M Hofbauer

In case anybody is interested in real numbers... official amount of ammunition carried for the regular SdKfz 251 and most of it's sub-versions was generally 2,010 rounds, although there were some special versions whose basic MG ammo loadout differed, varying from as low as 600 rounds for the 251/17 (the one with the 2cm FlaK), to 1,100 rounds for the 251/10 (the one with the 3.7cm PaK) and up to 4,800 rounds for the engineer variants (the 251/5 and the 251/7 Pionierpanzerwagen). yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Actually, the M1 carbine was developed specifically as such: small arm for rear area troops and crews of crew-served weapons. It was for this expressed purpose that it was designed as the small and handy rifle (rather, carbine) it was. It is true that at least the gunner of the two-man bazooka team was armed with only the .45 Colt M1911 as a sidearm. hoewever, already his assistant is often seen with something more substantial. Whether this was official policy or just individual creativity of the soldier born out of the sense of need and self-preservation I don't know. However, other, real crew served weapons' crews had carbines for self-defense. Or anything else, for that matter. FTR, I've seen pictures of american artillery men with british Sten SMGs. Fionn, you are probably right when you say that rifles "are too cumbersome IMO to carry around while serving a crewed weapon". But emphasis here is on "while serving a crewed weapon" - they did, however, have their small arms close by. In fact, many vehicles and guns had provisions for holders for these weapons. Now, it's a simple fact that crews *were* armed. an arbitrary example: In the picture we see an american 60mm mortar in action in France 1944. The leftmost soldier has a Colt .45 at his right hip. The second from the right holds an M1 carbine in his left hand. And - behold! - the rightmost soldier who is seen talking on the radio has a fullgrown, real life-sized M1 Garand rifle slung over his right shoulder! German crews usually had the standard K 98k Mauser rifle as their personal weapons, although I do have pictures showing MG 42 gunners (gunners, not assistants!) shouldering an MP40 (MG 42 gunners also were armed with an specifically issued P-38 pistol as their standard official sidearm). To research the official equipment of personal weapons for all the different crew-served weapons would be a no doubt very interesting matter. If the amount of time to research into this cannot be scrounged up, I think equipping german crews with the Mauser and american crews with the carbine would be a very rough but better than nothing compromise. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

my turn... Symptoms: Sounds are chopped up: the first fraction of a second of a sound file is being repeated over and over / looped for the duration of that sound file. This means the game sounds are a collection of wewewewewew...tototototot...dadadadada...in all kinds of pitches and lengths. With regular hardware support the game freezes up about (average) 10secs into the game (varying in length but always *does* freeze up sooner or later). When I reduce hardware support to 25%, the game does not freeze up, but in the resolution phase movie it runs at - I am not exaggerating - about 1frame / 1-2 seconds. This means soldiers/vehicles jump quite some distance between frames in the game. during resolution phase, the mouse cursor and the keyboard are largely ignored. It all makes the game not only not enjoyable, but really unplayable. Help! System: I have an AMD K-6/2 400, 64 MB RAM, 4MB Diamond Viper V330 (nvidia Riva 128), onboard sound card, OS Win98, DirectX 6.1...oh wait I'll let the little applet collect the info... Processor:: AMD-K6 3D (Model 8) (MMX) (3DNow!), 400 MHz Operating System:: Windows 98 Version 4.10 build 1034.1998 Cache:: L1 cache: 32 KB code, 32 KB data L2 cache: 0 KB RAM:: 65,016 KB Winsock version:: Microsoft wsock32.dll, ver2.2, 32bit of Apr 28 1998, at 19:33:24. IE Version:: 4.72.3110.0 Raid Environment:: L3T2F8:AMD-K6 3D (Model 8) (MMX) (3DNow!), 400 MHz:Windows 98 Version 4.10 build 1034.1998 :127.0.0.1 :65,016 KB:Microsoft wsock32.dll, ver2.2, 32bit of Apr 28 1998, at 19:33:24.: --- Display 0 ------------------------------------------------------ Display 0 Name:: Diamond Viper V330 (Nvidia Riva 128) Display 0 OEM:: Diamond Multimedia Systems Display 0 GDI Driver:: nv3disp.drv Display 0 GDI Version:: 4.10.0.1713 Display 0 GDI Date:: 5/15/1998 8:01p Display 0 GDI Size:: 658,128 bytes Display 0 GDI Attrib:: Final Release Display 0 PNPID:: PCI\VEN_12D2&DEV_0018&SUBSYS_10921092&REV_10\000800 Display 0 VRAM:: 0.5 MB (0 texture) I would really like to play the game! I might add that so far the only problems I ever had with games on this computer was a memory leak with cc3 (which was the game's fault) and froze occasionally in Hidden & Dangerous (which was remedied with the H&D patch and reducing the hardware support). Other 3D games are running fine. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer oh, btw, two more things: I too notice what Bamse described, namely that when targetting far ahead of the unit, the LOS / order line comes down from the top of the screen instead of back from the unit (bottom of screen). Also, when I save the game and return into the game, the cursor remains the CLI-line instead of reverting to an arrow. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 11-02-99).]

