Bullethead

SimonFox said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pacific is OK but a bit one sided for most of the war at the CM scale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One sided? Why? Just because the US won consistently once we got the strategic initiative? But didn't that happen in North Africa, Italy, and France as well? Same on the East Front, too. After 1942, the Axis lost steadily. Were those other theaters one-sided? There are a lot of dead Allied troops to show the Axis was still full of fight after 1942. In fact, in the Pacific, our casualties INCREASED, in total AND in percent of forces engaged, as the war went on and the Japanese got better at defending islands. So the Japanese were quite capable up to the end of winning fights of CM's scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Assaulting caves, bunkers, charging hills, planting the flag on Mount Suribachi, suidcide charges, snipers, flamthrowers, demo charges being thrown into pillboxes...Wow! Stirs my blood just thinking about it! You fellas gonna help me ask for this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DAMN STRAIGHT!! Not to mention fanatical troops on both sides . I've GOT have a PTO version of CM. BTS, I'd ***MUCH*** rather have a PTO module than a North Africa module. I don't care about rinky-dink tanks armed with popguns creaking around maps with no terrain features. Big yawner there for me. I want the stuff Wild Bill is talking about here. Hellacious terrain problems, nasty defensive positions, naval gunfire. I want my Marines! -Bullethead

guachi said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why they didn't just stick with mortars for local fire support, I haven't figured out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, infantry guns where around before battlefield mortars . Hell, from the beginning of arty up until about the turn of the century, all arty had the same role as what we today call infantry guns: blasting the enemy's ranks with direct fire. And even when mortars appeared, the need for infantry guns remained. But they just put them on tracks and called them assault guns . -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes you can. At the end of each battle, the system calculates the new front line and adjusts the map as needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I saw that rubbled and burning buildings carry over from 1 battle to the next on the same map. What about shell holes and dead vehicles? -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again Burick was knocked to the ground, this time badly wounded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But what was he wounded by? The Tiger was shooting at him so it could well have gotten him with shrapnel or the bow MG. Or perhaps some other German had seen him pop up before was was sighting in on the rim of his hole waiting for him to try again. I dunno, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but a small (see below) concussive effect doesn't give you a visible "wound" as in something poking a hole in you or otherwise making observable blood flow. So if he was "badly wounded," I figure something metal hit him. And blast is an area effect thing. If he was in the blast cone before and just got knocked down, why would it give him a fatal "wound" next time? I guess part of my problem here is that while an 88 is a big gun for a WW2 tank, it's a small gun by any other standard. I've been within 20 yards of the muzzles guns a lot bigger (155mm and 203mm howitzers and naval 5"/54s), and closer than that to 122mm shell bursts, with no ill effects (eh, speak up, sonny ). Granted the guns weren't pointed RIGHT at me and a shellburst ain't a gun blast, but you can see why I'm skeptical of muzzle blast casualties from mere 88s. -Bullethead

Dale H said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do units have eyeballs only (LOS) intel or is there a way for units to share info about units spotted by one unit but not by others<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Woo hoo, subtle question You as the player, of course, always see the best intel available from any of your units. So like if you have somebody close enough to read the serial number on an enemy tank, you know that. And when you target that tank with other units further away, it shows up with that amount of detail at the end of the targeting line. But whether the game imposes some penalty on more distant and presumably less-informed units, I don't know. Be cool if it did . -Bullethead

