lassner.1

Indeed, its a valid point. And I agree that there are many times when infantry may *not* want to be too close to a tank. I have watched some of my own troops positioned close to a tank become casualties during a catastrophic explosion. That said, there are times when tanks as cover are appropriate. Advancing on an isolated infantry position? Sure would be nice to use that tank as cover. The tank may well draw fire, but so does infantry moving across a field.

Indeed SuperSulo: you have the gist of what I am proposing. I persoanlly do not think that the infantry must loose cover if fire erupts from all sides *if* doing so would render the proposal impossible. This is, after all, an abstraction. And if the choice is between some cover for being associated with a tank, and no cover ever (as it is now), the better choice would be for some cover.

BTS any idea if this idea might work?

Gentlemen: I am *not* *not* repeat *not* proposing that CM:BB correct the problem of being able to sight through solid objects: as Tom notes, this cannot be done without a total rewrite. I am only proposing, as I make quite clear at the start of this post, that squad Y hooked to tank Z obtain a cover modifier (i.e., so the squad is not counted as simply being in open terrain [c. 72% exposure]). Please take the time to read the proposal I have made and not one you may think I have made.

What I don’t want to do is to make this proposal so complicated that it gets nixed by BTS. Thus I think that we should see my *interim* solution as a grand abstraction. The infantry need not loose the cover benefit if shot at from multiple directions. They are ten men “dancing around a tank,” so to speak. This may not be fully realistic in all situations, but it is more realistic than getting no benefit from the armor at all.

Thanks for the kind reception. Now lets see if BTS thinks its worth considering ...

For the last several months a close friend and I have been working on three scenarios for CM:BO. The first of these is now finished, and I am looking for somewhere to host it. Below is a copy of the objectives we had in mind in creating these scenarios. 1). Our first goal has been to create villages/towns that better reflect those in western Europe most often encountered by soldiers in 1944-1945. In large part because of the limits of the CM:BO engine (the large and square size of the tiles), towns in CM:BO tend to lack a western European look and feel. The engine limitations often lead to extremely linear towns, with overly large spaces between buildings, and neatly placed along expansive boulevards (not unlike SL/ASL). The result in game-play terms is that infantry are more vulnerable in a town, and tanks less vulnerable, than they were in fact. In order to correct these problems we have resorted to a variety of "tricks" in order to give villages and towns (a) a more constrictive environment for vehicles and ( better cover for infantry. These tricks will become apparent to the player upon examining the scenarios. Thus, *for example*, we are fully aware that all towns do not have tree lined streets in them, but we have used tree lined roads - as an abstraction - to restrict vision and maneuver, and because buildings cannot be placed one against another. 2). Our second goal has been to produce scenarios that provide the player with a more "grand tactical" game, but without overloading him/her with so many units that they cannot be managed with nuance and attention to detail. One of the reasons that we had ceased to play large/huge scenarios was due to a piece density that was so high it prevented us from caring about individual units. Worse, the sheer size of some scenarios tended to detract from the intensity of gameplay, since, in head to head games, it could take hours to plot moves. 3). Our third, last, and most important goal has been to provide scenarios that have high REPLAYABILITY. One of the drawbacks to a scenario balanced for players with no knowledge of the opposing forces is that once it has been played, balance is compromised; players will know exactly what forces their opponent has and where they are deployed. Knowing this, we made the choice to balance the scenarios for players WHO WILL KNOW WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY ARE FACING, and, more generally, WHERE those forces are located. Yet we are certainly aware that fog of war and the need for reconnaissance help make CM:BO extremely enjoyable, and we are not trying to throw that away. Thus, we have built the scenarios in such a manner that DESPITE this high level of knowledge, it will be CRITICAL for a player to do good reconnaissance. Failure to do so will cost him/her the game. A. Lassner and J. Hass

I know that this subject has been beaten to death, and the following suggestion may well have escaped my searches on this topic, but at the risk of being immolated .... It occurred to me that other night that there might be an “interim solution” so that infantry in CB:BB could take advantage of armor for cover. I wondered if the game code could be altered so that the following could occur: infantry squad Y could be clicked upon, given an order “move w/ armor,” and then a stationary tank Z could be clicked upon – in the same way that one currently does to have a squad load onto a tank. At that point the squad Y would move to tank Z and become “attached” to tank Z. Thereafter, as long as the infantry was so attached, tank Z could only use a “move” order, and the infantry could derive certain defensive benefits as it moved forward. My apologies if this is a wildly impracticable idea: I admit that I know nothing about computer programming.

Perhaps Brian is seeking something akin to an ASL manual. But, as BTS has stated, that will never happen: they want *you* to figure out how the game behaves without their spelling it out through charts and formulas.