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFF"> Mr. Hofbauer: Well, if they're prone, yes, but the thing is they keep walking around three people as if nothing happened even if they took losses Kingtiger: My question to you is: If you were the soldier who inflicted a casualty on this group, would you know whether you inflicted a casulaty or not? </FONT> Mr Kalajian/kingtiger, I think it's called "plinking" when you pick off targets and when you hit them they topple over or collapse. Sure, with all that which charles said about WW II soldiers usually never getting to see the enemy and stuff, but the basic concept of *shooting* a rifle still revolves around *aiming* at a *target* which requires you to *see* the target. I am not talking about unaimed area/suppression fire in the general direction of the enemy (something the american soldier excelled at in VN). I am talking about aimed fire at a recognized target. You see people walking, crouching, running. You aim and if you hit you usually see a result. If the flock of chicken crossed the road running, you will see one toppling over whn you hit it. And even if they crouched, you can assume that if all others keep advancing but one keeps lying motionless in the spot where you shot it chances are it's not staying there because it thinks not advancing with the rest of it's unit and instead keeping in the field of fire of the enemy is such a splendid thing. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Another thing... while we are talking about .50cal, I noticed that support teams such as .50cal MGs, .30cal MGs and 60mm Mortars have 4-6 people but no small arms at all?? I mean, there is a handful of people working the mortar or the 30cal and they don't have personal weapons? - not even a Colt M1911 .45? also, I thought this was exactly what the M1 Carbine was for - personal weapon for self-defense for crews like these. wondering and appreciating any input/enlightenment, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Paul, I bet you a virtual case of beer that you are wrong on either the King Tiger or the zero casualties or both. I raise and call - I really want to see your *King Tiger* and taking the town with *zero* casualties, please send me the save file. Because the one time I tried the scenario, I had a Tiger I, and although I am a most cautios player, flattening house after house, I lost a total of about 5 soldiers due to odd mortar fire (or something can't tell because my computer doesn't show impacts or give sound cues but it showed small craters so I assume it was mortar fire) and maybe some infantry fire (couldn't tell) and I still hadn't taken the town when the Hellcats appeared and the game crashed. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

re. the suggestion above with the OOB-popup: oooops sorry I just noticed there is another complete thread about this issue...sorry...anyways, just a suggestion... Moon/Martin: LOL...wollte eigentlich nur irgendwelche generic names nehmen, sollte ja nur ein beispiel sein...hehe...yes that fits...Blöd tot... yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

I just noticed that I suggested something similar to what Scott asks for in another thread then stumbled upon this one..I agree with Scott linton and Ken Talley...I am NOT used to it from SP...only played the original SP and that was ..like...3 or 4 years ago or so and I really can't remember too much about it...can't remember that feature in SP... <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> Moon: Anyhow, such a unit screen goes directly against WHY I am playing CM. People keep complaining that they have to review the turn replays more than once, that they have to check out different units more than once. Hell, this is the exact reason WHY I love this game so much! THIS is what Combat Mission is about - not a sterile top-down view stats game, but a tactical simulation that allows (and forces) you to get into the middle of it. </FONT> moon, I must admit that my idea for such an overview that Scott proposed probably stemd from my wrecked experience from the CM demo that doesn't run properly on my puter (as we discussed elsewhere) - believe what with the killer-noise sound FXs and 1frame/2seconds you would *NOT* want to view the resolution phase twice even if it *did* give you any info (which it doesn't for me) ... so, obviously I am not really the person top comment on this - but still I maintain my point that it would be helpful for people playing several PBEMs at once (like I can imagine Fionn doing right now) to quickly get into "that battle" again, or when taking up a saved game after not having played for a while. <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> kingtiger: COUNTER-POINT: Just a little food for thought on the Overall Screen for unit death reporting. Let's assume you were the commander. Let's assume that reports are fed back through some chain of command back to you. Let's also assume that this is done every 60 seconds. Now let's assume that all the 200+ men and vehicles are accounted for. Let's assume that every platoon and every unit and everyone in the chain of command is able to gather this information every 60 seconds and then feed it up the chain of Command. Let's say that every one of the 200+ soldiers has..... Wait a minute it's already far too unrealistic to expect any one to provide this information especially in the heat of some of the battles I have witnessed. And I say, "If it's unrealistic in war, than it's unrealistic for the CM". </FONT> kingtiger, what you are writing there is quite ...uhm how do I say it but keep polite...well, let's just say it is har for me to follow your logic. The post Cunningham made on that pretty much covers the same thing, which is that according to your logic, CM would consist of you as the BTLN COM sitting somewhere in your command tent, or on one *fixed* location on the ground somewhere to the rear of the battle map with binos, and receiving a report every once in a while of "Delta platoon reports having taken VL Tango"...after your logic CM as it is is *wrong* because obviously a commander in RealLife would NOT be able to view from each unit and micromanage each tank's movements for every inch and check on every squad meticulously...no wargame will ever be *realistic* in that regard as it would be *unplayable* as Cunningham, pointed out. You wouldn't want such a game. The ironic thing here is that if such a game contained anything at all then that would be a status report table of your units just the way Scott suggested ... LOL <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> Kingtiger: Now, back to my non-grognard non-flaming slightly antagonistic opinion of markers and stuff for dead men. Hmmmm. Nahh, I still don't like em. And I like dead bodies all over the place even less. I have an aversion to the markers due to marker use in CC. In CC-series I could never get into the game, clicking on dead bodies and trying to get them to move was pretty irritating, and it really makes the battle field unmanageable, especially for an RTS. I really don't know if that feature could be toggled. </FONT> all you had to do was push CTRL-K. I don't think they were distracting. Living soldiers moved, dead soldiers lay in a pool of blood. Also, you had the soldier monitor which told you the status for each soldier. Obviously, you were one of those about who Doc of MS told that "there were people that played cc1 and cc2 and never used the SM nor knew what it was for" - whichj back then I couldn't believe since it was the heart of the CC engine. Standing in a pool of dead, mangled bodies significantly contributed to the psychological state of alive soldiers... <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> Kingtiger Ohh and another thing, I really can't comment on what information a real commander would have in making command and control decisions at this level of battle. Please comment on that. My guess (Big Guess) is that CM provides the most realistic quantity and quality of information relative to a real-world commanders knowledge, especially considering 30 minutes of skirmish. Now I'm tapping you for information. How much information did the Commander (don't know who that would have been) have in the end-scene of Private Ryan? Probably a bad example. </FONT> no, kingtiger, CM would be entirely unrealistic if judged by the criteria you gave above (which is a not so reasonable thing to do). Remember the example where the players talked about using a halftrack as bait to get a Hellcat with a StuG? Do you really think that would happen in reality? Do you really think that a buttoned StuG that sits behind a house not seeing anything could conceive of much less coordinate such a trick with the halftrack which itself doesn't see the hellcat just the same? <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> Moon: Is it just me? But for the heck of it, I just can't get what people are complaining about? There is a ton of feedback coming straight at the player and soooo easy to pick up. </FONT> no it is not easy to pick up, at least for me ;o) ... but seriopusly, I could imagine even if the game went smooth then you still, if as Steve explained you looked at the game's progress with a 4 - view, then you don't neccessarily see your squad on the flank take losses - it's three men before and after taking 3 casualties... <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> THEN - you can always enlarge both side's forces (up to +4!) and zoom out of the map. </FONT> that doesn't alleviate the problem described above. <FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF"> With one blink of the eye, you see the entire front line. Woops - a couple of prone squads there...stinks! Ahhh - a prone enemy unit...great! Doesn't go quicker than that. </FONT> well, if they're prone, yes, but the thing is they keep walking around three people as if nothing happened even if they took losses. oh well, just wanted to sound off, guess we all, whether we are pro- or con-OOB table, agree that it is not *essential* for CM which will be a fine game even without it. Now if only I could get that *+#?