Sublime

In a way I liked playing as the Canadians - I agree I feel theyre the weakest of the blue units - something about their squad makeup and firepower reminds me of old school US infantry - like circa 70's - 80's. Still - gotta love the US - ESPECIALLY the Marines. IMHO the Marines have the most powerful infantry squads in the game. Gotta love that grenade launcher.. Too bad we cant mix CMA and CMSF units - Id love to take Soviet Infantry up against say Canadian troops. The German campaign I had a blast with - and this was pre-faust times. That PZ2000 artillery support is devastating. Honestly cant say enough about that for the German campaign - the artillery one several battles almost on its own for me. Still - I ran into a lot of trouble later in the campaign precisely because I overused my support assets. Initially with CMSF and CMBN I was the master of preplanned arty - with spectacular results often. This only led to tough times often later in campaigns, and in playing CMSF Ive backed off from this approach as well, as its more realistic to not do preplanned arty in modern times..

Personally I could care less about the points. When I play I like to try to play realistically. I dont try to advance on map edges just because they're map edges. I dont use AFV crews as scouts or cannon fodder. etc. It also applies to my men. Admittedly its easier to start caring for PTruppen in a campaign, but even in one off battles I make an effort to give aid to the wounded. What i would like to see is this work both ways. Maybe not buddy aid for enemy troops, but scavenging of weapons, just for that battle. For example troops picking up german Pzfausts. This would be a great help in many situations, and doesnt seem that far fetched...

Im not sure where he went. Ive encountered this before and seen the errant guy. I couldnt find him however.. I think he was around or something and when I let the truck completely empty (driver too) he eventually found his way back. Suddenly I had control, the squad was mounted up. Ill check for sure, but roughly 7-10 minutes. Again I think the issue is that I miscalculated how many spots were on the truck. I ordered a few half squads etc to mount up. Some got there first however and I think that the game let me order them in b/c there was room, but when they mounted (along with other troops at the same time) the truck filled, and the game didnt know what to do..

Update - several turns later the squad finished 'mounting up' and I regained control. I think the game may have gotten confused by me ordering a few teams to board the truck, and it filled ot capacity before the whole squad boarded, screwing it up. i disembarked everyone and it straightened itself out.

Still, PIATs are very good because they can be fired indoors, and dont leave a backblast, give a noise, or any of that. Im DYING to play as the Red Devils in Arnhem..

I meant to add a ? mark after the BFC in my post. Pm sent.

Except that this squad is virgin as far as taking fire so far. its odd because I dont even think they ran outta room on the truck. tho perhaps since I was trying to load most of a depleted platoon that they ran out of room by squads ordered to go on while they were boarding. e.g. squad a is boarding while I order the HQ and B to board. some reason squad A believes truck is full now? BFC

Im not sure about HMGs. I wouldnt be surprised. Those AIUI they DO work with ATGs. And indirectly called on board mortars. However I wish that onboard mortars could 'target' TRPs almost like DF..

Ok so I've encountered something similiar to this.. Ive had squads get 'split up' (not by my order) where a member seems to go missing or lags far behind. the Squads icon floats above nothing on the ground, not where the squad is. This however similiar, is different and much more annoying. Winkelreid has made a breakthrough in my pbem of carbide carbide, in my effort of damage control I loaded up a truck with troops to rush to the area. everything seems fine, until one part of a split squad (a part with a pzfaust, stg 44, mg42, and mp40 wich sucks bc i need that firepower) mounted the truck. Well they all did except apparently one member. The truck has been motionless for a couple of minutes. However the squads icon is greyed out as it is whenever units are panicking or mounting/dismounting. These troops have not been fired on yet, and are at least 2,000 meters from the fighting. The truck never even began moving yet. So I dismounted all of the infantry. Even had the driver bail out, as I need control of those men, etc etc. All having the driver bail out do was make that team subsititute one of their own for a driver - however the icon is still greyed out, and the missing member has gone into the twilight zone. plenty of saves availible for anyone 'cept my buddy winkelreid =)

you know FWIW -I was playing a skilled player ( the author of No Exit) in his own scenario. I had one of those fluke keyhole LOS spots and some of my 81mm mortar crew spotted some enemy PTruppen, who they ID'd as another mortar crew. Mortars are excellent for killing other mortars- and enemy mortars and FOs usually get my priority of fire. I started shelling that position. Turns out I 'vaporised' two mortar teams in 3 minutes because of that. Knowing how to use the mortars correctly, makes a huge difference in their lethality, and if you learn how to use them well you also notice what doesnt work. And then you can apply that against your enemies DF mortar strikes. Not to mention most mortar crews only have enough ammo to truly wipe out one positon, MAYBE two before their ammo is expended. So do what they did IRL. SPREAD OUT. you'll notice the more spread out, the less deadly those mortars are.

