Maj. Battaglia

Eden, That's interesting. I never thought to push one bogged vehicle with another. I guess it won't work though. However, I think that the coding makes contact unlikely and AFVs will avoid it. In your case, the pusher saw and avoided the target (even though you wanted it to hit). That does not disprove my theory, though. What I refer to is an accident. I think, based on my own observations and those of others, that there is a chance built into the coding that there can be accidental contact resulting in damage to less rugged vehicles. Again, I don't claim to be an authority. Cameroon- Check out the last para of my previous post. It has the source of the (well, one) incident you refer to.

Hussars, Are you sure that there cannot be traffic accidents in CM? I've had German halftracks, out of any LOS of the enemy, suddenly knocked out after coming very close to another one. I replayed the turn several times and it seemed as though one backed into another oncoming one. I've also had an M-10 run over a jeep in a similar situation and knock it out. I can't speak with absolute authority, as I don't know whether the game code supports such collisions. Maybe it was some random unseen fire. Enlighten me if you know for sure. As for collisions in "real life," in McKee's Caen: Anvil of Victory, p.273, he quotes a tank commander lieutenant of the Irish Guards during Goodwood. In that case he rammed a King Tiger with is Sherman. Both crews bailed out and later the lieutenant called in a Firefly to actually knock out the tiger.

JasonC's post is a very good summary. I would add the following to provide some more context and help you with your question concerning how to avoid being "gamey" when choosing units. Mountain troops are very rare on the western front, unless you are thinking about Italy. There were also SS mountain troops (which are probably very close at the CM level to their Wehrmacht cousins-extra support at regimental level). The 6th SS mountain division took part in Operation Nordwind. Sturmkompanie are not integral parts of any division. They were individual companies or battalions attached to corps and armies. They are also quite rare. Volksgrenadiers were developed to maximize German manpower efficiency: smaller units with more SMGs to keep firepower high. Ostensibly they were under the control of the SS as Hitler had diminished trust in the Heer after the attempt on his life. Also, a higher proportion of panzerschrecks here, as the integral AT guns of the regiments were mostly replaced by them. They were built from cores of many destroyed divisions, plus the disbanded Luftwaffe field divisions, spare navy personnel, etc. Many destroyed infantry divsions are rebuilt as VG divisions in fall 1944, although many infantry divisions remain unconverted (I think Hitler wanted to convert all to VG).

Thanks for the info, Andrew. In that case, it would certainly take the wind out of the sails of the Soviet player in a recon forces meeting engagement, mano a mano. So for play balance in human vs. human QB, I agree with BTS logic.

I would have to agree with Chad here. I would also posit that when simulating recon forces in a QB, the mechanized option should be used, at least that's what I did in CMBO. To me, "mechanized" represents recon forces (such as from the recon battalion in a panzer division) or armored infantry without any attached armor (such as StuGs and SPAT, which could be an integral part of German PzGr divisions, but typically attached at a divisional level unless part of a KG, so they would not always be present). In CMBO I would prefer a Puma over a Greyhound, but either one can certainly kill the other (as well as the 50 cal killing the German ACs & HTs). As long as the Soviets have something under "vehicle" that can kill the German ACs without too much difficulty, then perhaps Pumas should be moved back. I don't have CMBB yet since I await a new computer. But I assume the Soviets have an AC that can deal with the Puma late in the war. Is this so?

John S, It's funny you are asking about the squeezebore guns and the stielgranate ammo in CMBB. I also don't have CMBB (awaiting a new computer) and was wondering this myself. I did a bit of research on these yesterday, particularly the squeezebores, after being reminded of them while leafing through my Handbook on German Military Forces. According to Feldgrau, total production figures for the 4.2/2.8 cm pak 41 were 313 (1941/42) and for the 7.5/5.5 cm pak 41, 150 (1942). Compare the latter to 23,303 for 7.5 cm pak 40. There were no figures for the 2.8/2 cm gun. It would seem that, if these figures are true, that the two higher caliber guns were pretty insignificant in terms of numbers. Couple this with a paucity of ammo as you mention, and I doubt they had more than minimal impact on the war in the East, and none as far as CMBO is concerned. I would not shed any tears over them not being included in CMBB. I'm glad the shaped-charge ammo for the 37mm is included, though. Same for the 2.8/2 cm gun; despite seeing no figures for this, it seems to have been more common. I also searched the forum, and found a classic thread featuring JasonC on the different 75mm AT weapons fielded by the Germans (search: pak 41). Beautiful. (Also, those interested in the puppchen and PAW, search the CMBO forum--there is great stuff already posted such as "is there an umlaut in puppchen," "is using it 'gamey,'" and more technical info (these are just the ones I remember seeing).

