Jump to content

Aacooper

Members
  • Posts

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aacooper

  1. I'm curious which features ARE worth the time and investment. Obviously Quick Battles, but also water, winter, novel terrain, King Tigers, and then what?
  2. With the CMx2 system, you could simulate having a jeep roll into town with a load of bazooka rockets to resupply. That happened during the battle of Butzdorf/Tettingen, and helped the US defenders. I think resupply during a CM battle was pretty rare, but it can be done with CMx2.
  3. Getting the Italian Navy out of the Mediterranean would have been the hard part, though.
  4. The US also had Ranger battalions (not just Pointe du Hoc) and M-18 TD's in the Normandy timeframe. I'd switch the US AA Bn's for artillery Bns, to play those wacky Cobra breakout situations. For the Germans, the US fought the FJ before the SS, though the 101st Air did fight the 17SS Panzergrenadier Div early on.
  5. Ah, Cuirrasier, I mistyped, Panzer Lehr had the Jadgpanther unit 27-29 JULY, which of course was during the US breakthrough. The division fought the US as a whole division from July 2nd to August 5th.
  6. Zetterling's book says schwere Panzerjager-Abteilung 654, equipped with Jagdpanthers, was attached to the Panzer-Lehr Division from 27-29 June, which puts it directly in the path of Operation Cobra. So, that would mean the US saw some Jagdpanthers in the CM:Normandy timeframe.
  7. I know Battlefront has said they will stick the Tiger into CM:Normandy, probably because the Panzer Lehr Div had 3 Tigers, but what other tanks did the US come up against? Starting with D-Day, there were two tank battalions in the Cotentin peninsula, the Panzer Ausbildungs-und Ersatz-Abteilung 100 & Panzer Abteilung 206 which had between them a total of 16 R 35's, 36 Hotchkiss's, 11 Somua's, 7 B 2's, 5 FT-17's, and a Panzer III. Plus, the 243, 352, and 709 Infantry Divisions had 37 Marder 38's and 20 StuG III's. By late June, schewe Panzerjager-Abteilung 654 brough about 25 Jagdpanthers and Fallschirm-Sturmgeschutz-Brigade 12 added StuH 42's to the mix (also StuG's, which other units brought to the American sector as well). By early July, the 2nd SS Panzer Div and the Panzer Lehr Div brought a collection of Panzer IV's, Panthers, Jagdpanzer IV's, more StuG III's, and possibly the 3 Tigers. It's possible by late July the 116th Panzer Div's 11 Panzer III's reached US forces. The units attacking Mortain didn't bring anything new, but it's possible in the ensuing encirclement battle the US forces came up against some of the tanks that had only faced the Commonwealth forces. That includes Tiger battalions, the King Tiger company, more Panzer III's, and the Sturmpanzer IV. To summarize, the list of different tanks encountered up to Mortain are: Captured French tanks: R 35 Hotchkiss Somua B 2 FT-17 German AFV's: Panzer III Marder 38 StuG III Jagdpanther StuH 42 Panzer IV Panther Jagdpanzer IV Tiger Hopefully we'll see all of them in CM:Normandy! I used Zetterling's "Normandy 1944" as a source, it's a great book for helping make those Normandy scenarios.
  8. The pilot would obviously know the loadout, but what about the commander on the ground (i.e. the player)? CMSF would have the best commo between the plane and the company commander, but even then would you know how many cannon rounds the helicopter has? With the current system it's obvious when the 500lb bomb is dropped, and that's fine. I think it would give the player too much information to say x of y munition. Once it's CMx2 Normandy, the player would be happy to notice what type of airplane is flying around.
  9. Some of those European 'rivers' are pretty small too. A hop, skip and a jump and you're over.
  10. Back in Cmx1 days, people on this forum said the Germans had better small unit cohesion because they were always talking to each other, making a lot of noise. Here's someone from the famous Easy Co, 101st Airborne: "One night, he was on patrol, with orders to shoot anyone he saw. He froze at the sound of a person moving in the darkness, but figured the noise wasn't big enough for German troops." In "Against The Panzers", talking about the Arnaville, crossing (page 60, has "Prf. John Yezzi, in another machine gun squad, was riddling the ranks of counterattacking Germans who advanced firing their machine pistols and rifle grenades even as they yelled "Kamerad" in an obvious ruse." Also, page 26, the battle for St. Barthelmy, says "They could even hear the German officers shouting to their men, but the murky fog prevented them from seeing anything." There's also the German tactic in the Bulge of yelling and making noise to scare away outnumber US defenders. So, I suppose Battlefront is right not to have any national modifiers.
