Gary T

Is the CDV patch available yet? If so where? (already checked the link on front page) Would I be correct in saying I can't use the Battlefront version?

Akrai88, You really should put some thought and research into actually reading my post. The US uses 70% of all the worlds oil. Am I to believe that it produces 70% of the worlds oil production? Or alternatively has 70% of the worlds oil reserves? Yes, you have your own supply of oil...but if your country used just that it would be gone in short order, if that was its only supply. So better to use foreign oil while you can. So only 2% of the US population buy goods made at lower costs outside of the US? So the other 98% buy purely 'Made in the US' goods do they? The Us public would not be prepared to pay the prices that would be asked if their goods were made in the US. The prices would go up or the companies would have to take a big cut in their profits. And they are mostly American companies. Your country imports more $ of goods than it exports (1994 - $513/$664 billion. To believe any country can survive without importing\exporting is laughable. Many a European country in the 19th century had plans for autarky...none were realised as a country can not exist in an economic vacuum. So please don't give us the line that the US is doing it for the greater good of the world and not its own gain...which of course is true for any country. [ January 20, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Gary T ]

The image of the US as a self contained, prosperous economic entity is ridiculous. The US is so prosperous because of it's involvement in other countries, economically and culturally. Those '2%' (which of course in reality is far larger) allow you to sustain your standard of living. For example, where exactly do you think the majority of your oil comes from? Texas?

Completely off on a tangent here...but a survey in the US recently asked them to name the 20 most important Americans in history. The top ones were obvious...Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Martin Luther King etc but straight in at number 13 was...Jesus Christ. I mean, WTF? *This was printed in most of the British national press...is it true?

Steve, Okay, bit of an exaggeration on my part to say I won't play again...I'm sure I'll be tempted back at some point. Very shortly. To say those are 'whining' about are finding the sneak command a problem due to their faulty tactics is simplistic IMHO. I'm not tactically inept...I know my tactics from experience in the real world. I do not go charging about across open ground a la CMBO. Maybe those who don't have a problem are simply not too concerned by the odd suicide sneak...maybe I've been concentrating on it too much myself. The fact remains however that there is a problem, small or large depending on who you ask. As for staying put and not budging an inch...thats exactly what happens in real combat. Troops stay pinned down for hours on end. And I know, it wouldn't be fun for the player but I'd like that feature. The only way to extricate them would be by bringing large amounts of firepower on their assailants and/or outflanking them with another force or waiting for nightfall. Call me a sadist but as I said I think that would be realistic. To take my previous example...if they had stayed put when coming under fire I could have given them a movement order backwards next phase - just a few yards. They may not have made it and got pinned down again. Fair enough. If they sneak off I can cancel that and give them another order...what usually happens is they get fired on again and immediately revert to sneaking, usually in the opposite direction to previously. Therefore once your men start sneaking it is best to let then keep going otherwise they end up going round in circles. Anyhow, look forward to the patch. Gary.

Just my two pennies worth... There's seems to be two forms of 'whiners' - those that claim they can't do anything with their infantry at all and those that are concerned about the 'sneak of death' issue. I think it is patronising to claim that those that have issues with the sneaking under fire somehow don't know what they are doing, use the wrong tactics, are Sudden Strike converts etc I've been playing CM a long time and been around the forums from early on, even if I don't post much. I personally like the infantry model in CMBB because it is far more realistic than CMBO. That being said I have two major, and they are major to me so much so I've stopped playing. The first is of course the 'sneak of death'. I, together with many, would rather see my unit pinned an not move rather than see the sort of antics my prostrate men get up to. In the last scenario I played one of my squads came under fire from an unseen enemy. It hit the dirt - fair enough. It had two choices - stay where it was or retreat 5 yards back over the lip it had just crossed (yes I know I shouldn't have skylined them). Instead it decided to crawl forwards 50 metres, that is towards the enemy, uphill through some barbed wire and into a trench - an enemy trench. To say I was rathered amazed at this courageous, but foolhardy decision was an understatement. The second issue is the previously mentioned 'units not firing'. I have seen this on several occasions. You put a squad into overwatch while another moves. The moving one comes under fire and the overwatch mob just sit there while the enemy just a hundred metres away destroys the moving platoon. Even more frustrating is when they stop firing even when you've given them a fire order. And EVEN more frustrating is when they start firing just as your now routed platoon legs it. Anyway, I just need one answer...will the 'sneak of death' be fixed? I can live with the non-firing (just pretend it's relative spotting in place) but if CMBB is ever to grace my CD drive again then sucide sneaking needs to be stopped. Could the sneaking be disabled if there is no cover within 15 metres or so? Lets hope so!

