ASL Veteran

I would also add that America wasn't even fully tapped into their manpower reserves by 1945. The US was still forming and fielding new full strength divisions almost up until the end of the war and there were several divisions in training that hadn't even been deployed overseas yet.

The game does come with an editor. Sorry I couldn't resist. There may be some maps up on the Repository because the game has been out for a while.

If you are looking for opponents you may also want to check the various gaming clubs such as The Blitz and Few Good Men.

I think I can say with some level of certainty that cooking rice was not essential in securing a Soviet victory.

No, it is not possible.

If you select the enemy unit that has been spotted, you can then see which friendly units have spotted it by noticing which friendly unit icons are a little lighter colored than the others. At least that's how I remember it working.

The only time the AI walks is when the troops are exhausted and they can't run. They will crawl a lot when you use the Max Assault move command though.

sburke is a beta tester and sometimes the help desk will ask beta testers to assist them with an issue either for general information or through replicating it. The help desk is not staffed by the game programmers but rather by helpful individuals who use all the resources they have available to them to assist the customer in solving a particular problem or issue.

The kill information is still available. Its been a while since I checked it, but if I'm remembering correctly at the game's conclusion if you decide to view the map you can then select your troops and the kill data will show up. I don't think you can see the kill data while the game is in progress though.

The only 'official' voices of BFC who would post in this forum would be Steve himself, Chris ND, Phil, and or any of the other actual BFC employees. I'm not sure what relevance that has to the discussion though. Just because we aren't speaking on behalf of BFC in an official capacity doesn't mean that our responses to your posts are invalid. I already mentioned in my post to you that I was referencing previous posts that Steve has made in the past (and which you can locate using the search function), so the fact that I'm referencing past posts by Steve should be treated in the same manner that you would treat a new post by Steve in this thread because nothing that he discussed in the past has changed in any way since he made those posts. I am aware of the attitude that people have about 'Beta Testers' and 'Fanbois' and as far as Beta testers go people get a very skewed view based upon their perceptions of how individuals act in the public forums. Keep in mind that Beta Testers interact directly with the official staff of BFC and with each other in special beta forums that are not accessible to the public at large. Why is that important? That is important to understand because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a Beta Tester to come onto the public forums and put forth their complaints about the game and how it is not working the way they want it to. Why would any Beta Tester do that? It would be pointless because a Beta Tester can discuss various issues directly with the official BFC staff if they want to. Coming to the public forum to complain about something the game does or doesn't do is almost disrespectful to BFC as well as being pointless because individuals who don't have access to the Beta Forums (in other words, people like you) aren't going to solve or fix an issue with the game. All you can do is say 'yes I agree' and if BFC can't or won't fix it that hasn't accomplished anything but stir up a storm on the forums and annoy the BFC staff. Beta testers complain on our own forums, so just because you don't see a Beta out here pushing issues with how broken the game is doesn't mean that all Beta's think the game is perfect in every way. The only difference here is that you don't get the opportunity to view and participate in the discussions on the Beta Forums. Beta Testers have also all signed Non Disclosure Agreements and we are under a contractual obligation not to discuss publicly what is discussed on the Beta Forums. However, that doesn't mean that we can't have an 'informed' opinion about something because we know first hand what it takes to get something into the game or fixed. We know that because we have to interact with the BFC staff directly and we know first hand what is required to get something fixed or altered. So when we come out to the public forum and say 'you need X' or 'that's a feature not a bug' then we are saying that through experience and first hand knowledge. We also have general knowledge of how things work internally at BFC, although there is still a lot that is hidden even from us because the actual staff obviously communicate directly with each other. So I guess I'll wrap this rambling post up by saying this; no I don't speak for BFC but that's entirely irrelevant because the information that I am providing you with is the most recent answer to your inquiry that has been publicly outlined by Steve himself (and he speaks for BFC in an official capacity). So while you are free to assume that fog of war will eventually be applied to fences and hedgerows if you just complain about it long enough and loud enough, all you are doing is living in a world of your own construction that is divorced from the reality of what is possible and what isn't possible in the game as it is currently structured.

Steve has stated publicly that those two items will never be affected by fog of war. There were more discussions about this than I can count, but mostly they came up in discussions about foxholes and trenches (probably on the CMSF forums but I can't remember for certain - just do a search for fog of war terrain in the CMSF forums and you should get more posts than you can read in a single sitting). You may recall that CMSF trenches were part of the terrain mesh and could not be deployed by the player. Only the scenario designer could place trenches and once placed everyone could see them. Once the current version of foxholes and trenches were implemented the constant beating of the dead horse of fog of war terrain seems to have passed. Players were hoping for Fog of War terrain where the entire map was blacked out until the player could see it with a unit - that's how extreme people were asking for on Fog of War. So yes, Never is the correct characterization of how Steve described it because things that affect the terrain mesh have to be visible to both players. Could that change in the future with an entirely new game engine? Maybe, maybe not, but if you are going to wait that long for FOW broken fences then ...... , I'm not really sure what you are doing here quite honestly.