I think that kipanderson hits the nail on the head. And I, for one, would not accept the loss of micro-management.

Is Mr. Z taking on the role of troll?

Mr Dorosh, I have to agree with the above post: your statement that one should "[p]ick up a serious history by a British author" seems an ill-advised statement. There are numerous American, German, French, and Austrian (military) historians who write in English, and who hold themselves to the highest levels of scholarly integrity and research. I should add that Ambrose's plagerism is inexcusable even in a pop-history context.

Actually I would recommend two books in particular on this issue; both are readable and extremely important. 1). Robert A. Doughty, The Breaking Point: Sedan 1940 and the Fall of France. 2). R. A. Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine 1919-1939. The first of these two works deals exhaustively with German and French sides.

It already looks fantastic! My hands are sweating in anticipation . . .

Ok, as per my previous post here is a quick breakdown on the Pzkpfw V from the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Panzer Div. 1943-1945. This is from my research at the Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv Freiburg (NOTE: the Zustanberichte contain a LOT of detail; this is a condensed version). 2nd Panzer Division (NOTE: these numers are from reports at the *start* of the respective months, and therefore represent snapshots of the divisions): From April 1943 to February 1944 (all reports extant) there were no Panthers in the division. (Interestingly, the division acquired Wespes and Hummels in November 1943 as an organic part of the division). In March/April 1943 the division took delivery of Panthers. The Zustandbericht for April 1943 shows 73 panthers with 52 actaully operational (the other 21 were down with minor problems). In June 1944 67 operational; July 1944 21 operational. In August the division has lost most of its armor(no exact #s unfortunately), and division command notes that the Pz. Regiment is completely without tanks. In October (when one can find extant the reports for 2nd Panzer again) the division has 5 only Panthers period; all are operatinal. The number of operational Panthers remains at or below 7 from November 1944 to March 1945. During the same period the division never has more than 20 Panthers of which no more than 25% are operational at any one time. In March 1945 3 Panthers are operational. No extant report for April 1945. 4th Panzer Division (NOTE: these numers are from reports at the *start* of the respective months, and therefore represent snapshots of the divisions): From April 1943 to June 1944 (approximately 80% of the Zustandberichte extant) no Panthers in the division. Sometime in July/August 1944 the division received its Panthers. The 3 August 1944 Zustandbericht shows 40 operational Panthers with 19 in repair (minor reparis). In September 1944 there are 50 Panthers operational (12 in repair); in October 1944 52 operational (15 in repair); November 1944 18 operational (40 repairable in a short time); December 1944 23 operational (35 repariable in a short time); January 1945 53 operational (!); February 1945 0 operational (Panthers were left behind to fight in Kurland); March 1945 19 operational (8 repairable in short time). 9th Panzer Division (NOTE: these numers are from reports at the *start* of the respective months, and therefore represent snapshots of the divisions): From April 1943 to August 1944 there are no Panthers in the division (90% Zustandberichte extant). At the end of September 1944 the division takes delivery of its Panthers. The 1 October Zustandbericht shows 24 operational Panthers and 22 in for light repairs. November 22 operational 18 in for lt. repair. December 12 operational 13 in for lt. repair. January 1945 18 operational 10 in for lt. repair. February 7 operational and 5 in for lt. repair; March 7 operational and 10 in for lt. repair; April 0 operational. Please let me know if you want further details!

Sure, I had asked simply because collating the info. will take some hours; but if the rest of the community is interested I'll get it posted tonight!

BTS, While I was researching my Ph.D. dissertation several years ago, I had reason to track down the Zustandberichte for the 2nd, 9th, and 4th Panzer Divisions from early 1943 to April 1945. These provide “snapshots” on a monthly basis of 1) how many tanks were operational in the division and 2) *which* tanks they were. As such, these reports show precisely when these three divisions took delivery of their first Panthers. I would be happy to share this information with you, plus the monthly report on "soll/ist" status of the division's tanks (i.e., the number of Pzkpfw Vs that should be running and those which actually ARE on a monthly basis). Would this be useful for you? Let me know at lassner.1@starpower.net

Italians!!! Pasta on the steppe . . .

Couldn't disagree more: its decidely NOT gamey.

If memory serves (and it may not), the insignia were penetrated rather quickly by Soviet Intelligence.

I have found that command to be the single most useful in the game. I only wish they had one for tanks!

cite sources ICS

Please cite your source ICS

This is a great mod. Will we be able to download this in just a "regular" .bmp zip file for those of us not using the mod manager?

CM2: I Vaz Just Kiddink