5% yes. But not 1%.

Ah, yes I can see the jagged edges now. Still can't see much difference in the tracks tho. Sorry I was looking for something outstandingly new...grpahic cards have been able to this (or something near as) for years.

They look almost identical to me...am I missing the point here?

On what is this based? I have the unit histories for 4 of the Jäger and 5 of the Gebirgsjäger divisions. None of them mention being outfitted with SMG's as per CMBB squads from 1942 onwards. Neither does the photographic evidence (such that it is) in these books support an SMG heavy structure. Two do however note the issuing of the MP44 in late 1944. These difference between these divisions and the regular Infanterie was at battalion and regimental level - i.e. 5 companies per battalion not in individual weapon issue. CMBB reflects this correctly in the 1941 OOB. On the other hand the independent Jäger (and possibly the few non-regimental GebirgsJäger battalions were probably armed with a heavier % of automatic weapons given their projected roles. Similarly after the TOE of the SkiJäger Brigade/Division had a high % of auot weapons - IIRCC this unit was created out a number of the independent Jäger battalions.

Are the ground conditions in the Korsun scenario good? I didn't even look as my Panthers bogged repeatedly - I assumed the conditions were muddy as they were historically. Oh well. As for the turret issue...I agree entirely. There's no need to try and flank any of these beasts as was done historically. In CMBB you are far better to take your chances with a head on duel. In my experience would seem nearly half of the hits strike the front turret area despite it only forming perhaps a small percentage of the total frontal cross section. I can't argue with his wish to see this fixed...it's the biggest issue that needs addressing IMHO.

Well, I've had mixed fortunes when under attack from aircraft. I have managed to shoot two down - one Il-2 with a Wirbelwind and a Hs-129 with a M17 ( I think thats what the HT is called). However in the scenario where I shot down the Hs-129 it and it's buddy knocked out 12 of my T34's/Su-122. It was uncanny how my moving T34's were knocked out especially as they were in a village and not in the open steppe. In another scenario I witnessed the most effective air attack to date - I had five stationary trucks loaded with men. A Stuka dropped one bomb (a pretty big one judging by the crater) and it between 20 and 40 metres from the trucksAll five trucks burst into flames - 3 squads and platoon HQ elminated entirely and 1/2 of another squad. I had to laugh...

I think the Jaegerbatallion's of the Bundeswehr are far more specialised than the Jager battalions inherent in Jaeger divisions. (note I'm not referring to the 10 or so independent Jaeger battalions). This TOE you refer to - could you post it? Does it refer to the independent Jaeger battalions (also sometimes called Jagdbatallions) who may well have been given a higher laodout in automatic weapons given their projected role (which wasn't always adhered to). The divisional Jaeger units were not specially trained for fighting in cities or as use as specialist assault troops as they are, or will be, used in CMBB QB's. True they were designed to operate in hilly terrain and their training and replacement system was tied in with that of the Gebirgsjaeger...personnel formally from Jaeger units might find themselves sent to a GJ unit after wounds or injury and vice versa. They also aped the GJ in wearing Bergmuetze and mountian boots. Still stand by my belief that GJ and Jaeger squads wer armed as per normal infantry. they may have had a higher automatic content to their squads when fighting in certain terrain, such as the forests of the Caucasus for example, but you can bet your arse that the normal infantry divisions did the same.

Well, I'm satisfied with that response. Thanks.