Well those are never going to be 'fixed' because it is a limitation with the game code itself so if that is on your list you will forever be disappointed. The problem with the 'game improvements over content' discussion is that the two are completely divorced from each other from a development standpoint, yet they are inherently intertwined from a gameplay standpoint. From a development standpoint there are only two coders working for BFC and they can only get so much done during any given span of time. There is a list of things that they would like to do that is longer than what can be done so they have to prioritize what they concentrate their efforts on. Some of the things that the 'game improvements' camp focus on are also subjective in nature. For example spotting. Some people dislike the spotting system so much that the game becomes impossible for them to play. Others don't really see what the issue is and the spotting is 'good enough' for them to play the game. Subjective things are difficult to tweak because what may be perfect for one player is not perfect for another. I have watched some YouTube games that people have posted where they complain about the spotting but when I view their game all I see is complaints that their troops aren't mopping up the opposition the way they expect. If they spot the enemy the game is working perfectly, but if the enemy spots them the game is broken. In one series of videos the player literally spots and fires first upon several enemy tanks without taking any return fire and he celebrates. He then takes fire from a few enemy tanks that spot him first and he complains that spotting is broken. I only mention that because, once again, it is subjective, but at least in that video series the player's bias is unmistakable. As far as the content goes, and here I'm talking about QB maps, TO&Es, Scenarios, and Campaigns, you can't actually 'play' the game if you have no content. So you have to have content in order to play the game. The two coders don't make any content. The only interaction that the coders have with the content is to create the environment where the content can be added to the game. Other than that they don't do anything with it, so 'features' and 'content' don't have any effect on the development process for either. So if someone complains that they want features instead of content then what they are really saying is 'I can't enjoy the content because I don't like the game engine.' If you don't like the game engine then you run up against the problem of there only being two coders and if your 'game breaking feature' isn't on or near the top of the priority list then .... I guess you are just out of luck.

Well everyone is using the same broken and flawed TacAI so at least the playing field is level for everyone.

Perhaps, but I think one can convincingly tie the German late war lack of fuel to the Allied bombing campaign without too much effort. All of the German fuel sources were bombed to the point where the entire German armed forces was almost immobilized.

If someone ever decides to play against another human opponent then taking casualties is going to be a fact of life. I don't think anyone can get through an entire battle without taking a casualty. In all the games I've played since CMx1 was initially released I can only recall one game where I defeated my opponent without taking a casualty and the deck was probably stacked in my favor. The problem is that if you don't like to take casualties and you play another player in a game then that leads to unfinished games. It is very disrespectful of your opponent to just disappear because you take a casualty or two and if a player can't take a casualty or two when playing against the AI then chances are that player will have a hard time playing against other people without building up the reputation of being a quitter. If someone ever wants to take their game to the next level and play against other gamers then not reloading when playing against the AI is the only way that player will be able to build up a tolerance for making it through a tough battle. So charge into battle and take your lumps. It will improve your game by forcing you to overcome adversity and it will also improve your gamesmanship if you ever decide to take it to the next level.

You have no control over when or how the AI uses the artillery if you haven't set a start of game bombardment by painting the areas on the map and there is no delay function that you can add to the start of game bombardment. The start of game bombardment happens at the start of the game or it doesn't happen at all. In other words, you can have your FO creep (sort of, because there really isn't an AI move command that will get him to 'creep') but once he is in position there is no way for you to tell him what to do because there are no AI commands for telling him what you want him to do. The best you can do is have the FO move into the position you want him to be in and then hope that he decides to call artillery in after he gets there. He may decide to call it or he may not, but there is nothing you can do to have him call the artillery in at 'Time X' because there just isn't any AI orders for that in the game as it stands. The AI typically uses a circular area fire pattern, although the pattern is usually a little smaller than I would personally use so that makes the barrage more concentrated.

Yes, it is true with the exception of a pre planned artillery strike at the beginning of the game. No spotters need to have LOS to the location of a pre planned artillery strike at the beginning of a game whether the artillery is controlled by the AI or the player. The only difference is that the AI has to have the artillery strike location painted on the map in the editor by the scenario designer, otherwise the AI will not conduct a pre planned artillery strike on its own. I am going to assume that the manual is using 'When Support Targets are specified', it means 'Specified' by the AI during the course of a game and not 'Specified' by the designer when creating pre planned artillery strikes. Otherwise the second sentence doesn't make sense with regard to LOS. If you play a scenario using 'Scenario Author Test Mode' you can select different AI controlled units on the map and all their artillery target lines will be displayed for you to see so you can confirm this pretty easily on your own by play testing your scenario. The AI doesn't always use artillery in the most efficient way though because it frequently has company or platoon commanders calling in artillery strikes instead of more effective FOs who can call artillery in more quickly. The only thing that you can be sure an FO will call in is some form of artillery that regular troops can't call in because the type of artillery is prohibited to be used by them.

