Amedeo

Full movie on Mosfilm's official site: http://www.cinema.mosfilm.ru/Film.aspx?id=4995e463-9ce3-4df9-b72f-0d588cb3deae P.S. There are a lot of war/action movies there, some even subtitled.

Qaddafi was very fond of this movie and tried, in part, to built the legitimacy of his rule on the story narrated by it. BTW, it's worth noting that the movie was banned in Italy and it was, eventually, broadcast on TV, for the first time in 2009 in occasion of Qaddafi state visit in Rome.

Interesting considerations. Surely you have a point.

If BFC decided to model uniforms and equipement to the extreme level of detail it did, that means that that level of detail is important to them. For example, I paint napoleonic 25mm miniatures for wargaming. Now, if I decide to paint also buttons on the minis, I'd better use the correct colour for them. If I mistakenly paint a miniature with yellow buttons instead of white, I cannot answer to someone that is pointing to me the error, that buttons are not important. If I really consedered them unimportant I'd have dispensed with them althogether. So, I think that if a user spots an inaccuracy, the best course of action is to point it to the developers because they are interested in that kind of minutiae. Of course, the priority BFC will assign to the amending of these minor quirks won't be that high because there are more urgent things to do. But this doesn't imply that, in the long run, they will not, eventually, set them straight. For what concernes Italian voices, well, my basic complaint is that they seems to have been recorded by someone closed into a cellar! To me, the speaker seems a native speaker. BTW, I still did not get the occasion to hear the majority of the Italian audio files. I hope that this time the historical accuracy of what is said will be improved compared to what they did in CMBB and CMAK (I hope I won't hear again shouts like "Sì signore!" or "Granata!" that have nothing to do with the correct military jargon).

But only for higher HQs. IIRC platoon leaders are dressed like privates. In CMFI, German and Italian platoons commanders have different models/textures.

Luke, your remarks are absolutely right. Don't listen to those who say that they are not relevant. You are asking for correctness at the level of detail that was chosen by the game designers so I presume they'll eventually amend these minor inaccuracies. BTW, I'd also be glad if the Garands will start ejecting empty clips (and not fully loaded ones) but, maybe, this is why I always loose my firefights when playing as the US Army!

I was pleased to see that in CMFI Axis armies have specific 3D models and textures for officers (platoon, company and battalion commanders). I was wondering whether: 1. Officers will also be modelled for allied armies. 2. This feature will be retrofitted to CMBN via the 2.0 upgrade.

Perhaps. But I wanted to underline that I am requesting something that is written on the regulations, something that, albeit exceptional, was, for sure, more frequent that any bizarre tactical exploit devised on the fly by a creative squad leader (whether it involved cows or not! ). Point taken. I wasn't considering this possibility. If the manual states that it's advisable to do something in a given way, I dare to say that it was standard practice. For that particular action, of course... but this is obvious! I was referring to the advancing in bounds, although I admit I didn't consider it was possible to do something similar with the assault command. But, for the vary same reason, it would also be foolish to dismiss the fact that the note under the diagrams says that the intervals and distances given are in no way to be considered normative (emphasis in the original). As I said, the note states that the intervals are not to be taken as boundaries, even if they are given as intervals (e.g. 8-30 paces). You don't have to persuade me. My gaming experience make me certain of this too... You're right. But you also know that almost any rule is susceptible of abuse and no wargame can be totally fool-proof: Jeep recon, crewmen grabbing victory flags, you name it. The point is: is the benefit of additional detail totally offset by possible exploitations or not? Our opinions, about the issue at hand, diverge. Of course I have no problem if you says that the cons outweights the pros, in this case. I just wanted you to ponder the case with the benefit of a more accurate translation of the relevant sections. If your call remains the same, it's OK for me. As you said, the issue at hand isn't nearly as extreme as this. Unless, of course, you can provide a quote with commands and diagrams for a cow attack, taken from an official U.S. Army field manual! That's fine. I just wanted to provide additional food for thought, but it's obvious that the call is, rightly, yours. I do not think that the possible exploits of allowing the LMG section to split would eclipse the added realism (actually, I think that nothing short of giving the Regio Esercito some tacnukes would imbalance the game in favour of the Italians, but I digress... ) anyway, as I said, it's only my opinion and I have no intention to insist, if you think that the evidence presented is not compelling. Regards, Amedeo