After glancing through the 1941 OOB's I thought the uber-GJ automatic squad from CMBO had been dropped. Hurray I cried for historical authenticity! All German infantry squads loaded out the same - 8 x rifles, 1 x SMG and 1 x LMG. But hold on what's this...in 1942 the GJ and Jaeger (I assume these are the battalions from the Jaeger divisions not the independent ones) gain an extra SMG and by 1943 have 7 SMG compared to the normal infantry's 1. What is the reasoning behind this? German non mechanised squads were organised the same - I know of no differing TOEs for GJ/Jaeger/infantry squads. Is it to give more variety/more units or are there some TOE's that have come to light? Cheers, Gary. [ October 25, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Gary T ]

I think operational styles need to be considered in context when you are attempting to compare them. I think it is too simplistic to simply beleive the Soviet doctrine was far superior than the German operational methods. I don't believe the Germans had any doctrine. It seems to be down to the commander on the ground, but I agree it was armour first more often that not. For instance at Kursk Model and Manstein used opposing methods, Model infatry first, Manstein armour first. Comparing those two assaults which would you say was the most effective? I also would say that, for example Polkovodets Rumyantsev, was no more successful than Manstein's part of the Kursk offensive. The Soviet attack also bogged down in the face of German armoured counter attacks shortly after breaking through the initial German positions...and these defences were not on the scale of the Soviet ones at Kursk. The difference is that the Soviets had more strategic reserves and therefore could gain the initative on many sectors of the front simultaneously. There were simply not enough mobile, armoured formations in the German inventory to live with this. I think it's also naive to believe that the Soviets had hit on a consistently winning formula...it worked extremely well against stretched and depleted German defences but there are numerous examples (probably more than successes) where it failed against better organised and manned lines (Mius, Kiev, Jassy, battles against AGC in the winter of 1943/44, the Courland battles, attacks along the Vistula in late summer/autumn 1944). I think that Soviet weight of numbers (in the strategic not necessarily tactical/operational), greater strategic mobility and above all a coherent strategy from late 1943 onwards were far more important that their operational doctrine.

I'm not sure that diagram gives the actual strengths of the units on 22nd June 1941, rather the authorised. I agree with Andreas that it would be about 80-90% of that - it was involved in it's fair bit of fighting early in the campaign going from Guderian's 'Panzer Leader'. According to him the 18th Panzer Division was the first in 2. Panzer Gruppe to meet the T34. This was at the bridgehead across the Beresina at Borisov on 1st July. Were you planning a scenario about this??

Is this the one and only Scunthorpe? If so...sod off. Seriously though, I have a knackered CD burner and a sub standard inkjet printer - maybe then we could bid for publishing/distribution rights for the UK. I wish I had gone with my gut instinct and got someone to get it from the states...instead I fell for the old 'it'll be out in two weeks' line :mad:

Surely they could have had a clause allowing BFC the rights to ship the game to European countries until CDV have released it in those countries. If that had been the case I'm sure it would have been released Europe wide on the 20th September.

What a farce...me thinks a US version will need to be aquired if I'm to see this game before the end of October.

I've no preference for sides but am more interested in the first 6 months and the period from the summer of 1943 to the autumn of 1944. As for theatre - Army Group North's battles (slogging matches) along the Volkhov and the Neva in 1942-1943 and Army Group's North and South Ukraine's battles (and destruction) in the summer of 1944, in Galicia and Rumania respectively.

I think the battles of this period/area are covered in 'No Triumphant Procession" - can't remeber the author off the top of my head as my copy is still at my parents house. Cheers, Gary.

