Sublime

and they had m24s there right? IIRC? so a stuart is out of the question right? i mean its smaller but the M24 is technically a replacement for the stuart. sorta.. I said M10 because even though its open topped size and weight wise its like a chaffee. I think you should probably go with a sherman then. Just for performance. Its just my opinion but a panther seems too much. Then again since there will not be tank on tank action maybe your right a panther would be more appropriate. but like you said, it doesnt have the flexible mount .50 and since that did figure prominently.. And the M36 did have an open top. however the French AAR does say 'converted to a medium tank' did this mean they welded some armor over the open top?

Pak, I understand WW2 arty or even modern day would get 100% accuracy 100% of the time. did you even read my previous posts? the issue is for them calling for FFE when the rounds are coming in drastically off target. And again, if you read the posts, you'll note this was being discussed about a TRP target. This should not be happening with a TRP. And Im not saying they.re 10, 20 meters off. I mean like 200 meters off.

good idea womble. also i do have saves (since its a pbem) of not only the artillery, but also the mg squad member wandering off and firing the ghost machine gun.

well thats a bind. If the pack is made into different scenarios the one for Eliane could use a sherman and the others could use a panther? I think you should stick to the sherman. more similarities than a panther IMO. you.re not considering using say an M10 then?

its just piats. the OP raises a good point. the balconies should be fireable from. some of them are obviously large outside porch balcony things. but the game probably thinks of them as another level of a structure and i'd rather see.. flame or overhead cover or fixes than adding this small detail. though it.d be nice.

and its all interesting. but theres no evidence whatsoever they were ever used in the South. and it'd make no sense that the Russians would risk their troop's capture by sending them in with dragunovs. So I still dont think there were Russians in a combat role or otherwise in the RVN. the DRV? definitely. theres proof.

eh Im almost certain its a bug. It was documented in a patch before. Also, I can specifically think of at least two incidents involving TRPs with an FO not under fire nor even visible by the enemy, nor moving at all.

the toilet bowl. Roy says they called it the 'chamberpot' same thing though =P btw LLF I got those books today so Im reading into it. Your notes really help, and the AAR is pure gold. Thanks again man

No, its not consistent. It only happens once in awhile. Its a documented bug that was supposedly fixed, and it's not. Speaking of armor on tanks, Id do it in CMSF. Never really would try in CMx2 BN or CW or FI, because WW2 arty usually isnt that accurate. However my opponent just shelled the hell out of a tiger of mine with 25 lbers and it didnt KO it, but its had an effect. thats for sure.

the target arc is set from the waypoint. if you select from a waypoint I know what you mean, the line originates from whereever the unit is. However its deceptive, because it's still the actual LOS from the waypoint. if you select a waypoint you wont be able to target stuff from where the squads standing (unless it can still see it) and vice versa (again unless it's not moving around something or getting blocked somehow)

no definitely not emergency. if it was that Id assume they fu*ked up in the rush to get the fire out... It was supposedly fixed but its not. Also just like the crew member detaching himself from an ATG. that is definitely not fixed either. I believe the term used in patch notes was 'migrating'. in fact, it seems worse, because I only saw ATG teams do it until this PBEM, where I saw a MG 42 squad detach itself. weird to see the MG in a trench with the gunner 40 meters to its left squatting firing an invisible mg. also to clarify, no - the bridge thing did not affect the accuracy or fire at all. It was just a huge pain in the ass to hop bridge sides manually (no ctrl + click either)

Well the good news is that a significant amount of the German equipment for the summer of 44 is there. And now 43 too! In addition, the Soviet Shermans probably could be tweaked from the American or Brit ones... The thing is though people may think Bagration may not be the best start to CMx2 Ost Front, I disagree. I think it's as good as starting point as any, and though of course the campaigns and historical scenarios will be based around Bagration, that doesnt mean user created scenarios or QBs couldnt be made to represent almost anything in that region at that time. Personally Im REAALLY looking forward to Jan-May 45 Ost Front, and 1941. The rest is fantastic too of course but...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c9_1318623763&comments=1 note this is part 4/4. however if you search on this page under the title you'll find the rest. very interesting, not a lot of action but still being there and hearing what the men say. also amazing to hear of direct refusal of orders with no excuses or attempts at hiding identity. Vietnam really fu*ked up the army..

also another interesting note from the same map. the bridges on the map affect the ability to click and select units and targetting. It seems the game 'sees' the bridge as much taller than it is or simply as a block in LOS and you cant target across the bridge (maybe it's only this map..?) or select units. This became noticeable as I defended a series of bridges in this map. I literally have to select the unit and manually move the view to the other side to target something. If I want to select a unit, it's either + or - or moving the view manually to the other side of the bridge. If this was a confusing explanation Ill try to help explaining.