Combined Arms, there actually are some old bunkers in the US, but they are coast defense types. Some from WWI, others WWII. One I have visited is near where I grew up, an old system of concrete OPs and gun emplacements guarding the entrance to the harbor in Portsmouth, NH. Not quite the same, but still interesting to wander around. There are also quite a lot in Vietnam, as anyone who has visited will attest. Bridges, mountain passes, along highways. Many date back to the French, others ARVN. It can be eerie to be up close to them.

Lucky you, Wisbech_lad. A friend of mine had a pair of glasses sent here (Jakarta) that she would pick up when she came to visit. UPS had to pay about US$20 in bribes to get it to clear, despite the fact that it said "no commercial value." You must have had one of the (or the one) honest customs inspectors. So, another CM player in Jakarta. And here I thought I was the only one. Of course, I need a new computer before I get CMBB. Do you thing I can get Apple to put "gift" on a packing list? And yes, I've been to Ratu Plaza--more expensive than US prices.

I would agree with akdavis about your side knowing captured weapons are in use. One would imagine that at this level troops would be familiar with their nearby comrades. I suppose a case could be made for unexpected reinforcements, however. Someone posted a URL a while back with an interview of a Soviet officer whose armored unit was equipped with Shermans Emcha. He spoke of Matildas from a neighboring unit being fired on returning from battle because their tanks were not recognized by the AT gunners. So certainly this sort of thing happened. However, not only from this account, but from reading others, I suspect most friendly fire incidents happened outside the context of the heat of battle, such as preparatory bombardments falling short (this would be interesting though frustrating in CM), bombs dropped on wrong location, misidentification of formations, etc. Since I don't have CM:BB yet (anyone have a CM:BB-capable Mac they wish to donate?), I can't speak to it per se, but I have not seen anything about the friendly fire model being tweaked. Certainly in CM:BO the nights can be dangerous. But overall I would guess what Mud refers to is pretty rare in the CM context; it does not seem to me compelling that it be included, but if it is, all the better. [ October 11, 2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

Can someone do up a mod that replaces Göring with Elmer Fudd as seen in "What's Opera, Doc"? "With my speeaw and magic helmet!"

THumpre: According to George Forty's "US Army Handbook 1939-1945" there were close to 500,000 bazookas produced by the US. According to the TO&E he reprints, there were over 550 per division. Almost every small combat subunit in the division (with the possible exception of the Hv Wp Cos) had at least one. I do think that bazookas were more common in the US Army than CM suggests. Perhaps BTS found evidence to the contrary, or perhaps for balance they reduced the number found in a company (and I would defer to them). Maybe they broke down easily, they often got discarded, or there was an ammo shortage (replenishing shells was not a priority); I don't know. However, the TO&E sources I have found for infantry divisions (in addition to Forty) show nine per company and 35 for the battalion (8 in the Bn HQ). So when I play a QB or design a scenario I typically give the US more bazookas. Forty lists the max range as 640m. That had to have been at an angle. In any case, one personal account I read ( Bazooka Man ) says that the bazooka had a primitive sight and was rarely fired at over 100 yards. This makes sense: if you are likely to miss at above that range, it could be suicide to try. So the 200m range CM uses seems realistic. The panzerschreck (as opposed to the faust) was issued to special AT companies attached at the regimental level. I don't know the doctrine of assigning sections out to infantry units. It certainly seems that they were rarer than the bazooka. The number of panzerschreck platoons (and hence weapons) per AT company varied by regiment type. According to the War Dept.'s "Handbook on German Military Forces," here are some examples: 1944 Inf Regt: 2 plt, 36 panzerschrecks VG Regt: 3 plt, 72 (of which 18 in reserve) Fallschirmjäger Regt: 3 plt, 54 (attached at Bn level) Mountain Regt: 2 plt, 36 Panzergrenadier: 0 (they got 75mm AT and SP assets) In a number of personal accounts, vets refer to German bazookas being present. I don't know, though, whether they use that term interchangeably for schreck and faust. I hope that puts things in better perspective.

James- Your AI comparison is really apple and oranges, and it is because of the different scale. In CM, where a battle might be 30 minutes or an hour, the initial probes and recon have already happened. They are either 1) in the scenario briefing, or 2) assumed in QBs since the ratio of forces is pretty much known but force mix is not. So in your example, some commander has ordered the attack even though it is known that the company is facing a bigger opponent. This would be a very difficult scenario as a human, and is outside of the capabilities of the AI. The AI in CM does not have the authority to ignore the orders of the offboard commander in an attack by deciding to not try and capture the VLs, opting instead to fade back into the trees. The AI in AA does, and for good reason. You are right, in your example the latter is a more realistic outcome, just that in CM it is necessarily outside the scope. All of us would love to see a better AI (not that the one now is not tops in the market). The AI does not do a great job of keeping units together in an attack, one example that you mention. But if the AI we've all been bleating for were developed by BTS, they'd be whisked away by the DoD and wake up in Arlington, VA working at DARPA. So I am not saying "no," just that this should not be a priority. Folks looking to make division or regimental-level decisions are asking to play a different game. Can that game be in the CM toolbox? Perhaps. But not for now.