§$& computer to run CM.... yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Fionn/Moon: I have an AMD K-6 II 400; 64 MB RAM; 4 MB Diamond Viper V330 (Nvidia 128 chipset) 3D card, 17" hence a 1024x768 screen res.; DirectX 6.1 installed. I figured after having read the CM-specifications on the battlefront-page ("P133 with 3D card or P200 without") I would have more than enough to run the game; however the specifications given on the download page differ and say severe restrictions when the 3D card has less than 8MB ... I am now able to largely avoid the crahses by reducing the 3D hardware support to 25%; however this makes the game movements even worse to a degree of unplayability, especially when combined with the definitively f-up sound. I am not blaming BTS - I have seen the game on a friend's computer where it looks/sounds great. Sorry, but it's such a pain that I really can't play it, I am hoping for the final version. Charles: I *did* notice and praise (see the post) the feature of the map being accessible after the end showing all units (again, hope this feature does *not* work in the campaign where - as you stressed- the fun factor is advancing on the same map back and forth - would hate to have all defense/attack obvious after the first battle on the map). Still, it only shows the units that are *left* - if that infantry took out my halftrack and later gets wiped out I will never figure out who/what got my HT. I think it all has to do with the way CM works (rather: does not work) on my computer. I do not get to see the shells etc. since the framerate/jumping of units is so horrible that it would be extreme lucky to have a shell seen on one of the few freezeframes. Same goes for the sound cues which you seem to use as a way of telling whether or not you are inflicting casualties (all i get is constant"whawhawawawawawa..bababababababa.totototototo...lololololololo" in all kinds of pitches and lengths) so lacking all that I really am not able to judge on the game and all this. But I could imagine that what sage and Hagen were getting at was the fact that if you fired with your machine-gun (for Moon: "reinrotzen" ;o) ) into a squad walking at 300m distance from house A to house B, you could tell by people toppling over and lying there that you scored hits. Right now, you can't tell. Enemy squads seem unaffected by fire. btw, how about having a keyboard - shortcut that would pop up a small window/list that showed *your* current OOB...something remotely like this: I could imagine that people would find this rather useful, especially for quickly getting into that special battle again when taking up a saved game or when playing several different PBEMs. It might help people that find the U/I confusing... just a suggestion, of course, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Hello everyone, been playing and just as a sidenote/preface, my demo usually freezes up or crashes, but sometimes it works. Animations in the resolution sequence are unsmooth/jumpy (soldiers are "jumping" from place A to place B instead of walking all the way from A to B)Sounds are chopped up (the first 0.5sec of a soundfile are repeated for the length/duration of that sound file, it appears), too, but I hope that this is all because of the BETA state of the demo and things will be fixed for the final product. Here are some thoughts: #1) taken from a post made by <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">Brian Rock: "During the middle of this duel an 81mm mortar shell called in to suppress the Hellcat killed it. (At least I think that's what happened - hard to tell with CM's fog of war.)"</FONT> there have been repeated discussions aboput the FoW etc. WEll, I think I would really like it and I think others too when the end/result/debrief screen(s) would be more detailed and would clear things up. FoW might be realistic and stuff during battle but this is a game and I don't see the reason why people-*players* shouldn't be given the info *after* the game is over. What do you think about listing in chronological order the events, maybe since the game is taking so much emphasis on vehicles you want to limit it to vehicles, like "Turn 12: M-18 Hellcat destroyed by Tiger 1 main gun AP round at 37% - shot etc.pp." I think the information is there and it shouldn't be too hard to write a small routine to put the data into a small info at the end of the game. This would help a lot with people wondering what did what. Btw a good and related feature in the demo is the ability to review the battlefield with everything shown! I guess this will not be the case for a campaign, right? As a related issue, I really do think the results screen has disappointingly little info. I remember this issue has been talked about before and BTS's response to people saying that the AAR result screen was disappointing was that the result screen was overhauled and now features more info. I don't see that in the demo...(?) #2) <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">sage wrote:"Sigh. After playing, I think bodies are even more important. They provide visual feedback on an area to happen. Can't count how many times I've suddenly noticed that an infantry unit has taken hefty casualties somewhere in a previous turn, but I don't know when or from where. Bodies would provide immediate visual feedback. I know this has been hashed on, but the more I play, the more lacking it seems. I'm sure there is a creative solution here."</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">Steve/BTS replied:"Bodies still wouldn't help you figure that out. It would only show where they fell, which tells you nothing. Plus, you should have seen this during the previous turn's playback. The information you would get from watching them take casualties is more important. No go on bodies for all the same reasons you have heard before. So far you are the only person that has mentioned this There will be others, but if it was *so* important it would be the subject of a dozen threads by now."</FONT> I know you must be tired of this subject so we will leave the non-individual representation of infantry soldiers which contributes to the problem of not seeing effects aside. sage has a point and delivers what I think might be a way to solve the problem that Hagen had as his main complaint, i.e., the lack of feedback on effects. Me too I wondered about the strength of the (enemy) germans in the Riesberg scenario because they had all those seemingly unaffected three-man squads walking around erect etc. seemingly unharmed. Only after the game was over I discovered that they were badly decimated. I think that (i.e., the lack of feedback on the results of your fire on the enemy) was also the main reason why *both* sides in the AAR continually overestimated the strength of the other side (guess you will remember)-if they had seen the bodies lying there wouldbn't have been that much guessing about how much casualties you inflicted. Ok, so we *do* have three-man icons to represent squads. But why not leave a body where a soldier was killed? If a 12-man squad represented by the three-man icon crosses the road and has casualties, they should be in some way visible. Now, if you say that this is not possible because that would again be asking too much of CPU-power, couldn't (I am not a programmer)it be at least a 2-dimensional texture on the ground, which I figure wouldn't be too much a problem since it isn't a problem for shellholes/impacts either. Anyways, just a suggestion. thanks for what looks to be a very interesting and really *new kind of* game, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Moon, I don't mean to smartass you but ... Iposted the picture just to give some visual treat/eyecandy for discussion I couldn't imagine someone questioning it...the "strangeness" of the guy not holding the PzF over his shoulder as you suggest merely shows us that this picture must be from the firing with a pre-Panzerfaust 60 type firing mechanism, id est, it's either a Faustpatrone (aka Faustpatrone 1 or klein) or a Panzerfaust 30 (aka Faustpatrone 2 or gross). Judging from the size of the warhead, the wepaon fired can be fairly sure identified with probability bordering on certainty as a Panzerfaust 30. As for the too steep trajectory: The angle might seem a little steep but not unrealistically so; after all, this was my initial point, namely that the firing arc in CM is not represented realistically - now you turn this argument around and argue from the result by saying the original weapon is not realistic because it doesn't behave like it does in CM ..? Panzerfausts regularly were shot at angles of 15 - 20° when fired at maximum range; they were fired at very slow Vo (barely 30m/s for the type in question) which required for a highly ballistic trajectory on the way to the target if you wanted to achieve maximum range. Hope that explains it no offense meant. Ben Galanti, the other Panzerfaust-weapon you ask for is the small brother of the Panzerfaust, the Faustpatrone. They are all explained on the Panzerfaust Page.

wanted to add to the list of grateful readers. THANKS ! btw, allied turn 40 doesn't load - or is that just me?