Good point. But what do you do for targets that are in LOS of the whole mortar team? This is very relevant in FI with it's more open spaces.. I often get away with it as well, but I've also had mortar crews take fire quite a bit. True I dont know if the 'tubing' was the reason, or if it was small arms fire, but I DO know that the crew opening up with its carbines or K98s wasnt much of a help and definitely contributed to them being spotted.. Even if target light only used rifles and regular target used mortar only. As it is now I think target light does what with mortars? fires less rounds than normal, as in a lower RoF?

Yes I know this has been reported. It was supposedly even fixed. But it definitely has NOT been fixed. In recent PBEMs Ive had indirect artillery strikes occasionally come in wildly off target, as before. Im not talking about spotting rounds, this is FFE on nothing, and the targets are either visible to the FO or near a TRP. The FO has no been under fire in any of these circumstances. In addition, in a PBEM turn I just played, I noticed my opponent shelling an empty field. I couldnt help myself (though it was nice to see him wasting 81mm) and asked him what he was shooting at. And found out that it wasnt intentional or recon by fire. BFC please fix or somefink.

LLF- Thanks for the maps. Im writing a paper on DBP for my War in Vietnam class, and the map showing the French hilled positions really helps put things in perspective.. edit: also - sorry JonS. I actually thought you were serious about the lunar thing..

Regardless it's a valid point. Mortar crews should not be doing that unless at very close range IMO, same with ATG crews.

Jon, you should reconsider your flamewar against JK. You two seem to have a lot in common. Imagine: you guys could email eachother conspiracy theories and save your WW2 knowledge for here!

The 50 cal mount on the back will not fire in my experience. No matter what I do. I reversed the damn thing all over the map, crew 'mounts' the 50 cal, as in it shows the gun, and the crew member is listed as a 'gunner' but they WILL not fire.. Anyone else?

Which is true of course. I still wish they could do something like this. You.d still have QBs and regular scenarios for people. And the campaign like you said could have an auto resolve or sum-such. That way if you wanted to, you could fight it out. Even then I foresee problems, just like in the Total War series I could ususally take platoon x out against an overwhelming force and pwn them which would never have happened against a human opponent. Then you have the added complexity of programming the AI for operational level =/ Still it's nice to dream. Especially if they added the function for H2H play =D

gah. jesus this is what I mean. Kettler cant you see why people post flames on you all the time when you.re posting stuff insisting theres a massive NASA coverup? ETs? Really? Cmon this is a DBP thread anyway

gotta admit that.d make it fantastic.. just like with the Bulge. I have to admit Im not too excited about the setting of the Bulge game. Ill take it of course but I wanna see the Ost Front, however if you get operational control, so platoon x holding against all odds affects the German advance.. well the Bulge gets way more interesting suddenly.

Id be inclined to agree. The same reason soldiers were heavily discouraged to take AKs in Vietnam, the distinctive noise would draw fire and get you killed. Plus the only weapon I heard commonly used by Allies that was German was Panzerfausts. And even then I wouldnt go so far to say it was necesarilly common. But I have heard a lot instances of US troops using them, not just one or two. Otherwise, I have heard of widespread use of captured equipment on the Ost Front... edit: Id also like to add it'd be nice to fortify buildings somehow. and for foxholes, etc overhead cover and stuff would be a welcome addition of course..

Also speaking of the AA weapons. I really feel they're needed in the games, there was a lot of 20mm German weapons that we're not seeing that were commonly used. Even more so, in several recent PBEMs Ive had aircraft used against me. My first issue is I think the air support is way to accurate as it is. The 'bullet stream' is very tight and not very spread out or long. I dont think even modern aircraft could do so well. But whatever, I can accept it, and I welcome the addition of aircraft to the game if nothing else for variety. But cant we get it like how CMx1 was, I dont care about seeing the plane, or effects of AAA but as it is now if you get airplanes used against you, you're simply a helpless bystander watching them circle round and round mangling your troops. Which is fine if you have no AAA, but what about when you have assets that would normally be AAA? I think if nothing else the weapons should be able to shoot up in the air at the invisible plane and get a % chance of driving off the attack..