Renaud

Interestingly, the 1st site noted by JonS indicates there were over twice as many 155mm battalions (guns, howitzers and sp) as 105 battalions (howitzers and sp). So feel free to use those 155 batteries whenever possible! Renaud

This man's vehicles are truly amazing. How does he find the time...and money. A 1/6th Tiger IE machined entirely from aluminum with DC motors, etc....insane. He must be financially independent with lots of spare time to boot.

It would be nice if vehicles were LOS obstacles for direct fire weapons. This might discourage the practice of tank mobs operating tread-to-tread. Of course it might result in a severe handicap for the AI which tends to cluster tanks together in tank-blobs. I also wish vehicles could not meld into one another...that their 3d forms were more material rather than incorporeal. Hurts the immersion factor when you see a bunch of vehicles melded together into an unrecognizable blob. Ever notice how long tank guns never bang into walls, other tanks, trees? Really a tank with a long gun (88, 75LL, 76) would not be able to swivel right through an adjacent building or heavy woods. I guess this would drive the AI crazy though. Ren

Great replies, amazing detailed in some cases (like JasonC's essay, thanks JasonC). I think we all realize from the get-go that CM's troop quality rating system is extremely simplistic and it's rather difficult to make it jive with reality. I think the new 'fitness' rating is going to help out there a lot. I think there need to be 5 measurements before you can begin to approximate reality: 'Esprit de Corp' (unit cohesion and comraderie), 'Morale', 'Fitness', 'Training', and 'Experience'. Naturally these would affect the various aspects of CM troop behavior differently and some ratings would overlap shared performance characteristics. IIRC, I posted this suggestion a few years ago and Steve said it would be lovely to do but pooh-poohed it due to time/complexity constraints on game development (full game wasn't out yet). I do heartily agree that the equivalent of CM-Green rating was the mainstay in historical reality. 800 point or below infantry fights with conscript-green-regular are the most realistic and fun games I think. Takes you back to the good old Squad Leader days. JasonC: I think 21st did have an extensive cadre of officers and senior NCO's that got out of Tunisia in time (minus all heavy equipment of course). This cadre was used to rebuild the 21st in France. Read that in Von Mellenthin's Memoirs and one other general history by a british author. Renaud

Hmmm...this is something i'd like to know as well, why not allow a greater spread of experience levels in quick battles? I only play against the computer (one of these days i'll have to do a tcp/ip battle), so this is of great interest to me. This wasn't the original intent of the topic, which was just to get everyone's ideas of what the troop proportions were historically june 1944, but it's a worthy question. Incidentally, no one has posted any percentages, alas. Guess no one cares about my dumb old topic. *sniff* Maybe i'm just a used up old cm-player with nothing useful to say. Next thing you know i'll be posting to a Peng thread or using more of these face-thingies, God forbid. Renaud

Thanks Michael...somehow I figured you would bite on this one...however will you grace us with your proportions? I believe that is the data we are all waiting at our monitors for. Feel free to give seperate proportions for Commonwealth and Americans. We know you can't resist... Looking forward to it!

Hi all, I was musing a few days ago about what the historical proportions of troop quality as defined in CM might have been, circa June 44. Here's my shot at it: German~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conscript: 20% Green: 25% Regular: 30% Veteran: 20% Crack: 4% Elite: lte 1% Allied~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conscript: lte 1% Green: 30% Regular: 60% Veteran: 10% Crack: lte 1% Elite: lte 1% I figure conscript indicates a few days of field training in a front-line replacement depot at most, which became commonplace for the Germans as things got more desperate. I don't know of anything equivalent to this in Allied armies, though there must have been the odd Free French volunteer, former partisans integrated into regular units, etc. Over time proportions would have changed. I imagine the germans would get more conscripts and greens and less regulars as the months passed, amounting to 2/3 of their total force by war's end (?!). Perhaps the proportion of veterans and above would remain constant. The Allied armies would have a static % of veterans. Maybe this could be due to the practice of rotating wounded vets home and replacing them with combed REMFs and green replacements from the home front. Fun to think about but not particularly useful except maybe if you are making some kind of campaign game, or you want to avoid the kamakaze super-troop syndrome in your games generally. Does anyone else have their proportions with associated justifications/rationalizations? Renaud