ok, since the last thread was closed due to size (not the least because of OSCAR's contributions) before I had a chance to answer, I am taking the liberty to continue here, hope that's ok with you. Not trying to offend here but I suggest to OSCAR to start a thread of his own on his subject (and can call it "CM critique" or "CM bashing" or whatever) and take his problems there where I am sure most ppl will ignore it. Not trying to flame here but I think there's a point about this general critique not really belonging into threads dealing with specific game aspects; as my personal opinon I suggest this critique be reserved for *after* we have seen at least the demo, any posts made to that general 3d critique thing made before that are devoid of sunstance and sense; it makes sense to talk about features etc. during this phase (=before demo release) because it could influence the game but to make posts about "I haven't seen it but I think I will see that..." have no point at this stage. Enough of this. #3) first, two pictures from the Panzerfuast-page in support of the "no-trail but backblast" - suggestion (formerly #3 and as proposed by Mr Oberst and Mr Galanti): they show the firing of a Panzerfaust - notice the backblast and the absence of a smoke-trail I did of course notice that you (BTS ) said you were going to take a look into this but I figured the images will help to tip the scale in your considerations towards "more effort but also more realism" ;o) #5)BTS/Steve wrote: "#5 - The sandbags increased standoff range of impact, thus actually INCREASING the optimal penetration range for something like a PF. Unlike skirt or spaced armor, which has air inbetween it and the main armor, the sandbags are a solid mass, which acts to funnel all the energy of the explosion towards the main armor. In other words, it acts in the exact oppoiste way skirt/spaced armor works. In one of the threads we had an engineer with a high degree of understanding on this issue explain it in even more detail. In any case, IIRC only one division outfitted their tanks with sandbags to any great degree (11th Armored?)" Your arguing does sound reasonable to me. still I am not sure I am inclined towards it. Even after your arguing it does not work "exactly the opposite" spaced armor works, because even if the sandbags worked to tunnel (I am skeptical of the Funnel) it, a shaped charge was designed with the warhead cap so that it detonated at the optimum distance. The plasma jet unfocusses rapidly after that optimum distance. The tunneling would help to prevent the unfocussing of the jet yet he wouldn't prevent the jet to lose power rapidly after the point of optimum distance. After your theory, even the cast-on concrete (as many shermans featured) or even add-on armor would help to *increase* the effectiveness of the shaped chargem which it obviously didn't: any obstacle in the path of the jet that has to be consumed takes away from the energy. Sand, silicium crystals, are a great way to absorb energy in the process of having to be molten out of the way. Nevertheless, your arguing does have points, but there's another reason why I am not sure how to see this: Why after your theory *did* sandbags in reality stop Panzerfaust warheads that would have otherwise penetrated that Sherman armor at that spot? AFAIK, and I have seen many pictures to tat effect, extensive sandbagging wasn't limited to the 11th. 14th Armored Div, especially it's 25th Battallion,was rather renowned for using sandbagging. Other units that made widespread use of all-around sandbagging were e.g. the 781st tank batallion, atached to the 100th ID. #7) sidenote to rwcanuck, JonS and Steve(BTS): Yes I've seen "Die Brücke". Still IMO one of the best movies to bring home on you the tragic etc. of war best. re. the below-5m-firing of a Panzerfaust: the Panzerfaust warhead itself armed only after a flight of 3 meters. #12) crews armed with infantry weapons (SMGs); not sure why you took them out after they were initially in. Being armed only with pistols, I don't see what use they aould have in the game, you could for gameplay purposes let them be destroyed with their tank. All they can be used for is reconning/wasting them, which is very gamey as in real life tank crews probably would not have been very eager to play bait. I do take your points that A) those weapons were mostly meant for securing the vehicle when bivouacing etc and that that Sherman crews had too little time in early Shermans to unstrap their Thompson. But I guess you won't dispute that these weapons were just as handy when a crew had to leave the vehicle in battle due to damage. Also, I think it's invalid to generalize such a trait onto all vehicles. Most vehicles did *not* immediately brew up. Often tanks/AFVs became battleunworthy for a veriety of damage and the crews had to leave them. As a *side* point (and one that I am not so sure of), it would be a compromise re. the picking-up/scavenging of weapons lying around somewhere everywhere where a battle is. The crew would - if it was unable to take the vehicles' weapons with them and had to remain in the FEBA for any length of time - surely look out actively for equipping themselves with any weapon they could (and surely would in a lively battle) find. Now of course you would have to consider the unrealism of having a crew exit the vehicle readily equipped qith weapons they are supposed to find some time later on the field vs the unrealism of not having weapons ly around and therefore have them not carry any weapons at all (we'll forget about the pistols for the purpose of this thread, I think you will agree). Now if you add in that they would be not unlikely to have their vehicle-supplied crew weapons with them (it's not a StuG's crew fault that Shermans brew up easily) and that for gameplay purposes there wouldn't be any realistic use to them anymore if they are unarmed, then I think the scale of this consideration tips in favor of them having some sort of SMG (Thompson for americans, MP-40 for germans or so). But of yourse it's your game and hence it's your call. Related question #12a): are vehiocle crews that had to jump from their destroyed vehicle generally rather shaken/unwilling to follow orders/likely to panic/rout/surrender for the rest of the battle? I guess they should, accounting for the terror of having survived a catastrophic hit in your vehicle and the basic/inherent uneasiness crews feel outside their vehicle (talk to an Abrams crew having to do a battle outside their shell!) #13) I like the idea Bil Hardenberger and John Maragoudakis re. being notified of your reinforcements' arrival. I want to add that in your idea you are neglecting the enemy a litle bit. He, too, should be able to see the enemy advancing into the map, when that pop-up is amongst his troops. I also wanted to comment on the "map as a universe" - subject, which we have already talked about (and, to my understanding, you have talked about in length before). Again, as with other topics, I don't think it's essential for CM to have this, but I want to give a general idea/vision. BTS wrote: " So far there have been lots of ideas, but they generally involve "scope creep", and that is a no-no" and " The end result was nobody had any good ideas on how to do things differently without creating a game within a game. This sort of "scope creep" is an automatic death sentance. " what is wrong with a "game within a game"? and what is "scope creep" ?? Ssnake wrote: "I dunno if that approach would work for you, too - but if you have a good strat AI for RED, why not have some AI controlled BLUE units, too. You create an "envelope of friendlies", and stop the scope from creeping." (again this reference to scope creeping...what is that?) Basically, my idea is similar. let's assume a CM map has (arbitrary numbers) a map 2km wide and 6 km deep. Now, imagine also showing the neighbouring upper and lower (northern/southern) (if we are talking a west-east confrontation along a generally north-south frontline) maps, too, making for another 2km north and another 2km south. In these adjacent maps, place AI-controlled enemy and friendly units. see this sketch: BTS wrote: "This sort of "scope creep" is an automatic death sentance. It is just not possible to develop such a game, even if it were more realistic (who is watching the flanks of the guys coming in on the flanks? That is just the TIP of the iceberg)." I think "the flank of the guys on the flank" is not an unsolvable problem. You yourself later in a reply to Ssnake wrote." "I have forces, controlled by the AI, on my left flank. Great, but who is attacking them and who is on