ASL Veteran

I already have a platform to make my case and the case has already been made and so far rejected. I view the fact that, to my knowledge, nobody out here has made this observation as being indicative of the level of rigor that is being applied to the spotting testing that is being done.

Just out of curiosity, where did that 'other gentleman' get their information from? Is there something on the website here at Battlefront that indicates what type of DVD is being used?

The MG fire was quantifiable. There are Field Manuals that specify rates of fire for specific applications. For example, there is a specified rate of fire in terms of rounds per minute for Rapid Fire and for Sustained Fire and before the "MG Fix" it was clear that MG modelling in CM didn't match the specified rates of fire that was present in the field manuals. That's why the change was made, not because people on the forums were crying about it. As far as soft factors go, yes its true that some common sense has to be applied. However, because something like that is not quantifiable its not possible to compare such items to what is present in the 'Real World' so why should the developer alter what is in the game just because someone on the forums says 'hey, that isn't right!' The game developer's opinion is just as valid as your opinion so you aren't going to make any headway in a discussion about opinions. However, if you focus your testing of soft factors to what is present in the game environment then you might get somewhere. I'll make this really simple for you so that everyone can understand my point. I think that most people would agree that a tank is more easily spotted than an infantryman if both are sitting in an open field. Common sense tells you that. Is that set of circumstances true in the game? Test it and find out. Trying to say 'hey, its just common sense that a tank won't spot a Panzershrek team that has moved into position behind it' isn't going to get you anywhere. I can think of several reasons why that team might have been spotted. If you guys want to continue pursuing that path then you aren't ever going to get the changes that you desire. I will leave you with this though - there is one thing about tanks that seemingly nobody has noticed and it has a huge impact on spotting. It becomes most obvious when tanks are firing at unrealistic elevations - and no I'm not talking about gun elevation limits. Think about it.

Unfortunately that's not quantifiable. In order to quantify that you would have to have some sort of a statistical data base of actual instances under actual battlefield conditions where infantry were spotted by tank crewmen and when they weren't spotted. Obviously that data set doesn't exist and pursuing that angle would be a fools errand. Even if you could convince some current military personnel to conduct some sort of testing with their equipment to establish a baseline there are so many variables in play that establishing a meaningful baseline would be next to impossible. However, a comparison between different tanks within the game is quantifiable within the game environment. Differences between tank designs and crew awareness are somewhat more quantifiable because you can definitely compare what devices or crew arrangements different tanks had and then compare the ability of those tanks to spot different things within the game environment. Once you compare those results you should be able to draw some conclusions about how different tank vision devices compare to each other.

:confused: The maps are not randomly generated ..... your hilliness will be determined when you select the map to play on. I'm not really sure I understand what you would like to do with this hilliness request since there is no way you can say 'I want huge hills' or 'I want a hill over there and over there' and have the map spontaneously create them.

Oops, wrong thread!

I can understand your frustration, but at the same time it really makes no sense if you think about it rationally. By definition any map you use in the game will have an edge on it, no matter how big the map is. If the map is 2km by 2 km then it will have an edge, if the map is 1km by 1 km then that map will also have an edge. By setting rules for your opponent about 'edge hugging' the only practical thing you have done is alter where the edge is. In other words if you are on a 2km by 2km map and you indicate that anyone who is within 100 meters of an edge is a gamey edge hugger then all you have done is made your 2km by 2km map into a 1.9km by 1.9km map. So rather than say 'you are a gamey edge hugger' why don't you just cut the map to your specified size prior to the start of the game? Of course, you would then have a new ege, the only difference being that the map is smaller - do you cut the map size down again? You see how silly that would be? Eventually you would have no map to play on because you would always be cutting the map edges to make the playing area smaller and smaller.

So far in two AARs where Bil played as the Germans his preferred force mix has been similar in each instance. I think it is a pretty good bet that if Bil is playing as the German his force mix will be similar most of the time. Even when he played as British Paras his force was partially motorized so I think Bil's preferred force mix is becoming a bit predictable.

I believe British soldiers used the Red camo pattern at Waterloo if I'm not mistaken.

The issue was reported and fixed for CMFI. It probably just needs to be 'ported' over to the CMBN series if applicable.

I'm pretty sure there will be a bundle with both modules, but you may need to wait a little while before it makes its appearance. It just depends on how patient you are.

Market Garden was made with the 2.0 upgrade code. Market Garden was made with the 2.0 upgrade code because all future games after the 2.0 upgrade was released are coded using the upgrades that came with 2.0. Market Garden doesn't upgrade any other software. Market Garden was simply made with the new code. If you don't have the 2.0 upgrade installed then Market Garden won't work on your computer because your base game will be incompatible with the new module from a code standpoint.

The first turn of a PBEM has no set up. I know its kind of strange, but your first exchange will just be setting passwords. Your follow on exchanges will allow for setups and the game will continue.

Market Garden was created in the same code as the 2.0 upgrade so people who want to purchase Market Garden will need the 2.0 upgrade installed in order for Market Garden to work. Market Garden by itself does not upgrade the base game to 2.0 so Market Garden by itself is incompatible with a non upgraded CMBN base game. If you already own the 2.0 upgrade then it is not necessary to purchase the upgrade again. You are all set.

Walking pathways are a Market Garden map element. Any map with walking pathways will require Market Garden to work. Nobody can add a walking pathway to a map unless they own Market Garden. If someone owns Market Garden and they want to make a map that is playable without Market Garden then they can't add any Market Garden specific terrain elements. That includes any footpaths, certain bridges, certain independent buildings, etc. If someone owns Market Garden and adds Market Garden terrain elements to a map and wants someone who doesn't own Market Garden to play on that map, then they only have themselves to blame for adding Market Garden terrain elements to their map. I don't think that every map in Market Garden has Market Garden terrain elements in it. If you don't have Market Garden and you have a friend who owns Market Garden and you want to play on a map that comes with Market Garden it would be possible for that friend to remove those Market Garden specific terrain elements and allow you to play with that map as well, but of course unless you know someone who already owns Market Garden you won't have access to the map in the first place. If you don't want to purchase Market Garden and you want footpaths on your map then you are SOL.

I was just thinking of you the other day John. I read a paragraph in a book about Courland and here is what it said "Following the disbandment of the Livonian Brothers of the Sword in 1562, the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia was created from the area of Latvia between the west bank of the river Daugava and the Baltic Sea. It's first duke was Gotthard Kettler, the last Master of the Sword Brothers. Although he was a vassal of the King of Poland, Kettler, whose family came from Westphalia, ran his duchy on strictly German lines, supported by the German nobility, and reduced most of the native population to the status of serfs." John Kettler, member of the Livonian Brothers of the Sword? Just makes you go hmmmmmmm.

Garbage in Garbage out Not really. A subjective opinion is a subjective opinion no matter how much you try to dress it up as a fact or a statistic. The bottom line here is that Dupuy even says himself that he can't isolate factors like leadership, doctrine, and training in his calculations. As far as he is concerned they either don't matter enough to him or they are just magically included in his number in some indeterminate way that he can't account for.

I glanced at the link and there was nothing in there that changed my opinion. I suppose this part is the part you want me to see the most That's all fine, plugging numbers into an equation, but there doesn't appear to be anything in those equations that account for most of the real world factors that affected the German army in 1944. He is also, by default, cherry picking engagements to make his calculations since he isn't selecting every division sized engagement. It's a data set, but it isn't very persuasive to me since I'm well read enough to know about the substantial problems faced by the German Army in 1944. Which battles during the Battle of the Bulge did he select? The ones involving the 101st Airborne at Bastogne or the ones involving the green American forces in the St Vith area?

In “When the Odds were Even” the author summarizes the situation for the German Army of 1944 as the following As to the Americans he states the following Of course the author explains in detail all the factors he considered before writing that summary. I didn’t copy all of that information because it would be much more than I want to type. I can access the specific information if necessary though.

I am not deliberately misinterpreting anything. I was reading directly from the document as it was written. I will check your link though and see what it says.

Alrighty then, since this thread has become a thread about Dupuy let’s have a look at what his methodology is exactly So far so good. So they bring in three military historians to indicate who is better ‘qualitatively’ between each of two armies that are compared side by side. Who are these three historians? This is also obviously a set of subjective opinions that are being used as the basis for the creation of a quantifiable number. That’s an awful lot of mumbo jumbo explaining that they used the opinions of three military historians to rate an army’s quality. No matter how much mumbo jumbo you toss in there it is still a compilation of the subjective opinions of three military historians. Seriously .. rainfall? Birthrate? Quality of life? So you take the subjective opinions of three historians and you then go and find data such as rainfall and GNP per person in order to confirm why the historians opinions are what they are. So three historians say “Germany in 1944 ROCKS!!” then you go and sift through rainfall data and make a conclusion that “Germany must ROCK because there is more rainfall in Berlin than in London.” Science is awesome. So that’s it. That’s what Dupuy did and what he measured. It should probably be noted what he didn’t measure. Let’s have a look at this CEV thing that he compares his results to So the CEV is assumed to include a lot of militarily important stuff, but nobody can isolate any of these factors. So the factors he deems to be important such as troop capability, leadership, training, and tactics are all folded into this CEV value but they can’t be isolated so nobody actually knows what they are. Note that Dupuy definitely didn’t measure anything relating to those things he deems important to the CEV such as leadership, training, or tactics. Nope, Dupuy measured the amount of rainfall that a certain nation has and what the national birthrate was. What else does Dupuy say? So in other words, after taking the opinions of three military historians and finding out through rainfall data why Germany ROCKS, Dupuy freely admits that when he looks at a specific unit that was listed as having a high CEV he can’t figure out why by examining birthrates and rainfall data. Presumably American infantry divisions such as the 45th that came from New Mexico (which is hot) would perform more poorly than an American division that originated from New York. What else does he say? Of course, Dupuy didn’t measure any of that did he? He did this Yeah, he measured household size and the temperature of the capital city in the hottest month. This study is almost, dare I say, Kettlerian. He goes on to say So that’s Dupuy. He goes and finds three military historians and asks them to subjectively compare army effectiveness at various times in the 20th century two armies at a time. He then goes out and finds rainfall and temperature data to find out why the armies that the historians rated as better were better. He then goes and mentions factors such as leadership, training, and tactics in passing, but he doesn’t measure any of those factors and the CEV value that he obtains from other research is supposed to include those factors but none of those factors can be isolated. Good stuff.

I finished reading "When the Odds were Even" not too long ago and that was a very interesting read. The author makes a very compelling case that in late 1944 American forces were far superior to German forces under circumstances where Allied air support was not overwhelming and where material advantages were minimal (ie, supplies and replacements were at such a low priority in the Vosges that Americans were effectively operating with the same supply deficiencies as the Germans). From reading various personal accounts ... Otto Carius aside .... it appears that most Germans viewed the western allied forces as more effective combatants than Soviet forces. Otto Carius has a strong difference of opinion about that ... he almost sneers in contempt at the American fighting man in his book ... but of course he was fighting America in the Ruhr pocket so no doubt most American soldiers didn't want to stick their necks out too far by then when the war was so obviously over. Otto also mentions that all the other German forces are laying about just waiting to surrender so really he's the only gung ho one by the time he gets to the west. Other than him though, it seems that most Germans viewed combat vs the Western Allies as much more difficult and demanding than combat vs the Soviets.

I just popped in here to say that yes, indeed, there were windmills present in the Market Garden battle area. Maybe there weren't any in the immediate Arnhem area (I don't know) but there were many in various areas along Hell's Highway. Eerde had one that was specifically mentioned in the fighting there. One was specifically mentioned in the fighting at Son. One appears on the topo maps for the area around the town of Best. So yeah, there were plenty of windmills in the area that Market Garden was fought. This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention.

It might be a good idea to preface your videos with 'combat mission battle for normandy' or 'CMBN', or 'CMFI', or something like that so that people who search for videos about combat mission will find them more easily. AAR might not get as many hits when people search for Combat Mission videos.

Just because a report says that a panzer division is located somewhere doesn't mean that the panzer division has any tanks in it. It would be perfectly valid for a commander to read that report and still make the assumption that there weren't any strong enemy forces located in the area since only a few weeks ago many of those formations were annihiliated at Falais. When the Soviets surrounded the German forces in the Cherkassy pocket they thought they had bagged an entire army group based upon what units were supposedly present. Of course, most the "divisions" they bagged were the size of battalions so ....