I've done a fair amount of testing with destroying bridges, having armored units on bridges when the bridge is destroyed, and even running tanks at full speed downhill on a paved road toward water with an ambush by guns from the other side of the river just at water's edge. I was curious about water and non-amphibious units on the latter case. When an AFV (or bunker/pillbox) is on a bridge tile that is destroyed, it disappears at the end of the turn. Even if it were shallow water, I'm sure even amphibious units would not fare well falling into the water at unpredictable angles. So CM has them disappear under the water. Glub glub. Incidentally, in that last test of mine, the knocked-out Sherman was partially submerged and stayed that way. By the way, when AFVs have no ammo/damaged gun and are immobile, the crews will/may abandon (with ammo, not "LOW") since really there is little they can do but get killed. I'm not sure if it a certainty or probability since it has not happened to me often.

Captain Wacky, that is much clearer, although somewhat different than what you were alluding to in your other posts. Please forgive those of us who disagreed with you. I agree wholeheartedly that sometimes it can be difficult to find the best spot for hull down or building occupation. You want to be able to go just far enough to see, especially when you don't want to shoot (when you can use hunt/sneak to help) right away. You would have to be able to have two options, though, since sometimes you don't want folks to move into view. This type of thing falls into the SOP/command options category rather than c&c functions.

Unfortunately for me, I'm saving money just by being a stinkin' Mac user. Slovenia's not a backwater! Try living in Indonesia. Anything you get shipped here you have to pay about $50 in bribes, unless it's stolen, that is. Talk about VAT!

You can toggle the sound using shift-S between mute/sound/sound + ambient. Having it on sound only stops ambient noise such as distant gunfire, birds, wind, rain, etc. There are mods for ambient sound as well, and I am sure others who know better than I will chime in.

While Captain Wacky's ideas are interesting and would no doubt save time, I think they should in no way be a priority for the BTS folks. To further what Redwolf and MrSpkr said about not wanting to play against a TCP opponent who is really letting his AI do the work, etc., I think one should consider the role being played in CM. You are assuming the role of ALL of the following: battalion, company, platoon, squad/team/vehicle CO. To play CM well, one must have, among other skills, an appreciation for terrain details from a military standpoint, just as the people really in these roles needs it. Allowing an AI to take that over would take out a critical aspect of gameplay. I have an appreciation for the AA type friendly AI--that is what a game where you play division/regimental/battalion commander is all about. I'm sure I'll enjoy AA when it's ported to the Mac. So some SOP additions might be nice (and we'll see just what CM:BB has in store), but for now adding in a platoon leader AI should be way, way on the back burner, and then an option that both players (in TCP) should agree to. I also take issue (respectfully) with Captain Wacky about the scale where CM shines. It is a matter of preference, of course, but I find circa 1000 point battles, with an inf company and a handful of vehicles, to be CM at its best. That's not to say I don't find larger battles enjoyable, just that's what I find myself playing the most.

I like L4Pilot's idea as well. Perhaps also you could include some sort of incentive for exiting AFV and mortar/gun crews off the "friendly" edge of the map. Doing that currently lowers global morale, if I'm not mistaken. While these units received infantrytraining, could act as infantry, and sometimes did so, they were specialized troops who were usually more valuable manning new AFVs/guns than continuing to participate in an action once their equipment was done for. Sometimes that was not the case, though (as medal citations will attest to). Bazooka teams, however, were combat infantrymen. The loader carried an M1 rifle. In fact, from what I can tell by reading TO&E for the US, there were no special bazooka teams. Bazookas were issued to squads or other small units, and in squads one person might typically be a specialist, but he was also an infantryman, and would continue to be one if he ran out of bazooka shells. I think folks should make a distinction between bazooka teams and others, at least in the US OOB. The teams in CM are a nod to the fact that bazooka gunners would often be sent further afield from their squad to accomplish their missions. I don't see it as a problem to be able to use them as infantry after they expend all their ammo, and arm them with an M1. Panzerschreck teams, though, were not part of infantry squads from what I've read, rather attached to antitank platoons. So I'm not sure how they should be handled. Someone will have to enlighten me as to the Commonwealth distribution of PIATs and the 50mm mortar.