Pre planned artillery is mapped out in the editor the same way you map out waypoints for AI groups. You paint the area on the map that you want the artillery to land in. It will always hit at the beginning of the game and there is no way to delay it and no AI forces need to have LOS to the location in order for the artillery to begin firing. Your plan could work, but the AI would have to decide to use the artillery on its own without any intervention on your part via pre planned artillery strikes. You could possibly help the AI decide to use the artillery by placing TRPs (target reference points) but ultimately the AI needs to do it on its own.

1. No 2. None 3. It only affects LOS not movement. You can generally see right through a light woods without a tree on it, but once you place a tree there the LOS is much more restricted. 4. yes, different foliage types placed on different woods grid squares has an effect on LOS, but the only thing that affects movement is the grid square itself, not what you put on it.

It's a bit of an ongoing theme and you are probably only disappointed because you haven't seen the one hundred or more similar threads to this one over the last decade. First it was people who liked CMx1 and who always came onto the forums with an axe to grind about one thing or another - including a great deal of commentary about the business model which quite honestly isn't any of their business. Now the old CMx1 types seem to have faded into the ether to be replaced by more forward looking types. Even so, there is a way to request features and a way to not request features and when someone explains that there are limitations about what can be done and feature X can't be implemented the best response is to say 'thank you for considering my feature request. I hope it will make it into the game at some point in the future'. The least appropriate response is to say 'Because feature X isn't currently in the game and because I know it only takes two days to code it, I can't understand why BFC hasn't already added this feature to the game. I can only assume the reason such a feature hasn't already been included is X' with X being whatever derogatory term the poster feels like tossing out at the given time.

Ah yes, I understand. I think your observation is correct and that there isn't a counter showing the time remaining. BFC has stated publicly about their desire to address the UI so perhaps that's something that might be added in the future if they eventually get around to doing a UI overhaul.

Actually I think the deployment time is shown in the UI .... although it has been a while since I've specifically looked for that.

Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it is correct. I'm not saying whether I think you are correct in your opinions or not, but if you don't have a full and complete understanding about how CM's code works and how things are done within that context then you are arguing from a perspective of ignorance and assumption. The only one who knows how CM's code works is Charles and the only one who has learned the code well enough to become a programmer for BFC is Phil. Charles has never said anything publicly, that I'm aware of, about the inner workings of CM's code. The only things that I recall Phil ever saying about CM's code publicly was along the lines of how unique it is and how different it is to anything else that he had dealt with previously as far as coding things in the game. So while you certainly have the option of stating your case, you could probably also demonstrate a little humility with regards to your lack of knowledge of how things actually get done within the context of the code that CM is based upon. Making simple comparisons to other games is probably an exercise in irrelevance since CM's code appears to be a unique creation of Charles and not really similar to anything else 'on the market'. Edited to add: Do'h, ninja'd by the man himself.

What was the most surprising thing to me was the little chart at the end of 'Unknown Eastern Front' that listed the contributions of the various nations to the fighting on the Eastern Front. Number 1 on the list? Russia (for the Axis side!) Here is the list of contributors, most of these figures are estimates of course 1 Russia 800,000 2 Hungary 800,000 3 Romania 500,000 4 Finland 500,000 5 Caucasus 280,000 6 Ukraine 250,000 7 Italy 250,000 8 Croatia 145,000 9 Latvia 100,000 10 Estonia 60,000 11 Spain 47,000 12 Byelorussia 47,000 13 Slovakia 45,000 14 Netherlands 40,000 15 Belgium 38,000 16 Lithuania 20,000 17 Poland 20,000 18 France 10,000 19 Norway 6,000 20 Denmark 4,000 He indicates that had the Germans chosen to support various independence movements Ukraine alone could possibly have supplied an army of around 1,000,000 men but by the time the Germans started to think in those terms most Ukrainians were done dealing with the Germans. If the Germans got 800,000 Russians in spite of the way they were acting just think of how many they could have gotten with a little different attitude towards the occupied territories. It is doubtful that things ever could have played out any differently with respect to the occupied territories, but it is still an interesting exercise in 'what if'. These numbers include all the 'helpers', SS recruits, national battalions, and security battalions. Most of these guys were probably assigned anti partisan duties and supply and logistics type activities.

Just going from memory from ... I think he discussed it in "The Unknown Eastern Front" by Rolf - Dieter Muller, something like half the Axis soldiers on the Eastern Front throughout the war were non Germans. I am of course including Romanians, Finns, Italians, Hungarians, etc. in all of that. Many thousands of Ukrainians also filled out German supply and service functions in combat and non combat units which acted to free up more Germans to serve in combat roles.