their left flank?" It doesn't matter, we don't see to their far edge. The neighbour forces are abstracized. "Is someone else attacking them, or do they sit idle?" doesn't matter, they could just sit idle. "And how is all this simulated It is an abstraction just as much as what we have now, but it involves a lot more work out of us and the CPU/Graphics card." I agree it is an abstraction and that it requires more work and strain on the CPU (and currently I am not asking for this, it's juts that a man's gotta have ideals), but I really disagree that it is "an abstraction just as much as what we have now". You yourself (see above) once contemplated "even if it were more realistic". Sorry, really don't wnat to offend you, but this arguing goes along the same lines Oscar uses, "if something won't work 100%, don't do it at all." Yes it is not perfect but it is less worse an abstraction than the map univers with no outside forces *at all* is. I hope you see what I am getting at. And I really don't say CM HAS to have that (and I do admit that scenario design does a lot already in the current model to alleviate the mapuniverse problem). I just want you to understand my idea. now, the northern and southern maps in terms of units and terrain can be less detailed, more abstracted etc. To the far (northern or southern) edge the neighbour map "dithers" / "fades" away (not sure of the right words here but I guess you know what I'm getting at). The borderbetween maps could either be fixed (no unit can pass it) - a little bit more unrealistic but much easier to implement - or it can be passed with units being less and less willing / likely to advance further into the neighbour map the further they get into it. Units in the neighbouring maps are assumed to be under a different commanders command. As regards the problem of "what do I do when the enemy troops in the north are advancing so that they are *beside me* in the neighbour map - two answers: 1) you could either prevent this by roughly connecting the advance of the neighbour-maps to the general advance/movement of the frontline in the played map 2) or leave it - hell, in real life that's just what happened often enough. you would just have to make provisons for this by having to protect your flanks against the north/south (after all, that's part of why the usual map-as-a-universe is criticised) If you do this neighbor-map approach, it enables nice things / options: * you could request vehicles from the neighbor commander or have to answer to requests from him for units (you'ld get point bonusses/penalties for giving away units to requests / requesting units from neighbor command) *and - now this is the real vision- you could take other human players take over their neighbour maps. This is something only thinkable given CM's approach of non-realtime (rt play for a minute but non-rt ordering phase). Since each computer/battle would only have to calculate/interpret things going on in his and the two neighbouring maps (but not the maps neighbouring those maps) (there would have to be a function allocating the calculation of different cross-border firing to either computer of the two maps) while coordinating with the neighbour computers/battles, this would be possible. And the size of the battle would only be limited by the numbers of players you can get together - you could simulate a whole stretch of front in a big multiplay! of course, this is just a *vision*, and I do realize this is not feasible for CM (especially given that it's battles are rather short in game-time terms (30-60mins)), but I like it.... I have a dream...I have a dream,..that one day, thousands and thousands of little, individually represented and modelled soldiers, along a whole sector, will be battling a HUGE multiplayer CM-style game payed by hundreds of human players.... Lastly, thanks to BTS and all you others for the satifying answers to the points I did not elaborate on anymore. Now I am really getting anxious to see the game! yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Steve and PeterNZ made a point that if I understood that correctly they meant to imply that coming in from behind would make it harder for the tank to outmaneuver/throw off the planes aim by swerving left/right as opposed to an attack from front where he could. I think I disagree / this is not entirely correct. I think it is not valid to apply this rationale that is applied when defeating a fast SAM or AAM onto the attack of an airplane onto a ground target. The ground target's speed (say, 20k) in comparison to the attacking aircraft's speed (say, 400k) is practically neglectable for this effect (in my opinion)(the tank when swerving covers the same amount of space whether you attack him from front or rear). Whether the aircraft attacks from the front or from the rear does not make throwing off the aim *noticeably* harder/easier. I agree though it makes a difference whether to attack the tank from rear/front as opposed to from the side. The moving tank would require leading, also Fionns point of a broad target vs. a long target make sense, as do your points re. near misses at front atacks vs. rear attacks. PeterNZ, your quote "Being a slight slight ww2 plane grog (I fly a lot of Warbirds hehe).." leaves me puzzled. Are you referring to flying restored WW II aircraft (like, the confederate air force etc.)? or - if you are referring to that awful game "Warbirds" then surely this is a joke, right? I have seen this game *once*....that was all I needed...Anyways, 20mm was not the standard for ground attack aircraft. It might have been for the british (Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane...ahm...IIc (?)), even there it wasn't that much standard (see the Whirlwind, or some ground attack versions of the Mosquito (57mm+7.9mm). If ever there was a "standard", then it was the .50cal for the american-designed aircraft. In this connection, I never heard anything about a P-51 equipped with *eight* .50cal MGs (unless maybe yopu mean the Twin Mustang which was neither a "P-51" nor WW II). Surely you are confusing this with the P-47? Totally concur with Fionn re. the tactic of .50cal - equipped aircraft aiming for a stretch of road before the target for that ricochet tactic. His theory of spalling is reasonable. But here's another thing to add to this: when later the tank's armor got too thick for the tank rifles to penetrate, the gunners were instructed to aim for the small observation holes/slits in the tank (I have seen pictures of instruction leaflets). The idea was exactly that, to let a bullet enter the tank and ricochet around inside causing injury/damage. Why could it not be that -I know it would be impossible for an aircraft to aim for it, but there's a good chance that in a hail of machine-gun bullets (if the tank is in the target center of eight machine guns for one second let's approximate 80 bullets hitting on/near it) *every once in a while* one enters the tank achieving the described effects? Another note onto "walking" rockets into the target. I have never heard of that tactic being used for WW II ground attacks. I know it's made with machine-gun / cannon fire, and I could imagine it might be possible with today's FFAR pods, but I don't think (besides never having seen/heard about it) it would be a feasible thing to do with the type and number of rockets carried in WW II. However just my opinion of course and I would be very interested in any reliable sources and stories where that was done. now something new added to this aircraft thread: as far as I can see, the plane acts more or less like an act of god (in the AAR it did : it is neither requested by the player nor can he give it any specific orders (tanks in vicinity of...; attack strongpoint at...; enemy infantry in open between...); it's effects are more or less an arbitrary deduction of the enemy's forces strength. Well, I don't think this is a major problem and can live with it, most of the times this was how it was in real life. But maybe - just maybe - you could include an air liasion officer just like the FO's, or even if he's not represented, provide for some sort of basic communication between you as the ground commander and the aircraft in terms of: * the aircraft is "on call" and can be requested for within a limited time frame (e.g., "aircraft on call for strike between turns 21 - 26" etc.), implemented simply as the possibility for the player to call the airstrike for the next turn * give general orders for the attack, like the examples above, prominent targets like "tank column at X/Y" or "enemy stronghold at house / in patch of wood at X/Y" etc. This could be