My biggest problem with troop quality, specifically morale, in CM is that even a 'regular' force can suffer catastrophic casualties, including loss of most leaders, and still continue the attack, often straight into withering fire. This is clearly more of a problem with larger battles where the AI admittedly breaks down. It gets really ludicrous with batallion and above sized infantry units. I've hit a batallion with a suprise mortar concentration leaving a hill covered with over 200 casualties (mostly command(!) and support units, but even a few whole squads evaporated), yet the batallion continues forward. I don't think any regular formation in WWII could take 30% casualties in 90 seconds of brutal mortaring and continue the attack 10 minutes later. Perhaps this could be alleviated by having seperately tracked global morale values for each major sub-unit (like each company) rather than only one global morale value. Also CM AI can't be faulted for falling down at the larger troop numbers where things get silly (hundreds of troops clumped together in mobs during attacks). But hey maybe this will be appropriate to early war CMBB before the Russians learned less wasteful small-unit infantry tactics. Ren

Thanks for the weapon info. I didn't know they still made them. It would be nice to have a M1 made during or around WWII for the historical value, but I could live with a new Springfield if it saves me a lot of $$$. Ren

Here's an idea that I think would add to the you-are-there historical feeling and remove the cookie-cutter aspect of current squads, relieving the endless TOE arguments. Why not have weapons for each squad you buy randomized based on some algorithm related to the type and/or date? So you might have one US rifle squad with 2 bars, 3 smg's, 7 garands, another with 10 rifles, 1 bar, 1 pistol. Same for Axis squads, again with random tables based on squad type. Maybe 1 german squad would have no MG, 2 scavenged MP44 and 7 rifles while the next would have a MG, 1 smg and 7 rifles. Come to think of it randomizing the starting number of men in squads, somewhat below or up to TOE (or even 1 or 2 above??), would highten the realism too. You would feel like you were in command of units that had already been through the reality-wringer, instead of miniature sets pumped out of a factory. I know a lot of stuff in CM is hardcoded into the game engine making alterations difficult so this might not be possible. However I do note that stuff like satchel charges and panzerfausts are random by squad type. Here's another pet idea: Give crews TOE-type weapon loadout but have them taken over by the computer once bailed with an algorithm directing them to seek exit from friendly map side. Also, to the weapon owners out there: How hard is it to obtain a M1 Garand? I would really like to own one of these. I got to play with one a few weeks ago and it was fantastic. Ren

A tactic I use in AT ambushes is to use some light artillery (typically mortars) to cause all the intended targets to button up a minute or so before you spring the AT ambush. This makes a huge difference in how long your AT guns last. It's practically a requirement for me now. Of course infantry eyes are a problem so I try never to open up when I know a horde of infantry can see the AT gun. Ren

iirc the tigerI was originally designed in the 1930's, definitely pre-war. Thus the blocky construction. Ren

A ford could also be a road (dirt or paved)or bridge which is flooded. Typical low-water crossing in rainy season. Would be slow with risk of bogging, but most vehicles should be able to attempt it. IIRC the tiger was unique among german tanks in that it had built-in deep-wading capabilities. Maybe a 2nd type of ford could be added to future cm's, 'vehicle-crossable'.

Suggestions for future map/scenario design capabilities...this is probably a big coding change: 1) Make map files independent of scenario and operation files. This way we could swap maps between scenarios and operations. 2) Allow loading of the custom map files for quick battles. This would allow for some easy testing of maps as well as more interesting quick battles whether vs AI or vs human. Ren

Actually I think it's listed in the in-game weapon data screen. For instance, a 25lbr mounted on a sexton is 88mm, same for churchhill 25lbr. Ren

I created this great map then realized I want to use it in an operation. I sure hope I can...cause it took days and recreating it by hand for an Op will be a pain. Renaud

I think this was not unheard of. They are kind of big and lunky...if I were under fire I might be tempted to use them for the extra explosive firepower and just to get rid of them if no tanks were spotted. Maybe it's related to the infantry experience level. Renaud

Has anyone else noticed that the as-shipped 'All or Nothing' scenario by Kwazydog has some probs? The AI can't really play the Allies at all but the scenario doesn't mention that a human should really play the allies. To kwazydog if you read this: It can really be a great scenario with some minor updates and the map is awesome as-is (allied AI can't handle it tho). ***ALLIED SPOILER BELOW*** One other problem: German briefing mentions that a tractor which can relocate the 88mm is on the way...but 88 flak can't be mounted to a vehicle during battle. This leads me to believe that when you were beta-testing and making the scenario, at one time you COULD relocate 88 flak. I actually tried to hitch it up before I remembered it was impossible...hehe. Ren

