WWB

Well, the term 'Artillery' basically meant siege train in medieval french. And the first cannon were part of the siege train, being mainly employed to knock down walls, etc. The name stuck, and most crew-served, big bore guns became known as, well, artillery. In a modern sense this connotes indirect fire field pieces, but it does not preclude other big bore, crew-served weapons. WWB

For voice, you can hardly go wrong with Keegan's single volume work. Very well researched too. WWB

One point about VGs: I have read that many were equipped with captured SMGs, making the German production figures that much more irrelevant. WWB

Actually, alot of them probably never made it out of US armories. There were several hundred thousand M1s which never made it out of Springfield, for example. Many of those WW II era SMGs are probably still packed in grease in US armories. One must remember that the US was busy building a 100 division army, which only made 65 or so in 1945. And the Government is not known to cancel orders already made. While better weapons did tend to gravitate towards the front, I don't think SMGs are too far under represented in Allied forces. What would add is instead of having a cookie-cutter squad mentality, BTS added some randomization, around certain norms. I would say that 1 SMG over TO&E was probably likely, especailly as the war drug on. Extra BARs were probably more common than extra SMGs. One other issue with the mass issue of SMGs and other automatic weapons: Ammo consumption. They use alot more of the stuff than bolt action or semi-auto rifles, and logistics were difficult enough as is. WWB

One other point: ATGs get exponentially harder to spot if placed deep within woods, just at point where they can barley see out. I am currently playing a scenario where a large british armored force rushes a number of ATGs placed on a woody ridgeline. I have noticed that the guns tend to last alot longer if placed deeper within the woods. WWB

I think this points to the broader issue which is vehicles and guns are way too easy to spot when in covering terrain. Believe me, in Central Virgina, near my dads house, those cops, without using any car-sized ghillie suits, can hide in among the trees with ease, and you never would see them if they do not turn your lights on. Also, does anyone know if sun direction will be simulated in CM? It was a major factor on the Eastern Front. WWB

Also, remeber that the M7 was designed in 1941 or so, when the Blitzkreig was in full effect and the Luftwaffe ruled the sky. It is really an AA MG, that happened not to have aircraft to shoot at. Note that almost every US vehicle mounts a .50 Flexible MG (good for AA and anti-infantry work). If you ever see the Germans get an air strike, any unbottoned vehicle lights up the poor guy. It is pretty fun to watch. WWB

Also, while your men might be in 'Light Trees' the compuer actually takes the area of the square unit base and compares it to the terrain underfoot then puts some parts of the squad in whaever it is standing in. WWB

Washington, DC. Now thats a political town. WWB

This is one of the best ideas I have had in a long time. While we are at it, pillboxes and especially bunkers should get some kind of bonus here too. Especially bunkers, which were made to look as if a piece of forest themselves. WWB

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Wyatt, Check out Michael Reynold's "Steel inferno" and John Keegan's "the 6 armies of Normandy". Both have decent maps, and I believe Reynold's book gives a good OOB for the Polish side. E-mail me if you don't have either and I can have the info to you later on tonight, along with the PBEM turn BTW, let me know when you need a play-tester.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I actually was partially inspired to do this by Keegan's excellent piece. In fact, his title is quite fitting: A Polish Battlefield. Do not have steel inferno, though I will drop by the 2nd hand book store on the way home and see what pops up. Methinks the turn was sent, but our respective ISPs do not like to play nice. I will resend. Moon: I checked that out, but I am in the states and the opportuinity costs are a bit too much for me at this point in time. WWB [ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

Thanks Willahammer. That guys stuff is amazing. And no, this scenario has nothing to do with drunken austrialians or sheep. But Mace is welcome to play it. WWB

Does anyone have maps and or arial photos of the area known as the Mace, also known as Mt. Ormel, at the eastern end of the Falaise pocket. I am looking to do a scenario on it, but am having difficulty locating maps etc. Also, if anyone has a good OOB for the battle (especially the German side, if such a thing exists), it would be greatly appreciated. WWB

There is another response: Abuse the opponent's now-open flank. Remeber that he has to denude the rest of the map to make such a movement, which you should repond to with a nasty little counterattack that spears his column as it is stretched along the map edge. WWB

Well, I had a couple captured crews, and a couple near incidences of Ding-Crash last night. But for some reason my machine pulled thru. One thing which I strongly suspect is behind this issue is the modified TCP/IP stack in winME/2000, which I do not use at home. Especially if playing an opponent who is using the older stack in win95/98. WWB

Posting while playing, Mr. J? Am I that slow? One more question: are there any plans to incorporate quick operations in CM2? WWB