implemented by giving an attack order onto the selected target with suboptions much alike those for the artillery (point/area target, strafe, bomb, strafe&bomb etc.). Much like the artillery, the accuracy would depend on the air FO (liasion officer) to have LOS to the target, there would still be a certain amount of inaccuracy/wrong targettting by the plane etc. The player could then decide for himself at least roughly whether he wants the plane's targets closer to his own positions, thereby increasing however the chances of friendly casualties, or at a safe distance. The way it is now, the plane might not care for the unit that endangers your MLR and attack some wholly irrelevant target elsewhere / in the rear of the enemy. * Maybe have an option to simply "recon" an area to extend the view of the commander player. This, as in real life, can be immensely helpful to generally scout for the enemy Schwerpunkt *maybe -now this would be ultra- have tanks fire colored smoke to designate a target for the aircraft/or have a refertence point for ordering the aircraft ("fire at the group of houses 100m west of my smoke"). The main thing here is that it would really require the player's attention and involvement to get the aircraft to do something, and I can imagine it would be a great feature when thinking of the opposing player who suddenly sees yellow smoke pop up near his beloved Panthers (talkling PANIC here hehe)...since the aircraft doesn't strike immediately there might still be a little time to try to get it out of the area (probably not). ok, remember, these are just ideas, you can dismiss them all and I wouldn't have a problem with it. After all, CM is a simulation of ground warfare, and the air attack is just an occasional side show. But it might be interesting and adding value. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

Add-on to #12): ok I looked through the AAR again (btw, allied turn 24 doesn't load) and sure enough, in turn 15 I found this: the text to the picture reads: "The first German squads have infiltrated our position - notice the German infantry behind the wall. There is another German unit behind the trees on the right. My rifle squad in the middle is badly beaten up and has only 4 of the initial 12 men left. The unit to the right is the Jumbo crew - notice the Thompson MP..." ? puzzled? wondering..now-are there crew weapons or not? sincerely, M.Hofbauer

First of all, let me thank both Fionn and BTS for your kindness of such a prompt and elaborate answer! I will combine both Fionn's and the BTS posts in my comments on the respective aspects below. 1) Fionn, I am dead sure on these two ranks' abbreviations. There are some higher ranks where apparently different versions existe(ed) or at least seem to be so I wouldnt want to bet on those but not re. the OGefr and the Uffz ranks. If however BTS doesn't dispute this and alludes to the argument that it was a decision by them in order to be able to limit them to 3 leters then that's valid, I can understand that and have no problem with it. 2)ok, so the correct seating isn't really a problem, I admit that. But I *do* maintain my position that it should be nearly impossible from outside to judge wether the HT has trrops aboard or not (unless you are viewing directly down onto/into the HT from a multi-storey house or unless the mounted troops are firing from the HT (over the edge) - is that possible?). And I think to be able to see wether it carries troops or not IMO makes a huge importance to the game (see Fionn's feigned attack strength). 3) regarding the smoke trails on smoketrailless weapons: "Not realistic in all cases all the time, but it does give valuable visual feedback to the player (plus it looks cool)." PLEASE don't say you added something because it "looks cool" - it gives me flashbacks of Atomics immortal infamous phrase when asked about the obvious ahistoricy of the Flammhetzers at Arnhem in CC2: "They were cool and easy to add". I can accept any - well, many at least - arguments why something is done, but please not because it "looks cool". It is not a valid argument when discussing features in a realism-attemtping wargame. No offense meant. 4) ok if you do not have the resources (Fionn if you say there will be then are you referring to user mods? will this be possible to CM? whats BTS's point of view on this? are follow-ups / mission-CDs / sequels planned?) then that's an argument. I just thought winter camo would "look cool" 5) nice to see spaced armor in the game. However I am very much puzzled at your opinion that sandbagging should actually help hollow-charge penetration ??? it is a well known fact that sandbagging and other ad-hoc spaced armor was counter-productive in terms of "catching" AP rounds that otherwise would ricochet off, but that's a trade-off to the universally (at least I thought it would be) accepted valuable effect of predetonating Shape-charge munitions. I will definitely try to find that thread and see what rationale should be behind that. 6)BTS wrote (btw I find the format of this BBS somewhat cumbersome IMO...you never know which post is a response to which other post):"Earlier PFs, for example, were not fitted with an anti-personnel capability, but latter ones were", and Fionn correctly pointed out that this didn't happen before the PzF 150 - whose production started March 45. The few delivered to fighting forces hardly justify representing them in a CM game unless you are making a scenarion "Last Ditch Defense of the HASAG company against the invading allied tanks" ;O) ) While we are at it, will the different improvements, the different Panzerfaust models, over the time of the war be represented? This was very important. In late 1944 targets could be engaged with Panzerfausts at three times the original ranges in 1943. Anyways, the demolishing effects (shaped charge - effects not only work vs armor but are a good concrete-penetration too, the rule of thumb IIRC being somewhere between double and 2.5 times the steel penetration is achieved vs concrete) and the explosive forces of Bazooka and Panzerschreck ammo should work against infantry, too. But if for example it would be represented that if you hit a house then the resulting shrapnel from the target hit works on the infantry then I guess that'ld be great. 7) you mean there is no restriction of firing these weapons - Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and Bazooka - from any confined spaces such as rooms etc.? It should not be possible in very small rooms. that it shouldn't be portrayed to have such a weapon hit a target in the same room is obvious and it's a good thing this has been rectified. Same goes for grenades, i guess. Flak 37??? to my information, there were only ever 14 (+6 prototypes) of the Flak 37 (which was a combination of putting an 8.8cm Flak 18/36 onto a 18t prime mover chassis) ever, since the original production order of 112 was cancelled in 1943. Why are such exotic units represented in CM? 8) I am confused - could it be that Fionn didn't have this features in his test material versions of the game but that in the release version this will be implemented? I mean, I am not a big fan of squishing people to death, but I think it's good to be included because it is realistic. When BTS wrote "Soldiers, friend or foe, will also try to get out of the path of a vehicle too." does that mean that you could drive over your own guys by accident causing friendly casualties? 9) yep, the pache taking Iraqi POWs happened several times in fact. But I am not sure what a lonely 1944 SS tank will do when an enemy squad surrenders to them - they will have no way to handle these prisoners..I mean this is what the potentially surrendering enemy soldiers must think which will discourage them from surrendering to such a tank? Good to see that units surrender even at long ranges if their situation is such that it warrants this. I like it. 10) Fionn, I agree that iin your case it was effective. But I was using the "MG vs HT" as an example for the problem I was describing. Maybe I once again expressed myself poorly. The adjusting of the AI's likeliness of opening fire will probably largely account for the problem. But even in the HIDE mode in the AAR the Tactical AI repeatedly chose to fire if he smelled a good chance of a hit. Now I can imagine (I guess you too) that there are situations where you want a team to absolutely stay quiet and hidden and not to fire at a passing enemy even if they do represent a good target at that moment. How can I make them really hide? are there different levels of "Hide"? 