Michael, The wehrkreis did not really correspond to exact geographical areas (unfortunately for us) but it does give you a guide as to what the designation will be. This is easier for some regions than others - divisions from WK I such as 1 ID, 11 ID 1 Kav Div etc are easily distinguishable as East Prussian Divisions. Others from, for example WK VI ,are harder to define based on WK alone because the WK overlaps into a number of different regions. The only way then is to find the hometowns for that division's units and work out what area that is classed as - I don't know enough about regional areas in Germany to know off the top of my head. With regards to pre-nazi era divisions they did have the regional title in their designations - i.e. 5. (wurttembergische) Division or 7. (bayerischen) Division. When this was officially dropped I do not know exactly but I would guess it was with the expansion of the army after 1934. Different regiments (and battalions) within a division were affiliated with particular towns in a region - I think this was more to do with where their depot was loacted rather than it being a centre of local recruitment. For instance 6. ID was based as follows in 1939: Stab 6. ID - Bielefeld IR 18 - Bielefeld and Detmold IR 37 - Osnabruck and Lingen IR 53 - Herford, Minden, Buckeburg, Osnabruck AR 6 - Osnabruck and Lingen I./AR 42 - Minden Beob. Abt. 6 - Lemgo Pz. Abw. Abt. 6 - Herford Pi Btl 6 - Minden NA 6 - Bielefeld San. Abt. 6 - Bielefeld As to whether regional designations were unoffical I cannot say but in wehrpasses you will often find alot of ersatz units actually have the name of the town where they are based in their unit stamp. Some examples of this are on my site: Menzel Scans Fruhen Scans Mussil Scans Lerch Scans Neubauer Scans I have never seen a regional designation used in any entry that refers to a field unit. Cheers, Gary. [ June 09, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Gary T ]

And I was just going to post that....anyway here are the wehrkreis to region affiliations. I'll add them to that list when I get round to updating my site. WK I - East Prussia WK II - Mecklenburg and Pomerania WK III - Brandenburg and Neumark WK IV - Saxony and part Thuringia WK V - Wurttemberg and part of Baden WK VI - Westphalia and the Rhineland WK VII - Southern Bavaria WK VIII - Silesia and Sudetenland WK IX - Part of Thuringia and Hesse WK X - Schleswig Holstein and part Hannover WK XI - Brunswick, Anhalt and part of Hannover WK XII - Eifel, part of Hesse, Saar, Palatinate, Saar WK XIII - Northern Bavaria WK XVII - Upper and Lower Austria WK XVIII - Styria, Carinthia, Tyrol WK XX - Danzig, western part of East Prussia WK XXI - West Poland Note that some divisions were associated with particular cities and not regions i.e. 3rd Panzer Division from Berlin and that also the regional associations were much stronger in the lower numbered divisions i.e. those raised before October 1940. Alot of the newer divisions raised after that took part of other divisions as a cadre. While these were usually from divisions already from that wehrkreis it did dilute the tight regional bias of some divisions. For example 99. ID (later 7. GJD) was created using personnel from WK XIII division's. An example of the regional distribution of soldiers is the following list of the members of Geb. Jag. Regt. 218, part of this division. I've left the Gewrman designation for the regions as they are fairly self explanatory. Whereas alot of the men are from northern Bavaria (Franken, Altbayern) or its neighbouring regions, Austrian personnel are there in large numbers and there are representatives from all across Germany. I'm not sure if this was represented throughout the rest of the division. 964 - Franken 384 - Altbayern 364 - Steiermark 352 - Pfalz 337 - Sudetenland 260 - Westfalen 200 - Rheinland 175 - Hesse 165 - Oberpfalz 158 - Wurttemberg 140 - Karnten 132 - Schlesien 118 - Thuringen 114 - Volksdeutsche 112 - Tirol 105 - Baden 89 - Sachsen 61 - Vorarlberg 57 - Salzburg 41 - Niederosterreich 40 - Brandenburg 32 - Hannover 32 - Schwaben 31 - Berlin 31 - Hamburg 30 - Warthegau 28 - Oberosterreich 23 - Wien 22 - Ostpreussen 19 - Preussen 19 - Schleswig 13 - Bohem und Mahren 12 - Magdeburg 11 - Westpreussen 10 - Mecklenburg 10 - Pommern 9 - Bremen 8 - Braunschweig 7 - Lippe 3 - Oldenburg 3 - Sudtirol 2 - Lothringen Cheers, Gary. [ June 09, 2002, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: Gary T ]

Michael, In response to your original question I believe this is the thread you were looking for - http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=007421 Cheers, Gary. PS I'll get those GD wehrpass scans to you next week hopefully.