Doodlebug

I have to disagree with you here I'm afraid. If the battle were only influenced before the battle then the planning would be very stereotyped. "The barrage will being at 05.00. It will last 20 minutes. It will then lift and you will advance to your objective. You must reach "X" at 06.30. The creeping barrage will move at 100 metres a minute. You must keep pace. Good luck Gentlemen. Return to your units." If it's all pre-battle planning then you end up with a WW1 attack. Fine if all the cogs mesh but a disaster if anything unforseen intervenes. If companys and batallions could lend a hand but only in a limited way then why are we using them to spearhead attack groups at all? And finally, and most importantly, it is because of 1940's technology that the company and batallion commanders must remain "standoffish". They cannot risk becoming embroiled in a local action and thereby be pinned down. FO's now have wire bound communications in CMBB,and so should a batallion command post. Mobile communications as we understand and appreciate them are much more novel(runners were still the norm) and somewhat unreliable. Direct combat intervention was a last ditch action either offensively to make a final push or defensively if the rear areas were being seroiusly threatened. To use the slightly higher level example, Urquhart at Arnhem left the Divisional HQ to find out what was happening when the communications setup failed and ended up hiding to avoid capture. Throughout that period he could not know or influence the deployment of any of his assets. What difference then the batallion commander gallantly assaulting across a field at the head of his composite combat group and getting pinned down behind a wall? "Hurry Smith and bring up the telephone exchange"!

I can't help thinking, gentlemen, that all the above replies are fine in regards to wringing the best play advantage out of the available command stands but doesn't address whether or not company and batallion HQ units should have a greater and more widespread effect on the battlefield. To remove the platoon HQ merely because a superior HQ has higher bonuses and reallocate the units accordingly may be excellent within the scope of the combat equations but is surely unrealistic? To treat higher HQ's as merely larger or "harder" platoon HQ's can't be right. Would it not be more appropriate to see a platoon in command of it's own units and which is itself in the command range of it's superior HQ pass down an increased, or cumulative, bonus? This would encourage a more realistic chain of command whereby the company and batallion HQ's sat back and actually commanded. If you're busy leading assaults in one sector you can't be exerting much influence in any other area.

Actually this raises an issue I hadn't given much thought to until now. Visibility range can vary and be reduced by fog or night for example, so does "audibility" range alter depending upon the level of noise on the battlefield? If a patrol was sneaking about at night when it was relatively quiet an outpost or sentry would be more likely to hear them than if a Nebelwerfer barrage was falling in the vicinity. Does the game take account of the masking effect of loud noises over quieter ones?

Read the thread title and thought Scipio was talking about my stomach. Read his comments and realised he meant tank armour. Read Moon's comments and realised I was probably right all along.

I can report that the 380mm shell will KO a Sturmtiger. I played a QB with 3 of the monsters and when I finished blowing up buildings and factories, I had them do some test firing at each other. Testing shows that: 1. The shell only needs to land nearby. 2. Buttoning up doesn't help. </font>

At the highest level partisans operated from fortified bases and so it would not be implausible for high levels of fortifications to be available to them. The Soviets planned and operated the partisan movement as an adjunct to Army operations. German anti partisan operations could be virtually corps level actions.

Likewise

Bruno. Thanks for the links. Have you dug around in there? There's gold in some of them. http://digilander.libero.it/adol/musiched.htm Looks like a corker.

Shouldn't a properly laid out trench be zigzagged to avoid enfilading fire along the whole length of the trench? Is that included in the cover bonus calculation?

I'm just in process of playing the demo game Yelnia Stare again and while setting up as Axis noticed that the split German squads were numbered differently to CMBO. They were numbered like this. 1 squad A, 2 squad B, 3 squad A, 4 squad B through to 8 squad B. Strangely enough re-uniting the fire teams into squads resulted in the squads numbering 1 to 4 as I would have expected in a German platoon. There seems a duplication of data here as a more logical system would be to retain the primary squad number and then identify the individual fire team from within the squad ie. 1 squad A and 1 squad B, 2 squad A and 2 squad B and so on. Is this a bug or is there something I'm missing? Is there a reason for the change? I've tried a quick search on this but didn't turn up anything useful.

'Have You been playing too much CMBB ?' Not this side of the Atlantic but I live in hope.

This is all getting a bit heated. What it boils down to are "the haves" and "have nots". The "haves" don't care because they've got the game and cannot or will not acknowledge the anger and fury this situation creates and the "have nots" just want the game, ideally unbutchered but any which way if not. I'm going to suggest a solution Gentlemen. Michael et al. send your games to Europe in a sort of Marshall Plan/ Lend Lease arrangement. The ever so grateful Europeans will send you replacements as and when they are released. Problem sorted. The Europeans will be content and Michael won't whine or complain because it's a futile and pointless activity. Or will he?

Munchkins v Flying Monkeys gets my vote. Looking forward to the first ruby slippers mod.

Ooh. Ohh. I thought of another one. Thermal underwear sales plummet in a heat wave.

Bears hibernate in winter.

Ruin is too strong a word. Since CMBO came along and set new standards we've all been awaiting the release of CMBB and the fresh standards that it in turn will set. We are all looking for a truly realistic game and I think that's why many players in Europe want the best they can get, in other words the unadulterated US version. I appreciate the domestic requirements of German legislation but living in the UK it doesn't apply here and I'm pretty annoyed that it's being imposed continent wide. Country specific release versions would maybe have been more appreciated and probably a good deal less contentious to the greater number of dedicated CM fans. The delays and other release date problems haven't helped but that's another isssue.

D'oh. You took the shine right off my answer. I got it right for once but you said it better

Not a typo. One of my favourite reference source, Small Arms,Artillery and Special weapons Of The Third Reich, gives the 15cm Nebelwerfer 41 as having a calibre of 158.5mm and the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 as having a calibre of 214.5mm. Spot on technical detail I think but just enough to throw anyone who recognised the weapons by their more common designations.

Thanks for the effort in setting up your site. Not yet got the game so every glimpse into what's on offer is much appreciated. I think I'm heading for a completely new machine at this rate judging by the comments as I'm way low on the specs. Well done and if you can bear to break away from playing and post more I'm sure many, many others would be grateful to you also.

Does the 'FA' stand for "****-All?" Just curious.</font>

Does the 'FA' stand for "****-All?" Just curious.</font>

On principle. (1).

Oh boy. Am I glad for obliging relatives in the good ole US of A. No "WG" crap for me. After all my forefathers beat 'em last time and I want to do it this time.

Except the American Revolutionary War and War of 1812 that is! Doodler, nice to see someone in Europe still has a spry sense o' humor! </font>

I only launched this thread to field test my sig.