11) I accept that the digging of foxholes is outside the time scope of CM, but just barely. Am happy to see that the obstacle features will be represented in the game. How is the overcoming of barbed wire by infantry represented in the game? do they use wire cutters, fascines, bangalores or are they merely slowed down in a general way? 12) Fionn, believe me, I am quite sure and would err a lot if that crewmember did not have a .45 Thompson SMG in a screenshot of Martin's AAR. I will search for that report in question and post the screenshot here if I ever find out how this BBS works (does it take html?) As to BTS' argument that calculating for weapons would be too much effort for too little gain in the game then I think in all rerspect I disagree but I think the keyword here is the *scale/scope* of the game. More on this down at number 16). BTS wrote "Crews were not supposed to engage in fighting as standard infantry unless there was no other option." That's true but I never said anything to the contrary..I am not planning as an SOP on my Königstiger crews to abandon their tanks and follow my other infantry afoot as ad-hoc riflemen btw there is this story of this one tank commander, Major Bäke, who got three Panzervernichtungsabzeichen for single-handedly taking out three russian tanks while afoot on the russian front...since this decoration is only awarded to soldier's destroying tanks in close combat he must have scored them when he was afoot, maybe after his tank was destroyed? Anybody know anything about this? 13) I agree Fionn this is an inherent flaw in all wargames to date, but a flaw nevertheless. I agree that it can be answered to an extent by the senario design. And, BTS, yes I do have some ideas on that subject but this isn't the place to elaborate them. I am terribly short on time these days, too. But I will happily share in a discussion with you (whose intelligence I don't question) in the future. 14) I welcome the fact that this feature is implemented. But you haven't really answered on my question regarding the option of letting a unit surrender intentionally by order. 15) hehe Fionn I sympathize with you over these acts of god that took away your pride and joy I know I would have been furious !! Will CM account for target selection by a plane for wether or not my vehicles are in the open or in a forest? Is it more likely to attack a less lucrative target in the open or a more lucrative target in the woods? Is it possibly that it doesn't see the unit in the woods? I disagree with BTS's view on the front units vs. aircraft matter - in all honor. Usually all field units were encouraged to shoot at Tiefflieger and Jabos. actually, there was a specific award that was similar in design to the Panzervernichtungsabzeichen only that it had a little aircraft icon instead of a tank, the Fliegervernichtungsabzeichen, that was awarded for downing enemy aircraft with a weapon of below 20mm caliber. Of course most of these went to machine-gunners, and don't ask me how they dfecided who of the 100 ppl shooting really downed the plane (as the germans *never* awarded half kills), but the fact is it was intentionally introduced to encourage infantry to shoot at the planes. I do concede though that if they *are* low on ammo or directly engaged in vicious close combat that they wouldn't care for the plane above. But at the time the Jabo appeared over the battlefield in the AAR most units would have had the ammo and leisure to face the aircraft. That you accounted for the HT's and tank's AA MGs is a good compromise, though. 16) I should have known that this issue had been raised before, and I guess you are pretty weary of talking about it. But that only reflects that it really is the single most unsatisfying / or perceived as such problem in the game. I want to spare you having to do that discussion again to "convert" me. But let me add what I think is the keypoint here. I think it's the scale/scope of the game. If - as you said - you couldn't represent every single soldier because you want to do 3000 - men battles, then I see what you mean. Indeed for such a big battle representing every single soldier might be a hardware problem. But I see this approach conflicting a little bit with CM's accuracy and detail in other aspects. Like, Fionn elsewhere (discussion with OSCAR in the thread "new CM article") stressed the fact that you could tell a tank down to the inch where you want it to go, and you place it exactly where you want it to face etc. I am not sure if that kind of micromanagement (hey I am not criticising it! I am all for micromanagement! dont get me wrong!) fits a 3,000 battle? But I agree *if* you plan to let the game represent such a scope then showing a three-man icon instead of actual soldiers is acceptable. I still maintain it wouldn't if the game was more at a lower level of scale. I think we can agree upon that whilst it isn't possible now it is unquestionble a desirable and most important improvement to games such as CM in the near or far future to have single sodliers represented. 16a) But what I still don't understand when BTS writes "In any event, the graphical representation of a squad has NOTHING to do with the game mechanics one bit." and Fionn says "Also, remember that the 3 men per squad is a visual representation. The engine is dealing with the 12 men in detail and accurately." Does this mean that the 12 soldiers are really there like I would want them to be visible but just arent displayed? I mean, they are there, standing/lying whatever and are waiting to collide with a bullet? This would be acceptable. So it is not that only the three men visible are *there* but if they are hit they account for several men. 16b) Let me also add onto something which I din't want to comment on earlier since I thought the game was still in progress and I didnt want to give anything away. It has to do with Fionn's great idea how to make use of the abstraction we are talking about here. quote from turn 23: "final Panzergrenadier platoon, which is largely intact, will be split into half-squads so as to appear to be two platoons to Martin’s watching force"; this is *very* clever, but to me it is an extremely "gamey" thing to do since it takes advantage of a "bug" / design feature (i.e., the decision to not have people shown but icons representing squads) in the game. I guess I don't have to elaborate on why this trick wouldn't have worked if each soldier was shown instead of units. 18) hmm ok so another thing to write on the to-do list for CM 2015. 19) great to see this feature implemented. conclusio: many good answers which satisfy me as a thirsty wargamer. I am very much looking forward to the game. And I would like to thank you (both BTS and Fionn) again for taking the time and devotion to answer to my post. thanks a lot and keep up the good work, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer

I have just recently discovered CM for myself and must say that I find it *very very* interesting to say the least and am very very much looking forward to this game... Many questions have been answered by the AAR up to #35 (like, if it's possible to order crewmembers to unbutton/button up; or, abandoning heavy weapons for fleeing squads). Still some questions remain and I want to comment on some thoughts I had on the game. I would be cvery grateful for any input (if any of this has been raised before I am sorry but I couldnt sort through the board yet). #1) there are mistakes in the abbreviation for german ranks: turn 4: Obergefreiter Jens; Obergefreiter should be abbreviated "OGefr" not "Obg"; likewise (turn 15), the abbreviation for Unteroffizier is "Uffz" not "Unt". If you need any help with german ranks I am happy to assist. #2) I have seen that SdKfz 251 troops are sitting in the middle of the vehicle facing forward, but in reality they were sitting on the sides facing inward. A much bigger problem (a MAJOR problem IMO) is that mounted infantry in halftracks is *much too easy to spot*. In reality they were fully covered by the side walls and you couldnt tell if the Halftrack carried passengers or not unless you looked down into it from top... #3)in allied turn 12 -I guess I can say that since it doesn't give anything away- there's a screenshot of a Panzerfaust warhead in flight leaving a trail of smoke. This is incorrect. The whole propellant is burnt in explosion-like fashion (like a recoilless rifle) and the warhead has a clear (=no smoke trail) flight path. Also, the flight path of a Panzerfaust warhead is very ballistic (high arc) which it doesn't seem to have (but I might be wrong here) in the screenshot. #4) it's just an eyecandy thing (but it definitely adds to the atmosphere of the