar 2. July. A division which had been in combat in June would have changed by the time the offensive restarted in mid- july. The 29th US had taken heavy losses. Most of the batallion, company and platoon leaders on june 6th were gone; killed, wounded or deemed unfit for a combat leadership role. Their replacements were veterans who had proved themselves in combat. So again, you could justify a +1 leadership bonus. However, 50% or more of the combat troops were replacement, trained soldiers, but who had never served ot trained as a unit, so you could bump down the motivation level by one, since there is evidence that units with many replacements were less motivated. The 352nd German was in a different situation. Because of problems with the German replacement system, it would have received very few replacements and its units would be very understrength, although because of the extensive combat experience, you could have a mix of veteran/regular units. You could also drop its motivation level by one, since there was evidence that too much combat was pushing the remaining troops to their breaking point. using these levels would probably provide more of a challenge also.

29th divison would be "regular", lots of training, but no combat experience. Dont have enough info to comment on the Big Red.

Bit early to tell, CMBN has only been out one week, time will tell, although I see no reason why CMBN won't be as successful as CMx1 in "ladder play".

yes C3K answered, quick or fast is the best to minimise arrival time, covered arc so your AFV is already looking in the right direction. The pause time is dictated by spotting times and whether you want it to shoot 1 or 2 shells, (which depends on the AFV/crew/etc.) then get the hell out. There are endless possibilities. One thing you have to be careful of when using shoot and scoot is that everything else being equal, a non-moving AFV will spot a moving AFV first..

That was the whole idea behind the CMSF QB concept, get away from the endless haggling over point values and move to a system where players pick realistic formations. Sure it had problems, but Steve had said they could have perfected that type of approach. However, everyone wanted CMx1 type "cherry picking". So here we are back to square one, haggling over point values.

Hey, that has a platoon charging across an open field at two HMGs.

If you want to compare CMBN with 1941 Eastern Front "Human Wave" scenarios, there are a few adjustments to be made: 1. the typical Soviet attack force would have been a mixture of "Green"/"Conscripts", with a lot of "poor" motivated troops; 2. the German HMGs would have typically been integrated into a defensive plan, with other HMG/LMGs providing crisscross covering fire; obstacles, wire and mines to funnel the attackers into a kill zone and mortars/artillery to finish them off. I doubt that attack would be very effective in CMBN.

luv it!

yes, good test, The Capt. I dont think switching every unit from "good" to "poor" motivation is being presented as a global answer, just that there are many, many variables that go into the outcome of any battle and the tools are there now to model it in CMBN. JasonC gave examples of successful frontal assaults through open fields in RL against MG nests. Those troops were highly motivated and driven by determined commanders, and paid the price for it. On the other hand, Doubler in his article seems to suggest that poor motivation was a common problem among US troops: http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp#21

I will make a scenario and test it out later. It should give us a better indication of RL conditions.

You have to take Ambrose for what he is, a "popular" historian, more of a journalist/novelist. He was more interested in a good rather than an accurate story. His methods, interview techniques, were not scientific. I was leafing through the autobiography of "Buck" compton yesterday of "Band of Brothers" fame. In his book, he says his only contact with Ambrose was a 30 minute telephone conversation and he spends a lot of his book correcting the stories about him in "Band of Brothers". My real problem with Ambrose is the fact that so many people rely on him as gospel, as here: :mad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#Germans

Reviewing the historical record, I am wondering if we expect too much from a lone unsupported HMG. The Germans normally used their HMGs as part of an integrated defence where they were supported by covering fire from other HMG/LMGs and mortars. From Doubler, "Busting the Bocage": http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp#21

Blackcat, nice summary. The issue has been raised in the Beta forum and were are waiting for feedback. btw, this thread is a good example of how to present an issue and get a response from Bfc. Multiple tests showing how the game actually works makes it a lot easier to see if there is a problem and what the solution could be. As an additional comment on the subject, it appears using target arcs and, presumably, TRPs would increase the HMGs effectiveness. I wonder if someone could test this. TRPs should represent the MGs having previously pre-registered the range. Second, area fire is supposed to be spread on the action spot and the adjacent spots. Perhaps someone could test troops attacking through such "area fire" to see what the result is.

you should only use "adjust" when you want to change the target. When you adjust, it becomes a new mission. It is normal for the spotting round to be off, let the spotter do his job, mind your own business, should'nt you be commanding troops or something...

Those were actually 76mm armed fireflys used in an ATG role. The 12th SS tried to steamroll a canadian position by charging with Panthers at high speed giving the fireflys perfect flank shots. One firefly fired 6 shots and knocked out 5 Panthers. The remaining Cats scooted back to their start line rather quickly.

As a general rule, you can't expect laser like accuracy as in CMSF. WW2 artillery was less accurate. FOs were using less than perfect maps, estimating ranges on unfamiliar terrain and trying to spot from ground level. Look at the strike from ground level and you will see what I mean. You should get better accuracy when using TRPs.

zonks40, thanks for the comments. It is always greatly appreciated when we can get feedback from people with actual experience, especially since the MAG58 has a similar design and shares certain design elements with the MG42. I was wondering if you could clarify two points in your post. When in combat, do you stick with the 5-8 rounds bursts or fire longer bursts? and what would be a typical burst when using the tripod?

I was guesstimating to illustrate a point. 300 meters is the range at which 5.56mm NATO ammo starts to really drop off, I realize that 7.92mm German ammo may travel farther in a straight line. The game models ballistics as they really were. edit - actually I was not that far off, according to this, 7.92mm ammo starts to noticeably drop off past 400 meters (look at the ballistics table in the middle of the page): http://omegacrossroads.com/GunCabinet/8X57/8mmMauser.htm