The Commissar

I remember this was a major limitation in my eyes for CM1. I always felt (and still feel) restricted by the fact that one cannot issue a pause between movement orders. For those who do not automatically see the value in a feature such as this, here is an example: A Platoon has to advance over rough terrain to take out an entrenched MG 100 metres away. Squad A is assigned to Run 20 metres to the right while Squads B and C provide covering fire. After running those 20 metres, Squad A could be assigned to Pause movement for say, 30 seconds, to provide covering fire for the advance of Squad B and C. After the 30 seconds have elapsed (and hopefully after the other 2 squads reached cover), Squad A advances again only to stop closer to the MG, and repeat the procedure as much as necessary. Technically, you can do all this now if you alter the movement turns each 60 second break. However, this has movement penalties assigned to altered movement, while the "pause between movement" option would allow you to plan such a complex maneuver in one go, thus avoiding movement penalties. Properly timed, it could prove very effective in a skilled player's hands. Basically, I dont see anything wrong with such a command, from design or realism standpoints. One can easily imagine the Lt. instructing his men to "Provide covering fire until the others make it to safety, then advance yourself and they'll do the same for you". So, BTS, is this in CM2? [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

What can I say? This KICKS ASS!!

Im afraid that the building textures presented by Panzertruppen, who stood valiantly on my computer screen from their first release so long ago, withstanding all the assaults against it by usurpers like Magua's Normandy, have finally reached the end of its long and glorious service. This is truly magnificent. To quote that infamous prima donna, "I love it...so help me God I love it so!" However, your buildings seem to stick up from the ground more then Panzertruppen's (most other building textures showed the same trait, except no others were as good as yours), which explains the long life of Panzertruppen's work. I simply hate that "box on a soccer field" look all buildings in CM have unless they are on paved ground. Here's hoping CM2 sees BTS fix or do sumfink about the issue.

Don't worry about "No LOS from rear/side of tank". One can easily climb from the rear area of a tank to the front, or simply stand behind the turret to see whats in front of you. Granted, not all 9 men (average # in squad) could do this, but at least half could. Now, firing one handed, thats another story. We have to think about this though. Say a T-34 with tank riders (full squad, say 9) is moving through whatever area (say, a steppe). Now they've been told to breach the enemy line. The enemy is dug in and whatnot. The tank is buttoned up (I believe this was the procedure when in combat, correct me if neccessary). So the tank rider spots a German squad, dug in. The Sgt indicates to the TC where the target is. How he does this I dont really know, but Im guessing by knocking on the tank and yelling really loud. So what happens next? The enemy is spotted 50 metres off, the tank is still in motion. What is the procedure for further engagement? If the tank continues to move towards the target, firing at the same time, we can assume its not at a very fast speed. Hard to place accurate fire at very fast speeds, over rough terrain, without Gyros. At a low speed, the tank riders could in theory stand up behind the tank's turret (or crouch behind it), using both hands to fire off their weapons. If the speed we're talking about is under 15mph, thats pretty reasonable, although of course it will depend on terrain conditions. Or, perhaps, the tank stops altogether and places nice accurate shots? In that case, the tank riders can also use their weapons with full accuracy, behind the cover provided by the tank turret. Flanking fire is a different issue, of course... So maybe the game should look at the sort of terrain the tank is moving across, and determine a speed at which the soldiers had a good chance of being able to use their weapons. For clear areas, this would be moderate speed. For Rought terrain this speed would be lower. Think it makes sence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: But russian accounts always baffle me. They demonstrate a propensity for such exagerations, references to folklore/witches/etc that I have to laugh. Someone once said that a russian cant tell the time of day off his watch without embellishing. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not this piqued (SP?) my interest. Do provide a few accounts, because from what Ive read everything seemed pretty realistic. Witches?!? "In 1941, 3 Germans ventured into the Eastern Front. 60 years later, the footage from their ill-fated excursion was discovered. Prepare yourself. The Eastern front just got a whole lot spookier. "The Baba-Yaga Witch project" [ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

From these accounts, morale seems to be one thing, but noise shock (for lack of a better term) is quite another. Perhaps if it is tailored to experience levels. A vet crew would probably grit their teeth and bear the noise if they knew what the machine was capable of handling, but greenies are scared easier. At least that's what it seems like to me from these accounts. Any other stories that had the 20mm resulting in the abandoning of the tank, from any front? Maybe those Germans happened to fire on over-sensitive Soviets? [ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

BUMP'ed because this is important.