Steve, I understand your concerns and I agree that, when in doubt, a conservative approach should be preferred but I'd also like to bring to your attention two other important points: - If something is depicted in one third of the illustrations in a regulation, it's probably something that is likely to happen often, despite it being styled "exceptional" or not. - More relevant: section 222 of the aforementioned instruction clearly states that when advancing under fire, it is expedient for the LMG group to alternate movement and fire for the LMGs themselves. That means that the standard practice was that one LMG fires while the other bounds forward, while the rifle group regulate its movement on the firing weapon (weapon, singular, not weapons, as in the PDF! There's an error in the translation, the original says: il gruppo fucilieri regola il suo movimento sull'arma in funzione). Thus, it's evident that the current impossibility to split the LMG group forbids something that was normal practice. Moreover, if your concern is that the two weapons should only remain at the wings without wandering about, consider also that the intervals and distances shows in the pictures are not compelling and should not be taken as the norm. And they can considerably be different from what is shown, in accordance with the commander's orders (this is written on the regulation, it's not my guess). So, for the aforementioned reasons, I'm still convinced that you should allow the LMG group (and only this group) to be split into two fire teams. It won't be a game breaker and, more importantly, will enhance the overall realism and the attention to detail that are a trademark of the CM series. Regards, Amedeo

Yes, as Mitra76 said, binary divisions were a result of a 1938 change, not a WW1-era leftover (Italian Army switched to a triangular system in 1926). Anyway, since, now, the Tactical Manual has been linked to this forum for the third time, wouldn't it be a great idea to follow what it says, and allow the Italian LGM groups to split into two teams?

Still, I think that the LMG group should be allowed to be split into two fire teams. It won't require a TO&E change and it won't be a game breaker. Will allow for a more accurate depiction of what is in the aforementioned manual, though.

John, I've never played "Up front!", I didn't even know it depicted also Italian troops. I was considering to buy that game, back in the '80s, but I was more than content with the SL series. The Italians were, definitely, not up to date (euphemism!) in small units tactics during WW2, but what has this to do with the Bersaglieri feathers' drops? They still wear them today in Afghanistan (yesterday a patrol was ambushed after an IED attack and got involved into a firefight... I guess they didn't use WW1 tactics, despite the feathers on their helmets! What about allowing only the LMG group to split? (see the link to the manual in my previous post) Regards to all, Amedeo

It's just a first impression but I think that the Italians look reasonably well modelled in CMFI. I'm overall pleased, although there are a couple things, IMHO, in need to be fixed. For example, I think that the 1st group of a rifle squad should be allowed to split into two fire groups, with one LMG each. The Italian 1939 infantry tactics regulation can be found here: http://www.regioesercito.it/regioesercito/redoc/manumil9.htm There's an English translation here (PDF file): http://comandosupremo.com/montecervino/files/infantry_squad.pdf One can see (there are interesting diagrams at the end of the document) that the infantry squad was divided in two groups: gruppo fucilieri (riflemen) and gruppo mitragliatori (LMGs). Occasionally, the LMG group was split in two (e.g. to provide fire support from both endes of the skirmish line or to provide fire support while advancing in bounds).

That's correct.

Yes, the 47mm AT gun had EP, EPS and EPS Mod. 42 rounds. BTW, it might be worth noting that in summer 1943 the vanilla 47mm EP round was still in service. The dispatch No.364900 dated August 1943, sent by the Italian Army General Staff said: "47mm EP shells are still in distribution [...] they should be used as ordinary shells (i.e. as HE) instead as AT rounds."

I'd like to see German tropical forage caps too, actually I'd be glad to see also squad and platoon leaders. It's nice to see soldiers showing an assortment of camo, helmets, webbing, backpacks etc. but it's dull to see them all dressed as privates (with the exception of German armoured leaders and battalion commanders). It seems we'll have to wait till CMx2 3.0 though. Speaking of bersaglieri wearing feathers in action: Russian front, bersaglieri action starts at 00:17 and ends at 1:50 Iraq, 2004, most of the video of this firefight shows carabinieri in action, but there's a bersaglieri team launching a Milan ATGM against an enemy pillbox at 7:09 EDIT: Wait! I've seen an Italian platoon leader in a screenshot... there's still hope!

You are right in considering EP an inefficient (to put it mildly) HEAT design. But my point is: what's the best way to simulate the effects of EP rounds in CMFI? Considering that field trials showed that its (EP) effects were mainly cracking and spalling damage, I presume it's better to model it as a HESH.