even just a reserve platoon as a QRF or to hold until you see where the focal point of the battle makes a huge difference. You can test it easily. The way everyone gets shot up and worn down quickly - if you have a well managed platoon of regulars or vets who havent fired a shot yet enter the scene 3/4's of the way through they can be devastating. Though at the same time - concentrating all availible firepower works well too - if you can present overwhelming fire then the firefight is shorter - less ammo is used, less emotional and physical wear and tear on your men, etc etc. However, in most balanced battles this takes luck, and careful positioning. The reserve option is usually the smarter, more cautious approach.

not as impervious as it would seem. when you area fire the nearby areas close to it get affected ( i guess to model the mg fire sweeping back and forth) ive noticed if I area fire right before or around smoke it'll supress people in it fair 'nuff

wodin I wasted a good 9 years of my life on the same. been off that **** for a couple of years. interesting to know Im not the only one here

Wodin.. out of curiousity were you joking about addiction? pm me..? I smoke weed all the time - I really enjoy playing CM high. Though being sober usually helps me do better.. just a tad Only times I dont smoke are when I had to work, or go to class...

Of course thats part of being in the Wehrmacht in 44 - you never have enough units to do the job. I think replenishment is done right. I took heavy casualties on my first run thru - and I chose to attack through both routes. Still I managed to get to the objective town. My attack didnt seize it - but I ended the campaign with my troops in the town.

Holien - im playing a QB against winkelreid and he noted something interesting - he purchased his M4 shermans and had them attached at the platoon level. unfortunately for him when his platoons took heavy casualties this adversely affected his armors morale as well. I havent encountered this - i attach my armor at the battalion or company level always. However - were your tanks perhaps attached to a platoon by the scenario designers? because then if the platoon took heavy losses that'd explain your tanks 'spooked' behavior

I see it. Three for both those months. For the sake of argument - lets say that somehow those nuclear weapons going off didnt bring the Germans to the negotiation table - this is of course assuming Casablanca and unconditional surrender demands were not issued. If need be would the US have been able to pump out three a month indefinitely? Yes, I obviously know we ended up building thousands of the damn things, and most of them were of the stronger hydrogen bomb variety but I mean in the time frame of mid to late 40's? To really debate this anyways, we'd need to kinda of clear out a scenario as it were. Is England in, occupied, or out? Russia? etc etc. Year?

redjac - yes Normandy with the british, candians,etc the second module will cover market garden and add a couple months to the games timeframe

Stellar - As far as continuing 'this' isnt that why we're here? to discuss..? All of this is complete conjecture anyway - these fantasy scenarios are all so debateable and unlikely because any whatif scenario gets extremely complicated once one major event gets changed. I'm not questioning the validity of your statement re: the U.S. production capability of 3 atomic bombs a month, but do you have a source? I find this very interesting and the only conversation with another grog about something like this took place a lonnggg time ago. As far as mass B-29 strikes against Germany, the B-29 would have been used quite a bit against Germany if the war had continued on even from Britain. It was the next generation bomber for the USAAF. I've debated bringing it up, but what exactly is the 'this' you refer to when you comment on "carrying this on further"..? Im probably mistaken but I just get a sense of hostility from you and I wonder what the reason is. Perhaps this could be settled by a qb. Emrys - has Tooze written a book about it? It might be interesting to read, or at least skim =) Also I remember someone posting about German guided weapons. Theres been some interesting stuff about a troopship exploding in the Atlantic, killing most of the troops. It was off the D-Day beaches I believe, though I forget its name. The Germans had some awesome guided weapons, a really interesting what-if is imagining lots of those being built and used - on the D-day beaches, against the Murmansk run, etc..