I'm curious about the effects of muzzle blast. I mean, I've seen somebody cite in another thread that the M1's 120mm gun's blast will kill people a long way out in front. But I have to wonder: does that mean "will always kill" or "might kill under freak conditions" or something in between? Seriously, I've been shelled a few times, some of them pretty close and pretty big. The concussion bounced me around, knocked the wind out of me, and made my ears bleed, but I'm still here (although a bit deaf ). OK, shell bursts aren't focused cones of blast like from a guntube, but what about naval guns? Kamikaze action reports are full of mention of light AA gunners being blasted by 5" guns cranked around to the limits of their traverse. You'd think this would be pretty close to being blasted by a Tiger, but it doesn't seem to have killed anybody, or even made them quit their posts, at least in the reports I've read. Anyway, I'd like some more info on this phenomenon. Thanks in advance. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you were in fact the one who was contributing the most to that thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps in volume but Los was better for content. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps someone a little more informed on CM could jump in and clear the issue of mechanical fuses (and their inclusion) for us!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I'd sure like to know about that. Also, what about calling for a specific number of rounds of FFE instead of the continuous barrage? On that subject, perhaps there could be a distinction between arty and mortar FOs as regards number of rounds of FFE. Los and others (whom I take to be real grunts) said the continuous barrage is appropriate for mortar immediate suppression missions, such as from the grunt battalion's big mortars. OK, fine, but in the arty we always shot a specific number of rounds even for immediate suppression. I'd assume this was true in WW2 as well. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seem's there were a CCA, CCB, and a CCR for each division. Mostly armour, but also mechanized infantry...right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Combat Commands were all-arms tactical groupings of the component units of the armored division. They were the basic divisional combat units, analogous to regiments in grunt divisions. Typically, CCA and CCB were the same and contained 1 tank battalion, 1 armored grunt (halftrack-mounted) battalion, 1 SP arty battalion, and 1 armored engineer company. CCR was the same but also usually contained other stuff as well, such as the division's tank destroyer and AAA battalions, at least for admin purposes. However, battalions and companies were often cross-attached between commands depending on needs. Also, the commands themselves were often broken up into task forces consisting of various companies from the command's battalions. Thus, the paper strength of a combat command and what it actually had on hand for a given operation were often very different things. As I understand the doctrine, CCA and CCB were supposed to be the line units. When their battalions got shot up, they'd be assigned to CCR to absorb replacements while units in CCR would go into CCA or CCB to take their place. The TD and AAA units would be in CCR under the division CO's control, to be assigned as needed to support CCA or CCB. Of course, sometimes CCR found itself in the line in emergencies because it constituted a highly mobile reserve that corps and army commanders could send to hot spots in a hurry. This happened once or twice in early the Bulge, for example. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what was the typical size of a tank platoon, company etc.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A tank platoon had a paper strength of 5 tanks. A company was 3 platoons plus 2 more tanks for the HQ. If it was a Sherman company, sometimes there'd be an M4(105) in the company HQ as well. M5 companies were orginized the same way but without the M4(105). Both types of company had some light vehicles for various command, admin, and supply purposes. At battalion level and above, things get a little fuzzy due to conflicting sources . But as best as I can figure out, the "heavy" 2nd and 3rd Armored had separate medium and light tank battalions consisting of 3 companies each. These were grouped into 2 regiments consisting of 1 light and 2 medium battalions. These divisions also contained 1 armored infantry regiment of 3 battalions. In other divisions, however, all tank battalions were the same and were made up of 3 medium and 1 light tank companies. IOW, the regular armored divisions were more symmetrical and easier to break up into thirds, but had 1 less M4 battalion. -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Spotting rounds, tweaked barrage patterns, FO visibilty effects, they are all in there<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even mechanical time fuses? -Bullethead

Ken said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am going to have to take the contrary viewpoint here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, no problem. I agree that we should be able to put troops on roofs just for the sake of realism--you can get there in real life so you should be able to in the game. However, it's not something that I think is that important. IOW, I'd like to see it ONLY for the sake of realism completeness--I don't see this as adding any really useful tactical stuff to the game. For instance: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One major advantage is the extended LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think there's much LOS benefit to be gained by being on a roof as opposed to a top floor. Say you're on a roof in the middle of town with buildings of roughly similar size all around. You're still not going to be able to see into the back yard of the building across the street, or into any other dead ground between buildings. You're just going to see a sea of rooftops. OTOH, if your building is significantly higher than those around it, being on the roof doens't add significantly to the LOS you have from the top floor. Same if you're on the edge of town looking out across the country. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A second major advantage is the ability to instantly enter complete cover by pulling back from the edge of the rooftop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you can do this on the top floor, too. Just move back away from the wall. Also, being able to do this sort of thing on a roof assumes a flat roof with a parapet around the edge, like a big office building. Not something you find in villages or small towns, which is where it seems to me the bulk of CM battles will take place. In these settings, you're looking at steeply pitched roofs to shed snow, not something you can move around on very easily . So in the great majority of CM battles, rooftop movement wouldn't be possible anyway, even if it was in the game. -Bullethead

SgtRock said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, not really. The Japanese did some great work defending Manila, for example, using satchel charges against M10s and such. Height advantage meant everything then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, for tossing bombs into passing open-top vehicles, being on any floor above street level lets you do that. And it would probably be more accurate the lower down you were. Interesting note: I haven't seen anybody throw down frags from the top floors of buildings yet, whether at troops or vehicles. Is this because the targeting routine measures the slant range down and assumes that's too far to throw a grenade, failing to consider geometry? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, if the game mechanics properly represent what happens when using a rooftop, shouldn't we be able to do so? (both height advantage AND lack of cover)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno, being on a roof just doesn't make tactical sense to me in the vast majority of cases. All you could lug up there are infantry weapons and most of these do better down at street level. Shaped charge weapons don't hit the armor at such an angle, MGs and rifles can fire all the way down a street with grazing fire, etc. Besides, being on a roof puts you on the skyline and makes you an easy target, besides your lack of overhead cover. So I wouldn't put units up there even if I could. -Bullethead