SGT_Gold, I dont think it would have been Hue for the same reasons Username said. From what I read, in Hue, the tankers had a technique for attacking the enemy line. They would speed up the street, and when in view of the enemy positions, fire and immediately reverse. Because of the cover provided by buildings, the Viet Cong didn't get much chances to knock the armor out, although I remember reading about at least one tank KO'ed in the street, on phase line Green. (My source for this info is the book titled Phase Line Green) However, such a technique would probably make you pretty damn nervous every time you rounded that corner and prepared to reverse off. Maybe for the longer battles in CM2 we should see a declining in morale of any tanker who has seen heavy combat as the time wears on. Do you think this would be in the time span of CM? Very interesting issue, sadly overlooked.

Simply stupendous graph, Jason! Its unfortunate that the infantry information is hard to come by, and that the distinguishing between the various levels of "destruction" of a division is so difficult for historians. Still, if the allocation of Panzers and Panzergrenadiers to the various fronts at all matched the number of infantry divisions supporting them, one can still get a relatively clear picture of how forces were overall allocated. There seems to be, at all times, at least twice the number of divisions fighting the Soviets then all the other fronts combined. Scary. Right, thanks again Jason. Ill keep bumping this for other people who have an interest in these matters.

Yeah, but unlike the Sturmtiger, this thing did not see combat at all. Sort of like the JS3, but that saw combat eventually, although not on a WW2 battlefield. So I guess if its JS3 or T-44, the JS actually has more of a reason for being there.

Thanks for the quick responce, Jason. I suppose my best bet on having a definitive source on all of this info in one place, would be to bookmark this very thread Right, thanks again. Oh, and what about division strenght throughout the war? Must be some books on that, at least? I think I read somewhere the Germans lost 128 divisions on the East Front, out of a total unknown number (to me, that is) deployed. How would this compare with other fronts?

Thanks all, for answering many questions. Ron, Thanks for the link to Feldrgu. Somehow, I never noticed the casualty stats (only been on the site once). Too bad they are missing all the numbers from '45, but I suppose its a work in progress, right? Username, Thanks for that link, very interesting! I wish I knew which years most of the authors published their books and what were the subsequent nationalities of the authors. Years of course in relation to their opinions on Soviet losses, which would be more clear after the Cold War. Nationality because of bias. The one author out of those whose work I read (Keegan) presents this quite clearly. Notice how his opinions on losses for all none-English speaking countries (Allied or Axis) are some of the highest we see on the list, but when it comes the the US and UK, his opinions on losses are some of the lowest. Not a bad author at all, but the bias shows through quite clearly. James, Thanks for the link - I include you in the EDIT, so I didnt get a chance to explore it yet. Jason, I knew you were out there somewhere, lol Thanks for all that info. I have a few questions though. 1) When you went into depth about the mechanics and statistics for losses on the Ostfront, did you get this knowledge from simple logic, written material, or combination of both? In any case, if there is some written material on this subject (discussing the mechanics and statistics behind the losses, other fronts as well as the Ostrfront preferably), could you tell me where I can find it? Would be nice to read up on this myself. 2) You said (not a direct quote) "...the Germans already lost over a million by the early stage of the war..." The Feldgrau site (I am using this because the other link with numbers has opinions bny a whole lot of various people) has a figure of about 3,500,000 not including '45 By your estimation, what are the total German casualties for the Eastern front, 45 included (and thus the battle for Berlin and beyond)? Once again, thanks for the wealth of information! [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ] [ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

With the majority of my questions unaswered, Im looking for people who can post facts and the sources for facts. I know you brainiacs are out there somewhere!