Maybe. But the thing is that we didnt have the atomic weapons the or even a few years later to wipe out a few cities a month. In fact we expended almost all of our nukes with the Trinity experiment and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course we would have made more etc etc. And of course, chances are, the Germans wouldnt have known we only had a few initialy. Of course if we're entertaining this fantasy, we have to take other factors into account. Comparing Japans surrender following the nukings to what if we nuked Germany is apples and oranges. Japan had been firebombed extremely effectively because the composition and building materials of most of their cities (paper and wood). We strangled their suppy lines through the ocean with our submarine and naval campaigns (Japan is an island) and their biggest ally, Nazi Germany, had been out of the fight for months. Before the nukes it was well documentated that the Japanese were divided whether to surrender or not. Theres really no way to tell. Added Post edit - Also I disagree with the statement that even if the war had dragged on, there would have been no German war industry. First a disclaimer - in this hypothetical scenario, theres no guarantee that Speer would have ended up in charge of the armaments industry, and he's widely accepted as the architect of the saviour of German arms production mid to end war. However, the capability to not only survive heavy night and day strategic bombing, but actually increase production to never before reached levels was there. It was proven by just this being doing, 1944 had the highest German production levels of the war. True - cities nuked would have everything destroyed. But again I reiterate that we (the US) didnt have many atomic weapons at the end of WW2, or indeed for a few years after the war.

Steiner14 - you sound very much like either A. a National Socialist (Nazi..) or B. a Troll or C. a Nazi Troll. Either way - I usually dont flame or whatever, but I'll make an exception. You're a moron. Do you live in the US? Have you visited the US? Where do you get your amazing insight about America thats complete nonsense? Oh and that certain german politician that predicted the US's downfall from racial mixing, etc? That was Hitler. And we all know what a political genius he was. And he sure did know a lot about America himself - after all he predicted we didnt have the stomach to fight, that we, the brits and russians would never be able to cooperate to defeat germany etc etc. And if your German, you should know that Hitler would think that you have no right to be alive. IIRC in April 1945 in one of his rages he claimed the German people had failed HIM and deserved their defeat.

I dont understand how that statement was contradictory at all? its very debateable whether nuclear weapons would have forced a German surrender. And yes, we could have without the Russians or Brits. Then again I never said anything about needing them though. Can you expound further what was contradictory?

Well. Im not expert, but what I do know is -US troops each were issued a morphine syrette that when jabbed once automatically shoot the morphine into you. Though often, they sold these on the black market, or gave them away. If you gave someone morphine, it was common to write a big M on their forehead in their blood. (This was done after WW2, and is done today even) -Sulfa packets, with sulfa powder were issued to everyone. Sulfa would be sprinkled all over a wound to help with infection. -Basic instructions, such as putting a tourniquet on limb wounds were often given to even basic soldiers. After that it was the province of the medics.

I believe they will fix it my friend. If I remember, the Hummel and Wespe are planned to make it in the game. I believe they'll also be included on the battlefield itself, not just as off map.. Maybe in the next module, if not I'm almost certain by the 3rd. Imagine how great this will be by the 3rd module? Brits, Commonwealth? Arnhem? =) We're gonna have some great battles to come Winkelreid

I disagree. I think the WESTERN Allies would have defeated Germany without the Russians. If for the sake of argument, the USSR somehow magically stayed neutral, which would have never happened one way or the other, we still would have won, or at the very least had an armistice with Germany that was very favorable to us, not so much to them. That being said, we would have taken incredible amounts of casualties, and the war would have dragged on for years longer. Do not forget though, that the atomic bomb was intended for Germany originally. That was a very real goal for the Manhattan project. EDIT - I reread your original post. So let me clarify my statement, I mean the Eastern Front wasnt a necessity for victory against Germany in the war. However, I do agree with you as far as Normandy '44. It's doubtful in the extreme there would have been any landings anywhere in France without the Eastern Front. Also, FWIW I believe that when Germany invaded Russia they had lost the war anyways - regardless of whether we (U.S.) got involved. Again, I believe the same results as I said before - German defeat or German/Soviet armistice, favoring the USSR.