>>>>>>>> I tossed off the sniper comment as one example. I'm far more interested in just being able to place mortars, anti-tank weapons like PIATs and bazookas, etc. on rooftops. Mortars and guns for the addtional reach, anti-tank weapons for the top armor attack. <<<<<<<<<<<<< Hmmm, I'm not disappointed with a lack of rooftops. Except for things with backblasts like bazookas, there isn't any real advantage to being on the roof to offset the disadvantages of being more easily seen and having no overhead cover. If somebody was annoying me with a rooftop MG or mortar, I'd sure bring my mortars to bear on that roof. It would be like the targets were in open ground . As for bazookas, shaped charge weapons are like any other anti-tank round--they work way better when the hit the armor square on than they do at an angle. So unless you're shooting straight down at a tank below, you could well be worse off aiming your bazooka at the top from the roof or upper floor than you would be shooting into the side at ground level (and maybe the round would slide out the tube if you aimed down too much--don't know about this ). -Bullethead

Maus- To get around to answering your question ... To use your terminology, the Germans had (Heavy Machinegun) teams. As Rommel says, this used the same MG as the grunts had as their squad automatic weapon, either the MG34 or MG42 depending on the year. Like this: Grunt squad (LMG): MG34/42 with bipod MMG team: MG34/42 with tripod, more ammo, maybe 1-2 more spare barrels than the grunts would carry. HMG team: MG34/42 with tripod, way more ammo, a few more spare barrels, and all the special sighting devices. Mike: The US M60's other main ancestor besides the MG42 was the somewhat obscure FG4something (see how obscure it is? ). This was a special LMG developed for German paratroops (hence the name). -Bullethead

Well, most of my favorite movies have already been mentioned but here are a few more I like: "The Wind and the Lion": Sean Connery vs. Teddy Roosevelt in pre-WW1 Morocco, all Jarheads MUST see it . Great fights, great "big stick" politics, excellent soundtrack. "55 Days at Peiking": Charlton Heston vs. the Boxers. "Full Metal Jacket": Except for the fat guy not slimming down in bootcamp and shooting the DI before the DI realizes he's freaking out, it's got a perfect portrayal of bootcamp and Jarhead characters. "Zulu Dawn": Peter O'Toole at Isandlawana. Seems to do the battle pretty well although some of the events leading to it aren't so accurate. BTW, I just rented "When Trumpets Fade." Can't say I liked it much, although Dwight Yoakum didn't ruin it like I was afraid he would . I thought the basic story was good but the execution (acting, SFX, etc.) wasn't up to snuff. OTOH, maybe I'm just spoiled from SPR. But WTF (hehe, nice acronym) also didn't use accurate tactics nor was the underlying battle correct. The characters are in the 28th Division and it shows them not getting to Schmidt, when in fact they did fairly easily (by Heurtgen Forest standards) but then got kicked out in a big rout. -Bullethead

Moon said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the above example you could have for example - one dawn battle, three day battles, one dusk battle, one night battle (optional) and so on until the limit is reached or one side has won.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, gotcha. So as the designer you'd set it up so the attackers have X days to get to the objective. What the attacker does on those day is up to him. So like if there were 3 day battles per day, he might just sit still through the last 2 of them to absorb replacements and wait for reinforcements to come up, etc. And maybe do something at night, or not. Sounds cool. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is not intel about enemy repositioning between battles, but the idea is actually not bad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably be a bitch it implement, but it's a feature I'd like to see. Would really add to the immersion and realism, I think. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS. A sidenote with regard to recon - keep in mind that CMs scale is fairly small. At battalion level and down you won't encounter the classical "recon" - this is done by divisions. You've been in battle, you know the enemy is there and CLOSE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but I was thinking of recon in terms of accomplishing the battalion's mission. You run into a snag that makes the initial attack plan impossible so you have to find a way around or whatever. -Bullethead

LOL, the accents are just the tip of the iceberg here . Think about us poor guys on the left side of the pond trying to figure out the VOCABULARY of HM's troops. If BTS did that right, everybody here would have to have a copy of Fraser's "McAuslan" series and its glossary to know what at least _some_ of the Scots soldiers were talking about . So maybe Dick Van Dyke would be a better solution { , D, RLH } -Bullethead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am making a mental picture of each of you as I read these names (MROTFL)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My head looks like a .45 semi-wadcutter so folks have been calling me Bullethead all my life. Used to be pretty obvious because I had a high-and-tight from birth until I got out of the Corps, but these days I have a bit more hair . -Bullethead