Schullenraft, I am aware of the history. They have been pretty mum about the issue and I was hoping to provoke some sort of answer, or at least a discussion of the problem. Out of all I posted up there, Faux Flags is probably the easiest to implement since it will require no additional AI programming. Not to mention these flags could be added to scenarios as well, to help guide the sometimes-unitelligent AI around. As it stands now you pretty much have to setup operations with 0m of no man's land to have any semblance of realism. The other thing scenario designers can do is make the map so that there are natural lines of cover perpindicular to the axis of advance, thus playing into the current system's hands. And please, Panzer Leader, everyone in the world, including my dead grandmother knows you want a campaign. And they don't care. WWB

While BTS has gone above and beyond the call of duty in addressing fan concerns and suggestions regarding CM2, one issue which I have not yet seen too many comments on is the subject of Operations. Before I start let me say that I hope this thread does not turn into a campaign for campaigns and such. We have heard about those issues aplenty, and I am sure we will hear of them again. In CMBO, operations are both the most rewarding and frustrating experiences avaliable. Rewarding in that you aviod inane stuff like gamey flag rushes and have to think about things like keeping reserves, etc. Frustruating mainly in the way front lines are recalcualted and in the AIs inept behavior as one wears on. First off, I ask BTS what, if anything, they are doing with operations, especially in improving the start line routines? Will scenario designers be allowed to define 'phase lines' and such in operations? Are flags going to be included? I also suggest considering the inclusion of 'faux' flags for scenario designers to channel and direct the AI with but that would not be apparent to players. Thanks in advance for any and all comments. And I again implore people not to turn this into a pro-campaign platform. WWB

Well, one should play to their advantages, which are as follows: 1) Arty. It has been said of the American Army that they just occupy ground after everything that crawled there was obliterated. While CM does not simulate the American FO system, you can. It would not be unrealistic for a US BN to have 81mm mortars, a battery of 105mm and a battery of 155mm in support for an attack. In fact, it is better to view US forces as scouts for the arty. Find enemy. Run. Call in barrage. Advance over their smoldering corpse. Repeat. 2) US Squads pack quite a punch. 12 men does not hurt at close range, and all semi-auto rifles makes them very deadly at medium range. Not to mention that in 45 the get 2 BARs. Just about the only squads that can go up against Motorized or FJs and hold their own. 3) Hellcats. The ultimate anti-armor weapons. Fast as hell, and once the get tungsten they can deal with anything at medium ranges. WWB

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: And to the guy who says the panther was the great-grandaddy of all modern MBT's - the Panther used design concepts from hte T34....it added nothing except thicker armour and a longer gun (not even larger calibre).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh, I would be that guy. And I would say the Panther used a much different concept for armor than the T-34s, especially the early models (i.e., the models which influenced the design of the Panther). While the T-34 armor was thicker in front, it was pretty thick all around (a ratio of 8(f)-6(s)-6(s), IIRC. Panthers, on the other hand, had a ratio something like 13-5-5. Which is a major difference. While the T-34 is a classic 'breakthru' tank, the Panther is designed never to show its side armor to the enemy. Moreover, the earlier T-34s had a medium velocity gun much like the gun on Sherman 75s, which as we have seen in CMBO is far from a great anti-tank weapon. On the other hand, as Rexford has shown, the super-high velocty 75 on the Panther actually gave up significant HE hitting power in exchange for anti-tank strength. This makes the Panther much more like modern tanks than its Russian opponents. It is a very heavy vehicle mainly designed to destroy other AFVs, not to run amok behind lines and such. Go take a look at say, a T-55, and while you see many bits of a T-34 incorporated, it still ends up feeling much more like a Panther than its Soviet predecessors. WWB

In more oddness about british captures, I had a british crew which got captured, escaped, then continued running around with a 0 out of 3 men healthy rating today! WWB

The big, long term effect is that the Panther really is the great-granddaddy of all modern tanks. It, and its successors very heavy frontal armor, not so much on the sides and rear, great cross country mobility, and a gun that designed to penetrate any of its peers. WWB

I will have to second that. The map is amazingly deadly, it makes you question why they even tried. But it is possible with the forces at hand, if you are willing to take the risks. Definitely a fun play for both sides. And friendly fire hurts. WWB

I strongly second this motion. If the AI would just setup platoons together it would be much, much better. As it stands now, it scatters everything then spends the first couple turns re-organizing, etc. Another thing that would help it alot would be if it could understand how to use support weapons such as mortars and mgs. Currently it uses them to charge with the rest of the light brigade, so to speak, where they would be much more useful hanging back in a support role. And the other big thing it could use is some kind of instruction not to lead with armor. Now, the AI just moves the everything out, resulting in the faster units (i.e. vehicles) leading the way. And we all know what happens when armor leads. . WWB [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

What, me, be an angel? If only you knew, young grasshopper. . . WWB