You can't actually order vehicles to push other vehicles. They will do so automatically only if the wreck is in their way. Roads and bridges are fairly wide, so unless you have a bunch in one area or a wreck in the middle of the bridge, most of the time vehicles will go around them. If you have unit scale set to realistic you can see how much room there is. When the vehicles do push, it will only be enough to make room. As for pushing immobilized vehicles, I don't think that works. You definitely would not be able to do so over a distance (i.e. to put the immobilized vehicle into a good firing position). I think active vehicles (as opposed to wrecks) can't be pushed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I have had, on more than one occasion, "traffic accidents" where, say, in congestion a light vehicle, out of view of the enemy, is suddenly abandoned because of getting hit by a friendly vehicle.

Brian- You are from Australia, right? I was searching for these atlases the other day to see if there were Med/N. Af. editions. I did not find them or a site for National Historical Society. But I did find that a bookstore in Australia has the Pacific Atlas in stock: Pacific Book House, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia I was searching on Abebooks.com , a good source for finding used, rare, and out-of-print books. Pacific Book House may have their own web site, I did not look, however (despite being up here in Jakarta).

These maps (from the "Green Books") were also republished as a package by the National Historical Society in 1995 to be an easier way to use the maps with the Green Books. The book is quite large, so I imagine the maps are original size. I got my copy for about $9.00 at Powell's in Portland, OR. Title: U.S. Army in World War II Atlas: The European Theater I have not checked to see if they have Med/Pacific. I hope so. The maps are quite interesting, and some, such as the one Michael scanned, are useful for scenario design (five-foot contour intervals in that one, compared to 8 feet differences in CM). I don't have access to a scanner, though--sorry. Some of these maps (and others) are on-line currently. The USMA has some (Ardennes, D-Day), as well as University of Texas Library (Pacific, Dragoon). I've also found maps for the Sicily invasion. But they are all over the place. Mostly these were the operational maps, however.

CM Player has some good ideas. It is important, in my opinion, to keep opponents guessing when it comes to low-level contact. The variable-time display might work well, however I think in some cases the last seen markers should be made to disappear. This might be a fairly random occurence, with a higher probability as friendly troops move closer to that last seen area. This would reflect the fact that friendly troops would have in mind the last seen location and be keeping it under observation. At some point they might determine that, in fact, there are indeed no enemies there. In that case the markers should disappear. CM Player also hints at another aspect of FoW that I think should be incorporated at some point: uncertainty about KIA enemy units. Is it gamey to call off an arty strike against an enemy gun position the turn after you see that it is abandoned/KO'd? To some degree yes, but it is certainly excusable: you don't want to waste rounds on a dead target. I would propose adding in some randomization to determining KIA of enemy units. In most cases, especially at close contact, there would be no change to the current system. Sometimes, however, a unit would in reality be KIA but the enemy would not know this right away. It might require longer observation or closer contact to determine this for sure. And this could work the other way: enemy uinits that have taken a pounding might in rare cases, be thought of as KIA when in reality they have hidden, rallied, or even played dead. Perhaps when this occurs they would automatically enter "hiding" status and the owning player could give them targets and "unhide" them later on. This could also be tied to the experience level of the unit in question, both observing and target (Gino Merli playing dead with his .50 cal comes to mind). Sure, sometimes one sees a cataclysmic explosion that no enemy could survive, or a piece of enemy ordnance obviously destroyed, but in some cases destruction may not be so obvious (such as abandonment). You've just pounded the heck out of that AT gun position. It must be dead by now. The only way to find out is advance on it. Overall this would add a bit more suspense to the game, and might encourage the overkill tactics often employed to neutralize opponents in war. As I said, it should certainly not be in every case that this happens, in addition to being tied to concealment, experience, etc. By the way, von Trapp was in the Austro-Hungarian Navy in WWI, as the present-day Croatian coast was under their control. Their navy was mostly kept bottled up, however. Miklos Horthy, leader of Hungary until 1944 when the Germans sent him packing, was an admiral in the A - H navy. He was later known as "The Admiral without a Navy" because he kept the admiral title when Hungary became independent but had no coastline.

According to "The Handbook on German Military Forces" written by the US War Dept. in 1945, the German "Old Type" Infantry Division, standard until the end of 1943, had four squads to a platoon after the Polish Campaign (see p. 90). IIRC, the old AH game "Tobruk" also reflected this. The 50mm mortars are company weapons, with 3 to a company, plus 3 in the divisional recon battalion. The Handbook is available for download (in 3 huge chunks) from the US MIlitary History Institute or available from bookstores. Try used bookstores. I got mine in new condition for 1/2 the $29.99 cover price.

You have to go to page two of the Flags, Etc., mods at the link Lars mentions. http://www.combatmission.com/mods/interface2.asp Might I also suggest you download the more historically accurate Canadian icons available from Michael Dorosh's CANUCK site?

For US weapons, try this link: US Land Warfare Systems It has most, if not all, US small arms from WWII listed, as well as everything from then to now. Fairly good pictures for most items. The Feldgrau site is pretty good for the Germans. Also, there are other good sites devoted to individual weapons, as others have indicated.