Moon- Thanks for the info. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The author of the operation pre-sets which side (if any) can launch nighttime attacks. Sometimes neither side can, sometimes both. The attacking player has the option if he uses the night for a patrol or skirmish, or a full-scale attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does this mean that an operation might have pre-ordained night actions, or does it mean that 1 or both sides might have the option to fight on any given night if they so desire? Or both? And on that subject, if you do a morning battle, will you have the option to continue the attack in the afternoon? Just how much of the timing of battles is scripted and how much is under player control? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The battles are meant to show the main thrusts and you cannot scout out the defenses in between battles. What you can do in between battles, and I think I mentioned it, is to reposition your forces. Unfortunately the defender can do the same...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you get any intel briefing on such moves? Like "During the night, you hear tracked vehicles moving on your left front and troops digging in on your right front." Or even something like "An enemy soldier got lost in the dark and wandered into your positions. He says they're going to launch another attack at 0900 tomorrow." And say you used the night to patrol and located that pesky 88 that's kept you from getting your tanks into decisive action. Will the enemy still be able to move it before the next day battle? Stuff like that. I'm just trying to get a handle on the sort of FOW, and the available means of dispelling it, available to the player in an operation. -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 12-05-99).]

dumbo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not only did the regimental system deprive the Brits of excellent officers (by giving high posts to family members of previous officers) but it also handicapped cooperation with other units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't resist this . In one of the Flashman books, Flashy describes how he got into a stylish regiment via patronage. Then he says that reformers pointed out alleged problems with this system and changed it all. But "they made as big a mess of the Boer War as we did of the Crimea" so what's the difference? -Bullethead

Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Frankly a Tiger had nothing to fear from a 2 pounder and little to fear from a 6 pounder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interestingly, in what was no doubt an extremely rare event, the Tiger I at Bovington was knocked out by a 6-pounder, I think mounted in a Centaur or Cromwell. You can still see the scars on the Tiger. The 1st shot broke up on the upper edge of the gun mantlet and the splinters took out the exposed TC. The 2nd shot actually scraped along the bottom of the Tiger's gun tube, glancing off each successive increase in diamter, until it hit the mantlet, which deflected it down through the hull roof. I believe this somehow jammed the turret. The surviving Tiger crewmen then bailed out. Pretty amazing. What gets me is the sheer balls of the Brit tank crew. Looking RIGHT DOWN THE BARREL of the Tiger's 88 and blazing away with their little popgun anyway. -Bullethead

Moon- Thanks for the word. That all sounds quite cool, especially the victory conditions. Got some questions about the structure of "operations," though. 1. Pre-attack Recon: Do I get any or will all operations begin (like the demo scenarios) with me launching my forces into the blue and whatever prepared defenses are out there? 2. Mid-Operations Recon: When I discover heavy defenses the hard way during an attack, will I be able to patrol before the next attack, to try to find a way around them or locate hidden weapons? Or are all battles pre-ordained to be major attacks? 3. Timing of Battles: Will I have any control over the time of day the successive battles of an operation are fought? Will my opponent? For example, say Battle #1 is a day attack that bogs down. Will I be able to order night patrols before another day attack? Or say I just want to rest for the night--can my opponent decide to disturb my sleep with an "unscheduled" counterattack? 4. Mid-Operations Consolidation Will my guys be able to dig in on captured territory, to be able to better withstand any counterattack my opponent might decide to launch? -Bullethead

I just today uploaded the WW1-WW2 part of my collection of tank photos which I've taken at various armor museums. people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm It's a fair number of pix, including a Porsche turret King Tiger . -Bullethead

Hey, fountains are cool. But that brings up an interesting side issue. In most city fights, there were all these civilians running around getting caught in crossfires and such. Not to mention civilian cars, trucks, and streetcars blocking and burning in the streets. Any chance of having that happen in CM? -Bullethead

Hmm, what about Italian scenarios? We got US, Brit, and German forces so it should be possible.... I'd like to see "Taking the Left Tit" (my all-time favorite scenario name ) like in ASL and all the rest of that Santa Maria Infante battle in "Small Unit Actions." Maybe also something from Rapido River or Cassino? Back in France, lotsa stuff in the Bulge: Bastogne (all phases), St. Vith, Krinkelt-Rockerath, to name a few. Of course, some Hedgerow Hell would be quite nice, too. And I second the votes for Metz, Aachen, and Schmidt . -Bullethead