Rommel, Im not 100% positive on this, but I believe that the Germans only put everything they had into their industry (employing women as workers, which was done I believe in all the Allied countries) when Germany's defeat was unavoidable. I think this was one of the critical factors on why they were defeated in the first place. They thought they could do it without putting everything they had into the fight, as did the Allies. Still, my questions go unasnwered. Can anyone tell me where they got the 80 mill figure for the German population? Are there books or records somewhere of all the countries populations throughout the years?

Ive decided that the best place to start expanding my knowledge of the conflict this game of ours is based on, would be to find out some solid facts and numbers. Things like How many military casualties did Germany suffer during the war? How many civilian casualties? How were these casualties spread out over the different fronts it fought on? What was the number of divisions employed over the course of the fighting on the Ostrfront? What was the number for fighting on other fronts? How many military and civilians casualties did the Soviets suffer (Im getting different answers for this, whereever I ask)? What were the casualties for the other Allies? What were the initial populations of Germany and the Soviet Union? How many German men went to fight against the Soviets? I think thats it for now, but I know I have some more floating around inside my head. As you can see, all of these questions would probably be spread out over a wide array of books on the subject. It would be nice if any of you knew some fact-ladden books on the various fronts. About the Eastern Front, preferably have the books post cold war (and using formerly closed Soviet archives) Any answers and book references would be appreciated.

The General Forum is probably my forum of choice now-a-days. We have interesting off topic discussions there which can get down right intellectual some times. This forum used to be fun, but not its filed with mostly boring/unoriginal stuff which I can tell Im uninterested in just by looking at the thread titles Try the Gen Forum on for size, its fun!

BTS stated in one of their CM2 interviews that the are making all attempts to implement this feature. However, they might not be able to due to hardware/coding limitations and in that case we will have to wait until CMII the engine rewrite for the full movie playback.

I dont see why you would want to use Ambush for AFV's. Since they cannot be effectively hidden, they remain visible to everyone, and using the ambush command, risk getting KO'ed by enemy forces coming from another direction. I just leave my AFV's to have a narrow line of fire without too much exposure. It's about as close to an effective ambush as one is liable to get without simulating fully hidden camoed tanks.

Im experiencing some down time, a wee bit of wearout. I guess what keept me coming back - the multiplayer - is getting kind of old. I dont have many people on the ladder who want to play anything other then their beloved 1500 points, clear weather, etc. Gets sort of repetitive. Plus my computer decided to get busted once again, so Im left to sit here and type stuff on my 2nd, crappy computer.

Can someone give me a link with pics/stats for the T-44? First time I hear of the thing!

Dunne, Fair enough, you say we do not know you. We dont. So lets get that out of the way first. Were you ever in a combat situation, period. I don't mean taking a swing at your younger brother, but with dangerous people set on killing you shooting up the place. OK, now, were you ever in a tank in this same situation? Have you ever operated a tank? Do you know anything about tanks or operating tanks, or actually fighting with them? Before you answer this, I cannot judge you. You may be a hot-shot vet with a collection of victories under your belt, so you would have all the right to say "Unlike those wusses 60 years ago, I stayed in my tank even when there was nothing remaining but a burning hulk, the various body parts of my fellow crewman, and AP shells, which I then proceeded to throw at the other guy by hand." Hell, if that's the case, I respect you and your bravery. However, I highly doubt that is the case. Unless you've ever been in the situation you discussing, I wouldn't boast about how you would behave.

Word on the street is, the latest US PC Gamer issue has some tids and some bits on CM2. Trotter mentions something about relative turns or whatever the hell else. Get the September issue.

Wait, this is the US issue of PCG we are talking about, right? September issue? Jesus, they go forward in time pretty far, don't they? Did you get yours today? Im still waiting for mine I suppose.

Its all a conspiracy man! A mother f*ckin' conspiracy. I'm telling you man, they're trying to keep us at the bottom, where the truth about CM2 can't be seen...well we'll show them! They can't keep us down forever!

Oh no you don't! Back to the top you go, sneaky CM2 FAQ!