  11. I'm amazed Battlefront has basically answered the same questions more than the one time I'd have the patience to. Bogging and immobilization will be adjusted by Battlefront until it feels right to them. It isn't going anywhere, and neither are some proportion of your tanks.
  12. Are real-life mortars as powerful as the game represents? A 60mm battery can choose from different firing patterns (point, line, and circle), and even fire airbursts. The same goes for 81mm & Syrian mortars. Have mortars been used to take out BMP's like you can in the game? One website (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/index.html#mortar) only lists HE, smoke, and illumination rounds for the 60mm & 81mm mortars. Thanks, P.S. will Normandy have nighttime illumination like flares?
  13. The game got 'easier' with 1.10 because behaviors made more sense. Hopefully it'll be 'easier' with 1.11 for the same reason. Not losing an infantry target because they duck their head down will be nice. I'm glad the Marine campaign will be revised, but better infantry behavior won't help make it easy enough, we need some replacements!
  14. But now CMx2 can handle the Grant, right? Granted (heh) it isn't the best tank, but try telling the Germans that in Gazala!
  15. Both sides could fuse their arty for airburst, but it didn't work as well as the Radar Prox stuff that was first used by the US in the Bulge. Now that I'm used to the many options of CMSF arty (fire pattern, shell type, etc) it'll be interesting to get back to the fewer options of less-deadly WW2 arty. I think the great thing about CMSF is that it will be able to account for US platoon leaders, for instance, calling down arty on the fly, without an FO.
  16. Proper scenario design is even trickier with CMSF because there is less room for error with the more powerful weapons. I think it's harder to balance a scenario. Once WW2 comes back, it'll be more forgiving for both players and scenario designers.
  17. Modern vs WW2 would be more interesting to wait for and think about than play. If the US vs Syria scenarios are unbalanced, send Strykers against squads with bolt-action rifles.
  18. Remember during the development when Steve wasn't sure PBEM would make it? I'm sure glad it did!
  19. If there's going to eventually be ammo-sharing, what about ammo-sharing from friendly casualties? I don't know how often it'll be useful, but think of future Arnhem scenarios and similar situations.
  20. I think the bigger problem is that scenario designers shouldn't make scenarios where the defender starts blasting away from the attacker from the word 'go'. The campaign especially seems to have a lot, and frankly it's no fun when there's a scenario like that. The attacker should always (maybe there's some exceptions) be out of LOS to the defender, so the attacker can advance in the manner he sees fit.
  21. I get the impression that buildings don't offer enough cover - small arms fire can quickly chew up an entire squad. I'm thinking if CMSF lined up with reality in that regard, the Black Hawk Down battle would have been over in 30 minutes, not a whole night. Is there anyone with practical experience in the cover provided by ME buildings who has an opinion about CMSF's buildings?
  22. I think a neat way to do it would be to give more timeouts for larger scenarios.
  23. I think the scale is fine -- this isn't a long range armor shoot-out game, and assuming you were allowed to make larger maps, you'd probably end up with a poor frame rate. If you want an armor shoot out with manoeuver, create a Golan heights scenario where the typical range was 500m or less. On the other hand, scenario designers should avoid making maps like in one or two of the campaign scenarios where you have M-1s on one end of the map destroying T-72's as soon as they are teleported onto the other end of the map as reinforcements. I don't know if any two-player playable scenarios are like that, but that's neither fun nor "realistic".
  24. Steve, What do you mean by commercial rights? I'm curious - did you have to have some arrangement with the US & Syria militaries to do CMSF? That sounds strange. Thanks,
×
×
  • Create New...