The EPS was a true and functional HEAT round but EP ammo had base fuzes without nose initiators and was more a sort of HESH. Now, it would be interesting to know whether in summer 1943 EPS ammo was in widespread use or were EP rounds still common...

Exactly, it's no coincidence that they (and not some line infantry regiments) assumed the role of mobile infantry for the divisioni corazzate and divisioni celeri. Perhaps today (with a professional army and a high proportion of bersaglieri with respect to the infantry totals) bersaglieri are not that much different from ordinary mech infantry, but I'm positive that for equipement, organization, fitness and esprit de corps they were way better than line infantry in WW2. BTW I'm surprised that, given the quote in your signature, you think that bersaglieri unit weren't better than average line infantry. Of course I'm referring to battaglioni mobilitati, carabinieri paracadutisti and other units that had front line duties, not the average MP company. I hope the game will correctly model the peculiarities of Italian equipement. BTW, now that CMx2 is able to model HESH ammo, perhaps we will see effetto pronto shells for Italian guns. Regards

Probably because the photos you are referring to don't depict Bersaglieri. I'm puzzled. Even a quick search with Google using random keywords (e.g. bersaglieri africa) gives a lot of pictures of front line bersaglieri troopers wearing feathers. The same applies to YouTube searches: e.g. http://youtu.be/7B7d117vX5E from 4:50 on, there are some bersaglieri filmed in combat. I presume you think you found contradictory evidence, because you're assuming that every photo depicting Italian soldiers should show bersaglieri. The only period in the whole history of the corps of the Bersaglieri in which they didn't fight with the feathers their headdress was between the end of 1915 and the beginning of 1917. The bersaglieri entered WW1 with their traditional black cap with feathers (still used today in dress uniform). The feathers were removed in december 1915 for visilibility issues and the hat was retired in 1916 for the new steel helmets. In 1917 the feathers came back on the combat helmet and regulations still provide for the use of piumetto (feathers drop) on the helmet in combat. Actually, enlisted troops used (and use) two version of piumetto, a 100-feathers one for the full dress hat and a smaller 80-feathers one for combat dress. Some officers use, larger, non-regulation, versions of piumetto on their parade hats (up to 500 feathers!). I beg to differ. Bersaglieri were élite troops, as were élite troops all rifle-armed light infantry units in mid-XIX century european armies. And, I think, the same applies also in later periods. I doubt that in the Regio Esercito of WW2 the average line infantry unit could stand on par with bersaglieri, alpini, paracadutisti or carabinieri. As you said, bersaglieri didn't use the fez in combat so I presume we, rightly, won't see them in CMFI. Anyway, we're lucky enough this time BFC finally bothered modelling feathers... in CMBB and CMAK, alpini and bersaglieri with bare helmets were not a pretty sight!

Yes, they did keep the feathers in combat, as they always did, and as they still do nowdays in Afghanistan.

BTW, it's just me or they eject loaded clips in the game? If this is the case, changing the graphics to account for this qualifies as a "nice" feature to add.

I just completed my first battle. Well... I admit I thought the game had less content than it actually has. I am pleased, so far, with CMBN. It ain't no SF-clone-with-crappier-weapons. I now have great expectations for the other WW2 CMx2 modules and games. The only downside is that it will take many years to make them all. One may always hope to see all CMBN modules by the end of this year and the new Bagration game (and modules) by the end of 2012! But I'm afraid my schedule it a little too optimistic...

I noticed (but I might be wrong, I only had time to scratch the surface of this new jewel... there's much more stuff than I thought at first) that only company and battalion commanders sports proper uniforms, platoon commanders and NCOs have the same shoulder straps, collar tabs and headgear of enlisted men. And this for the Germans, all US Army Officers (commissioned and non-commissioned) look like privates. On the other hand, it seems to me that all german armoured crewmen have officer's shoulder boards! I confess I'd like to see a better representation of ranks differences, given the exceptional detail of the game's modelling of uniforms and gear. I think this issue could be easily addressed using the same approach used in older CM games for winter camouflage: different bitmap numbers. The modding community will take care of the rest... Comments?

Well, I probably would have chosen option 1 too, but it's worth noting that the Soviet didn't really embrace a "don't worry, anything goes" attitude in this regard. I mean, they could have said that 76mm AP rounds could penetrate German 80mm plates (maybe at "short" range) but they didn't. They didn't in the fire test reports against catured AFVs (Ferdinand, Tiger I and II side armour), they didn't in their how to pamphlets.