JoshK

I would like to see a two-tiered ambush order. You could set a general ambush, or specify an anti-armor ambush or an anti-personnel ambush. This could instill more realistic fire discipline in units that are within a command radius of an officer and have a primary role (e.g., AT Guns), but may carry some dual-purpose munitions.

While I rarely post on this board, I often enjoy reading posts here. It is never hard to find intelligent discourse about a wide range of WW II related topics. While I often disagree with some points of view, I respect the thought that goes into them. That is why I am absolutely appalled by the level of ignorance displayed by some people on this post. Subtle excusing the most inexcusable of acts, the slaughter of millions of people for no other crime than being born, is a common tactic of revisionist historians and outright hate mongers. Comparing acts of unimaginable evil to see which is worse, or which is more justified is madness. Read The Holocaust by Leni Yahil to learn more about what genocide really means. Steve, please close this thread. It poisons the entire board.

My Dad's Uncle was a B-29 navigator in the PTO. Later he was the squadron (or wing) photographer. Immediately after the war, he told stories of BDA photos over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A cousin of my Dad's (and my great Uncle's other nephew) was a PhD student at the University of Chicago at the outbreak the war. His on-campus job was to help out with his professor, Enrico Fermi, on a government project that was utilizing space in an unused squash court. He never talked about what he did, but he died of cancer at age 28 (no coincidence here), long before I was born. Kind of ironic.

The top U.S. ace of the war, Major Richard Bong (Medal of Honor), shot down 40 Japanese aircraft with a P-38. For all the Germanphiles, yes I know this was not against Goering's bunch. However, the majority of Bong's kills were early in the war against highly skilled pilots flying Zeros and Oscars, which were world-class aircraft at the time.

* JoshK says "What a sick bunch of f!#kers you are. Though I would like some of that sausage..." *

I certainly hope that this would go without saying for everyone who posts here. Regardless of whether or not the current Beta scare is true, I agree whole-heartily with the terms laid out here. I also think that this should be true for any software - if you didn't pay for it, don't use it.

While this is an old thread (relatively speaking), I feel the need to add my voice those who marvel at how BTS exhibits a unique combination of commitment to realism that supercedes ego or pride of ownership along with a phenomenal degree of customer service. Fantastic!

Is Reis, I targeted a newly exposed 88 with Sherman area fire. I did not notice any reduction in firepower when the first shell landed directly inside the 88s foxhole. Was definitely worthy of a few playbacks though.

I do get a good deal of enjoyment killing Nazis (virtually of course ).

Well I finally got around to installing an extra 32 MB of memory and a Voodoo 3 3000 card on my P1 233 MMX PC. WOW!!!!!! Its like a new world opened up. I really liked CM before, but I realized that I needed more juice for both playability and immersion reasons. I figured the choice was upgrade or not get CM. An world class game just got geometrically better. More kudos to BTS. You have really married a phenomenal war game with a true sensory experience. Glad to see ( = Me) I made the right call.

I had asked about this a little while back. I had noticed, based on the Alpha AAR, that it was unclear how targets were defined for aircraft. The answer to me question about FACs seemed to be that there were no FACs in CM, but there may be some way to generally designate targets. I guess I had misunderstood, as it seems that there will be no player input. While I applaud CM for avoiding the unrealistic levels of control over aircraft that are in SP, I do think some sort of control may sometimes be warranted. From what I have read, FACs were sometimes available as a battalion asset for U.S. forces in the ETO. Also, some artillery FOs were able to indirectly tap into the radio nets of the on-call CAS planes. How does this translate to a game like CM? Clearly what is not warranted is the SP approach - attack the third tank in the formation advancing from the farm house three turns from now. Maybe some sort of equivalent of area fire (to designate priority targets) may work though.

I seem to recall several WP-related topics in the past. Many of them evolved into will it or wont it be included in CM debates. Not wanting to get into that… Outside of the CM universe, I have read accounts of WP use by 105mm artillery and from the Sherman's 75mm gun. I am at work, so I do not have access to any books, but I distinctly remember an account by a FO attached to the 4th infantry division in "The Good War" by Studs Turkle (sp?) about calling in WP on a concentration of German infantry and vehicles. Ambrose discusses the use of tank fired WP to clear out the fields between bocage in Normandy.

No one has mentioned "Midway" yet. I think that the uncertainty, heroism and tension in this battle were well captured.

Based only on memory (I am at work), I think that "Patton's Best : An Informal History of the 4th Armored Division" by a divisional vet named Nat something or other had simillar first-hand acounts of tanks crossing bacage. However, what was the date of entry of the 4th. Were they involved in much pre-Cobra fighting?

"Nothing Less Than Victory" by Russell Miller. A moving and educational oral history of D-Day from all perspectives.

LOS - Thanks. So this is some level of control, but no micromanagement. Sounds good to me. Jon - The AAR at TGN - Why do you think I am here? I remember comming to this site months before the AAR and not getting hooked. The AAR really sold me on CM.

Quick question for the Beta Testers or BTS. How are forward air controllers handled in this game? I know that land-to-air communications were primitive by today's standards. However, one of the tactical innovations made by the U.S. army was to experiment with integrating air and artillery on the same radio channels. This happened as early as July 1944. By the time of the breakout following operation Cobra, there were FACs that could communicate with aircraft using radios in Jeeps and AFVs. These FACs were often assigned down to the battalion level for the opening of large-scale battles. By the same token, the spotters in the Piper Cubs could communicate with both Air and Arty. (Source: Ambrose's Citizen Solders). Does CM model this at all? Just to clarify, I am not at all suggesting anything remotely like SP with its micromanaged airstrikes unrealistic even by today's standards. However, perhaps with U.S. units air strikes could be handled as an artillery attack called for by a FO on an area target? If there is a tank company advancing across a field, a FAC could direct air support to that general area ASAP and pray that it shows up on time.

While I am a stranger in these parts, I just want to make a quick point… To help set the tone for CM, I have been rereading some WWII history books. According to Ambrose in Citizen Solders one of the main reasons that the U.S. started experimenting with ways to breach the bocage was due to a high incidence of Sherman losses due to exposed bellies while attempting to climb over. The two most common German systems that caused the crew casualties, according to Ambrose, were panzerfausts and MG 42s. That said, this alone in no reason to go crazy about one detail of a wonderful game.

Thanks for the reply. I guess I may need to get a 3D card afterall. I guess some more RAM couldn't hurt.... It all seems more worth it now.

A question for Battlefront.com, or maybe for Fionn or Martin... I read the specs section for combat mission. I have a 233 MMX, but no 3D card. By my read, I am barely within the quidelines. If I play CM, will it be too slow to enjoy? (I would hate to invest in a 3d card, as I have never been interested in the typical game the demands one). Thanks in advance.