game): will there be winter camo for tanks and infantry? #5) will the effects of spaced armor (Schürzen(skirts) on german tanks and sandbagging on some american tanks) be included against hollow-charge weapons? (i.e., Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, Bazooka, hollow-charge tank rounds) #6) how effective are bazooka/Panzerschreck projectiles vs infantry?? #7) in turn 14 we see a Panzerschreck shooting from inside a room and you say that this'll be fixed in the game. If after the correction they are unable to shoot from inside houses (there might be a way to do so with big rooms and opposite open windows etc.) is there a way to at least shoot down from the top of houses? #8) I was just wondering...can vehicles (wheeled&tracked tanks, halftracks) drive over (=destroy by vehicular manslaughter) enemy troops? Fionn used his Pz IV with impunity against the american position right among them near the bridge, earlier we had the Panther and the Puma chase breaking american infantry - in both cases the tank could have simply overrun the soldiers. #9) can units surrender at long range? can they surrender to tanks alone (i.e., no accepting infantry to take them prisoner nearby)? #10) I have witnessed the tactical AI deciding to open fire at at inopportune distances/chances, like, several times .30cal machine guns opened fire at long range against german SdKfz251 halftracks. Is there a way to "threshold" the opening of fire to a certain degree of probability of succcess? Like, in this instance, I wouldnt want the machine guners to give their position away for the practically nil chance of damaging the SdKfz. #11) if shell craters as applied non-3d textures offer preotection "much like a foxhole" (quote from turn 16), it should be possible to have infantry dig foxholes, right? is this feature implemented? are there trenches and foxholes? what about barbed wire? minefields? #12) I have noticed that sherman crewmembers were referred to as "armed with their pistols only" yet later one is shown with a Thompson...also the captured american machine gun team from early in the game is unarmed after being freed...hence this evokes in me the question if it is possible to scavenge other/dead teams' weapons? only from own teams or also from enemy teams? I guess after the house fighting and the many german losses of the initial american taking of the town it should be filled with MP-40s, MP-44s, Mausers etc. It would be rather unrealistic if the machine gun team just stood there unarmed and didnt take any of the many weapons lying around for self-defense. #13) I find it unsatisfying that reinforcements arive in the middle of the map in plain view of enemy troops or pop up unexpectedly (examples: the american forces entering the town amidst the germans or later the relief shermans entering in plain view of the StuG) in the open where in reality they would have been seen approaching from far off. Aren't there ways to circumvent these classic problems associated with a wargame's map-universe? (like, creating an AI-controlled, non-enterable but crossfiring environment as a context in which the map is placed). This would also prevent those inherent flaws of wargames that a unit travelling at the border of the map is protected by the map border and only has to face inward threats from inside the map while in reality it would of course also be subject to fire from the other side (oputside the map) #14) in turn 19 the mortar team retreats rather slowly. is this because they have to carry the heavy equipment (mortar)? if so, is it possible for such units (mortars, machine guns, bazookas) to abandon the heavy stuff and run faster? Also, I think, panicked units that rout away in sheer fear of their lives should not worry about their machine gun being taken along (as the routing US MG team did in turn21), they should simply run for all that their life's are worth - literally - and not think about US official issue equipment. It is mentioned that the last survivor if unable to handle the heavy equipment can leave it behind - I think this option should be possible even earlier. Also, is there a "Paulus"-feature to surrender troops that are facing unbeatable odds (to let them survive by surrendering instead of letting them die) #15) when the fighter bomber appeared on the battlefield, I didn't notice any AA fire reported. Is there no way the soldiers on the ground are shooting at it? This is not to be neglected. If I was an allied fighter-bomber pilot I surely wouldn't want to run down into a dozen MG42s... #16) all in all, the single biggest complain / unsatisfaction with the game that I have is the pars pro toto approach to showing three men for a squad. this is totally unrealistic. Instead of showing squads, the game should show individual soldiers that are visible. It is then up to the enemy to decide for himself if these belong together on one suad or if the three soldiers he actually sees belong to three different squads. CM has this fantastic feature of calculating and accurately representing each flying bullet in true 3D - but how much is this worth when when dealing with infantry they are abstracted into a three-man area on the ground? I mean, it is GREAT to see CM's protrayal of fire against vehicles, like, when it just passes behind the rear or something. Why isn't this possible for individual soldiers and their small-arms weapon's fire? This abstraction of showing three soldiers to represent a suqad of a dozen or more is a major black eye IMO for CM. Maybe you will now say that this had to be done to keep CM's specifications low; yet they can IMHO be raised without danger of having too high specs thereby scaring off a major portion of the potential buyers; currently specs are at a Pentium 200 without 3D I think. Even I, who am constantly on the blunt back (as opposed to the cutting edge) of new hardware by now have a diamond viper 3d 4MB card - ever since a year or so you just don't get any lower, non-3D stuff when buying a computer. It's also unrealistic in when a team routs completely, in reality I don't think they will rout together as a team. More likely, they will rout individually. In a ten-man squad, some man with weak nerves will panic really fast and run away while the rest is still pinned and shaken but holding tight in place. One after another will break. Also, if a unit suffers a major HE hit and the remnants are running around like crazy, chances each soldier from that team will be running into every direction of the wind rose, not together as a team in one direction ("Allright, everybody get ready to move out we are going to ROUT! Follow me, men!"). #17) IMO the Nebelwerfer has been portrayed realistically. They are blast weapons much like FAEs that rely on the quick pressure change (in german "Gasschlagwirkung") from displacing the air from the especially fast-reacting explosive's expansion and the consecutive rushing of air back into the created vacuum to kill unprotected soldiers by literally tearing apart their lungs (sorry for the graphic explanation). They are best used against unprotected troops in the open. Fionn was a little disappointed that they failed to set the buildings afire. Actually, there was an ammunition variant in the Nebelwerfer that was used to spray flaming liquid over the target area (32cm-WK.Fl.; it contained 50liters flaming liquid that was dispersed by a small detonation charge and saturated an area of 200m^2). I seem to remember that one source stated that on the SdKfz modified to carry 6 Nebelwerfer rockets, the standard loadout was 5 of the six rockets were HE and the last one the "Napalm" variant. Personally I find this not too credible. A different, more credible source states that the SOP was to let several salvos of the regualar HE 28cm-WK. be followed by a salvo of the flame variant. Roughly a sixth to a seventh of the produced Nebelwerfer 41 ammunition was of the flaming variant. I am not saying these have to be included in the game, just thought it might be an interesting tidbit since Fionn was so disappointed by the barrage not setting anything afire ;o) #18) could it be possible to include tracks/paths made by units (foot or vehicle) in the snow? I think it would be great if you came across the paths of an enemy unit and would know that they were somewhere in the vicinity. Generic disturbance in the snow would already be interesting enough. #19) is there a cease-fire option? that's it, I'll better stop here. Please, keep in mind that I don't mean to unduly criticize the game. It looks very revolutionary, very realistic and very enjoyable. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer