ASL Veteran

Have you tried Combat Mission? I've heard it's pretty good.

I feel the need to interject a point on Bil's behalf regarding the 'Bil made the map' thing people are getting hung up on. For Bil's AAR vs Normal Dude with the base game, Normal Dude made the entire scenario - map, units, length, setting, etc, and he had even play tested it a couple of times. So really, all the evidence is available to come to the conclusion that Bil's previous knowledge of the map was probably irrelevant.

The designer's notes lists a reference called "Yea though I walk" which is available online. It's a personal account of a British soldier from the unit in question, although apparently most of it is about his time in POW camps so it's probably not thrilling reading.

Bridges were wired for demolition in WW2 - a fact that nobody disputes. When would a bridge demolition be relevant to the CM time frame? If enemy troops were in the act of crossing said bridge when the demolition took place, or if the demolition took place just before enemy troops crossed the bridge (like seconds or minutes before). Under what circumstances were enemy troops able to cross bridges that were ready for demolition - surprise or confusion on the part of the bridge defenders. In a CM scenario neither of those situations would exist. You can't simulate surprise or confusion in a CM scenario since, by definition, if you are playing a CM QB or scenario your opponent knows that he faces an enemy force. Keeping in mind that a bridged water barrier is typically going to be impassible without the bridge (why else is the bridge there?), and that if the capture of the bridge is the point of the scenario, then what's to prevent a defending player from simply destroying the bridge in the first minute of the scenario beginning and thus ending the scenario before it even starts? Nothing. If there are no objectives on the far side of the bridge for the attacker to capture then there is no purpose for the attacker to capture the bridge - thus making the bridge irrelevant. If the objectives for the attacker are all on the opposite side of the bridge then once the bridge is blown the scenario or quick battle has ended since the attacker can no longer reach the objectives. If the defending player has control over when the bridge is destroyed, then there is absolutely no situation where the bridge won't be destroyed before the attacker reaches it as your in game opponent will never be confused or surprised.

What if the AI is the side you are playing ...? You can play as the British in that scenario after all. Anyway, there are some pretty extensive designer's notes on that particular scenario so perhaps if you read that you might understand what the scenario is depicting a little better. Also, there are no professional scenario designers working for BFC so it's a little off the rails to assume that making Fallschirmjager crack in a scenario is a marketing ploy. There are also quite a few veteran troops on the German side so that's not accurate to say they are all crack. The German side is attacking a British battalion located in a town at 1 to 3 odds so even though you killed or wounded 70 British soldiers you are only barely one third of the way through your enemy. For those who have read the designer's notes, in that particular battle a Fallschirmjager battalion had been reduced down to about 120 men after about a year of almost continuous combat with no replacements in between, so the men who were left were all 'survivors'. They attacked the town of Battipaglia which was held by a full battalion of British troops who had seen no combat. According to the Germans, the end result was no German casualties and 455 British prisoners. The entire British battalion was annihilated so I think the historical result speaks for itself.

No, it's not the case - sorry. It's just a difference in the way the game looks visually while you are playing it.

I think the bridge is used in the Primasole Bridge German campaign. There is a Primasole Bridge campaign that comes with Gustav Line - it's just a German campaign and not a British campaign so the bridge should currently be used by the German campaign. The original poster wants it to be a British campaign instead of a German campaign.

If by professional we mean 'gets paid to make scenarios' then there currently aren't any professional scenario designers. Even the ones on the CD are made by amateurs. That used to be the case with the campaigns as well, but that's changed a bit because someone who has an actual BFC job is making them now. However, I think that's only one part of his responsibilities - and probably only a minor part. The only difference between what's on the CD and what's not on the CD is perception and effort. Perception by the player as to what is good and what they like and whatever standards the one making the scenario holds himself to. Someone making a scenario on their own can make it however they want and when they are done they can say 'there, I'm done'. That designer never has to leave his comfort zone and if they don't get any honest feedback they'll never know if something is good or not. If something is on the CD the designer might get entire forum threads thrashing their incompetence and how much their scenario sucks. It's also helpful if a designer can make a lot of good scenarios ... just making one and then resting on their laurels won't fill up a CD . I think most designers can make a decent looking map. A smaller percentage can create an AI plan. An even smaller percentage can make something reasonably historically accurate. After you've done all that, you then have to make something that's fun to play with decent briefings and victory conditions that make sense. Once you've got all that tackled, then you have to be able to make a lot of them. You then must be prepared to face the potential wrath of the forum as they question your decision to do this or that, or why is that here and this there? This scenario is so unbalanced. Why does that side not move? Where are the bunkers that are supposed to be at the battle? So all scenario designers are amateurs. The ones on the CD are just put under a bigger magnifying glass.

Apparently the little wheels attach and detach from the gun, so the gun and the trailer are separate elements. No doubt showing all that would require more new animations than BFC was either willing or able to create.

No, I'm not asking for anyone to 'side' with me. I do sometimes wonder about the motivation behind this discussion I have to admit. It is also a fact that most of the users who were firing Panzerfausts did so for Hitler so my statement about Nazi's firing Panzerfausts is an accurate one. Of course, that doesn't mean that those who play as Germans believe in that ideology. I play as Germans frequently too. Edited to add that there is no intent or implication in my statement about Nazi's firing Panzerfausts that those who play as Germans in CMBN are cut from the same cloth. My statement only related to those who were actually firing the Panzerfausts in anger during the war.

Has the thought occurred to you that in real life the infantry man might just reposition himself if he saw a tank approaching?

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the issue really is that you feel that tanks have an unfair advantage in city fighting because your Nazi's can't fire Panzerfausts from buildings then this statement is irrelevant. This statement only makes sense if your motivation is something other than levelling a perceived advantage that armor has in city fights. As far as I can determine, firing Bazookas and Panzershreks from buildings was never on the table. At least, I haven't seen any evidence of any outrage by the 'community' that they can't fire their Bazookas from inside buildings. It's always about Panzerfausts. Interesting eh?

Yes, I whole heartedly agree and have strenuously advocated as much. I'm hopeful that something can be done in that area. The fact is that infantry close assaults on tanks are done in an abstract way in the game currently in every location except buildings. It's inconsistent and I hope it gets changed.

Well I'm sorry to say that if the entire community of those who like to play exclusively as Germans in CMBN in 1944 want consequence free firing of Panzerfausts from undamaged buildings to be implemented in the game, the current odds of that happening are extremely low.

The question was never if someone can fire a panzerfaust from inside a building. Someone can fire anything they want to from a building in the same manner that I can place a firecracker in my mouth and light it if I want to. No, the question was always what happens if one is fired and how that should be handled by the game. Although Arguseye may be astounded that this issue is still being debated, there is nothing that he said that I find astounding at all. What I found astounding is those who feel that backblast causes nothing but burst eardrums and is almost completely harmless. I think even Arguseye would agree with me that if someone in the heat of battle were using a Panzerfaust in a building that it would be possible for that individual to injure or kill himself or others nearby. I've already posted personal accounts to that effect earlier (one of them from inside a foxhole John Kettler). There is nothing 'mythical' about injury or death from backblast. The problem with translating that into the game is that the Panzerfausts are fired by the Tac AI and the player has no control over it. Thus, if we were to realistically account for human error, positioning of target units to the firer (how much clearance will you have if you are firing out a window at an angle down the street - think about it), abstracted room size, and other areas that are not clearly defined within the game there seems to only be a few options available. 1. Not allow them to be fired from buildings (simple solution) 2. Allow the Tac AI to fire the Panzerfausts when it decides to fire one with the possibility of death or injury to the firer or other occupants of the building. (complicated solution) 3. Allow the weapons to be fired from damaged buildings in the assumption that it is open enough that the chances of accidental death or injury are reduced sufficiently. (halfway solution) Consequence free firing of these weapons from buildings considering all the abstractions and known dangers of using these weapons doesn't seem like a valid position to me. It's simply not viable to always assume that the firer has checked their backblast area and prepped the firing area before deciding to use the weapon. It's probably not even always a valid assumption to make that the one firing the weapon was fully trained in it's use or that anyone else in the building actually knows that the weapon is about to be fired and can take the appropriate action to avoid the backblast. Actually, to be entirely accurate it's not even a good assumption to make that the armorer properly prepped the weapon before issuing it or that the one firing it has the appropriate fusing immediately available in order to fire it. I have read a personal account where the soldier with the Panzerfaust sneaks through this wheatfield until he's in firing position near a Sherman and when he gets ready to fire it he realizes that he doesn't have the fusing (or whatever it is) so he has to sneak all the way back to where he started in order to grab the fusing, sneak all the way back to his firing position, arm it, and still not being discovered finally fire and miss the tank he was after. In another account the armorer didn't prep the Panzerfausts properly because he was transferred over from the Luftwaffe and when someone was demonstrating the weapon to him he accidentally fired it into a barn door. As they were seeing their lives pass before their eyes, the faust hit the barn door and fell harmlessly to the ground like a stone. In the game every Panzerfaust is ready to fire at the right time and it always detonates when it impacts - that's just not the case IRL. You guys want to talk about room dimensions and how close other troops are to the back of the weapon? Seriously, how technical do you guys really want to get? All we need to know is whether it's possible for death or injury to occur. Once you have made that determination then you have to make a decision on how to portray these weapons in game while accounting for that. One last thing - this does absolutely nothing for urban fighting for pixeltruppen who are fighting before 1944 or aren't German so this isn't a 'urban leveller' by any stretch of the imagination. I view that argument as a total strawman. All it does is help the Germans, and only in 1944 and 1945. Altering this would do absolutely nothing with regards to tanks in the streets for infantry not carrying Panzerfausts, so if you decide to play as the Russian in Operation Bagration you will have to deal with the same situation that you find yourself in now, only you won't even be able to complain about Panzerfausts. This issue comes up a lot so you can be assured that BFC is aware of it.

I can't remember where I read it now, but I read an account by a German assault gun crewman where he indicated that although the German vehicles could use neutral steering they were strongly discouraged from doing so. I think it even says that in their training manuals. The reason being that the suspension elements weren't strong enough to make using neutral steering reliable enough to use without worrying about the vehicle becoming immobilized in the process. So while in theory it would be possible to whip a German AFV around in seconds in practice it probably wasn't used very much except perhaps in situation where the crew felt that the risk of becoming immobilized was outweighed by the need to pivot quickly. Apparently the suspension and steering system was more advanced than the materials or parts design could effectively handle.

There are already some visual cues in the game that are similar to what you are asking. When a friendly squad, team, etc takes a casualty the icon does blink and if you want to know what a certain unit sees you just select it. If by notifications you mean that you get a running text notification that cycles in a portion of the screen I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Otherwise I think that maybe if you can come up with a simple enough and concise system then maybe something like it would be considered. It has to make sense though and you have to be precise in your description. Just indicating that you want something like game x has doesn't really cut it because the games will be different and will probably require different approaches.

I don't think that's a wound at all. That looks to me like the guy is using shoe polish to cover up his bald spot. No doubt he's a veteran of WW 1.

Just keep on believing what you want to.

Not a myth “At lunchtime a tank with infantry seated on top raced past us at an incredible speed on the street leading into town. No one could have stopped it. Even our sergeant was struck speechless. It was not long before other tanks, again with infantry on board raced past in the same direction. The same thing occurred twice more. That they were not concerned about us came as something of a shock. When there was a break our sergeant shouted: “There are more coming. I am going to take a Panzerfaust and see if I can knock one out.” With my comrades I had gone behind an almost collapsed wall to find firing positions for our rifles. This was necessary as our whole bodies were shaking with excitement. It was not long before another tank with infantry sitting on it followed and stopped near us. The Russians jumped off and went to the foxholes of our neighboring section on the far side of the street. Their sergeant opened fire and shot one of the attackers. We were petrified when we saw the sergeant fall to a burst of machine gun fire and our ten comrades fall to shots in the neck. When the tank was about to move off, there was an explosion and a track came off. Our sergeant had made good what he had said. However, he was unlucky, as he had been standing in a doorway between two doorposts and the blast from the Panzerfaust had rebounded off the doorposts behind him and burnt his back. The Russians jumped off and fled towards the town, but a brave machine gunner cut them down. An ambulance took away our wounded sergeant. We laid him down on a stretcher on his stomach. The medical orderly thought that it was a wound that would get him discharged from the service. Our section was then taken over by the staff corporal.” another account for you "I shouted at my men: ‘Let them overrun us and knock them out with Panzerfausts from the rear!’ Some of the grain sheaves were on fire. Approximately twenty enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers were rolling towards us, their engines roaring and their tracks squealing. They crossed the Vieux-Villez road and penetrated into our positions. Our own artillery tried to stop the enemy. Next to me in the foxhole, after firing the Panzerfaust, there was a heart rending moan. The gunner had not lifted the tube high enough and he died soon after from massive burns." How about the US Military? FM 7-7 gives us some guidelines for using AT weapons from inside buildings “When firing the LAW or Dragon from within a room, backblast must be taken into account. In urban combat, the backblast area for these weapons is more dangerous because of rubble and the channeling effect caused by buildings, narrow streets, and alleys. Antitank weapons should not be fired from unvented or closed rooms. By wetting down the floor of the room or building, the signature produced by the backblast may be significantly reduced. The accompanying chart (figure R8) shows the backblast area of the various weapons and the minimum room dimensions for safe firing TOW Room size 17’ by 24’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet (open door), muzzle clearance 9 inches Dragon, Room size 15’by 12’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet, muzzle clearance 6 inches LAW, Room size 4’ to the back wall, ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet.” Doesn’t it seem odd after all those exhaustive studies indicating you can’t be injured by backblast that it's right in their field manuals that these types of weapons are dangerous to fire from an enclosed space?

Actually, for lower morale troops I think that even a yellow wound soldier should probably be evacuated since he's likely to take any reason to leave the battle.

The only reason why I'm bothering to respond at all is because you seem to be implying that some of us are uninformed and swayed by propaganda or mythmaking. That's what I put in my second paragraph above.

I don't know what you consider remarkable about that quote above sburke. If you boil it down to it's basics and subtract the live ammunition, most of that was pretty standard training for officers and NCOs throughout the entire German Army. Do a quick web search about German officer training and you should find plenty of information about that. Don't pound the table shouting 'propaganda' without being informed or you are committing the same sin that you are accusing others of. Counter it with sources of your own. I found a decent link on the web for you to check if you are interested http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2002/1/2010KjoerstadMPhil.pdf It's easy enough to find that information though so no need to rely on your gut reaction.

Why anyone would want to revive this thread is beyond my understanding. The only reason why I'm bothering to respond at all is because you seem to be implying that some of us are uninformed and swayed by propaganda or mythmaking. I think that most of us who are contributing to this thread are fully aware of the state of motorization or lack thereof in the German army throughout the war. While you might think you are making a clever revelation you are actually contributing almost nothing with that information. Let me put a little more flesh on those bones that are being tossed around out there as revelatory 'facts'. Wave 1 - formed 1934 - 1938 39 divisions Wave 2 - formed August 1939 15 divisions Wave 3 - formed September 1939 20 divisions Wave 4 - formed August 1939 14 divisions Wave 5 - formed September 1939 5 divisions Wave 6 - formed November 1939 4 divisions Wave 7 - formed January 1940 14 divisions Wave 8 - formed February 1940 10 divisions Wave 9 - formed March 1940 10 divisions Okay, so when was France invaded .... I believe it was May of 1940. What does your esteemed author think these divisions were doing before May of 1940? Apparently nothing but sitting around campfires drinking beer. Do you seriously think that several months isn't enough time to train a soldier? I think it's disingenuous for the author to imply that the German army was fielding untrained divisions in the invasion of France. I'm sorry but you are mistaken. It's not even close. Don't take one author's mythbusting viewpoint as gospel. Check multiple sources before reaching a conclusion. Perhaps, but the French army was considered to be one of the most powerful in the world in 1940 so that opinion seems irrelevant to me. All it does is discount the opposition rather than give credit where credit is due. In other words, "The Germans only did good because their opposition was incompetent." as opposed to "The Germans did good because they were better trained and led." It's a moving goal post that can never be 'proven' one way or another because both opinions have some basis in fact. I don't disagree with that Personnel - 1940 beats 1944 Policy - tie tactics - tie equipment - 1944 beats 1940 logistics - 1940 beats 1944 (this is a joke right?) host of other factors - too undefined to be relevant I was actually hoping the thread would be closed since it's up past 300 now.

I think there was a third party scenario done that's by that title. I believe that Michael Dorosh made it IIRC.