One anomoly I have noticed with both my old V3-3000 and my V5-5500 is that the texture buffer will eventually get filled up (memory leaks), leading to rapid and progressive white-out of textures until the whole screen goes white as texture memory is completely expended. Restarting the game will fix, but a reboot is necessary to completely clear the memory. Note that this only happens with huge battles, complex maps, etc. The V5500 will only show it after hours of play on a complex map using all hi-res mod textures. As far as I strain, I dunno. Mine seems fine. IMHO the only reason to buy a V-5500 is the anti-aliasing ability which dramatically improves the graphic quality in CM. For g.p. gaming i'll soon be switching to nvidia gforce or NV10 if that comes out. Ren

Did the panzers manuever or just sit there? Is it as easy to hit fast moving tanks with mortars? If the tanks rushed the mortars or moved up under covered routes could they prevail? Ren

Any CM fans headed to the CPL gaming convention/tournament this month in Dallas TX? (www.thecpl.com) There are going to be like 600 computers in the open gaming area. I'd be interested in playing some TCP/IP battles with a fellow CM'er as i've never played anything but AI games. I'll be attending with the 18-man CK3 contingent competing in the Counter-Strike tournament, but some CM during the off-hours would be a godsend. Naturally i'll also be pimping for Battlefront and CM on the side. }) Ren

Note that V5 FSAA seen in screenshots is not particularly amazing. To tell whether you really like it, you have to see animation, like roaming around a map and using the hotkey to switch between FSAA and non-FSAA. All the little jaggies and sparkling thingies that appear during movement go away with FSAA, etc etc. Has anyone tried V5-5500 with windows millenium yet? Work ok? thx -Ren

Note that V5 FSAA seen in screenshots is not particularly amazing. To tell whether you really like it, you have to see animation, like roaming around a map and using the hotkey to switch between FSAA and non-FSAA. All the little jaggies and sparkling thingies that appear during movement go away with FSAA, etc etc. Has anyone tried V5-5500 with windows millenium yet? Work ok? thx -Ren

Here's my theory on the similarity of gun measurement/designation between combatant nations in wwII: I think WWII weaponry of both sides tended to have similiar calibers due to all nations having purchased weapons from the same major European arms manufacturers in the decades before the war. For instance, the French 75 was a very famous weapon in WWI, similar to the fame of the german 88 in WWII. So, many nations bought it and built various weapons systems around it or used it as a starting point for new guns without every changing the caliber or millimeter designation. Also, I would guess it is probably easier for machine tools to be modified to produce ammunition for different weapons sytems as long as the shell diameter tooled remains unchanged. Interestingly, the tendency for different weapon systems with the same designations but incompatable ammo was ordered changed by Stalin in 41 shortly before Barbarossa. It was discovered that having multiple types of 120mm weapons created delivery problems. The 7.62 pistol was phased out of service for this reason...untrained supply personnel would send truckloads of 7.62mm pistol ammo instead of the needed 7.62 rifle ammo. In one fabled story Stalin was present for a early 1941 (pre-barbarossa) demonstration firing of the new 130mm rockets. The test could not commence because some poor bastard had delivered 130mm howitzer shells instead of rockets. Rather than execute everyone involved, which was what Stalin's inner cicle expected, Stalin ordered that henceforth all new weapons would have a slightly different calibur from their precursors. Thus, the BM-13 rocket ammo was always referred to as '132' ammo, only later was it actually increased in diameter to 132mm during post-war modernization. This may be why the Soviet's had 152mm rather than 150mm and 122mm rather than 120mm ammo. It prevented gun ammo from being sent to mortar units and vica versa, and probably prevented captured ammo from being mistakenly used. (german 150mm vs Russian 152, etc) Source for the above is from the chapter 'Why do Calibres Vary' in 'Inside the Soviet Army', by Viktor Suvorov. (Pseudonym for the author, a Soviet Officer who defected during the cold war). This may be a fable, albeit a plausible one, as there are other good explanations put forth (imperial to metric conversions, etc). Ren

Read all 2500+ posts and you still won't know what's going. To whit, there is nothing going on. I'm ashamed to admit this is my first truly and pointedly useless post. Next thing you know i'll be all over the Peng cesspool. -Ren