LongLeftFlank

Could be wrong, but these Red Devils look like they're wearing some kind of smock, or anyway something a tad baggier than the regular tunic. And if the basic wireframe indeed exists, then it's a good bet the SS have them too....

Hmmm.... tempting next project. Hmmm.... But no, I've promised the CMSF faithful to get back to Ramadi once I've completely exhausted the le Carillon - la Meauffe Greater Metropolitan Area. In any case, did significant Aachen-style infantry fighting (i.e. suitable CM scenario material) take place in the city centre once the 101st "cracked the crust" of the FJ defenses at the edge of town? Most of the damage in the centre looks like artillery or aerial bombs.... with maybe a sniper holdout or two getting his perch hosed down with bullets.

Not holding my breath though. Anything that requires the team to program new animations or even static figure poses is going to be tacked on to the bottom of a verrrrry longggggg list. Things like machine gunners who prop their weapons up on whatever instead of firing from the shoulder like riflemen rate a way higher priority....

Sinister Nazi genetic experimentation? Or else they got really deep into that Aryan mythology....

Yes, I'm not using citations for any kind of serious analysis of battlefield norms, just saying that not every soldier eagerly grabbed that "Blighty wound" at once. Like I said before I'd rather see soldiers able to drag casualties to cover than dedicated medics or any kind of "healing" feature. I'm content with things as they are now.

Oh, and the Extremely Useful aerial shots.... I hope I'm not hijacking your thread here. As you may know, I kind of dig mapping cities....

I will add my accolades to those above. Also, Chris Ferrous pasted a link to some period photos in another thread, and I noticed these Carentan shots rue Holgate: Carentan railway place de la Republique ... and many others. These shots are awesome for checking authenticity of your maps. FWIW.

Wot's Japanese for LOL!?

Uh, except for just about every citation for conspicuous gallantry I can ever recall reading.

Not directly addressing your question, I know, but having to face and resolve just this kind of tactical command dilemma is the reason why this game is so unique and powerful in the wargaming space. There's certainly a doctrinal training ground solution (husband SW in reserve to establish base of fire once enemy MLR is located, etc.), but this breaks down rapidly on the battlefield, especially in the bocage where tactical communication and even basic orientation is extremely slow and unreliable. FWIW, here's an anecdote I've quoted before, from Buckley, "The Normandy campaign 1944: sixty years on": The 2/137 was more successful in changing tactical organisation and procedures for the infantry and their own and attached fire support weapons. Colonel O'Connell decentralised his forces, attaching a platoon of heavy machineguns and a section of 81mm mortars to each company. The rifle companies were ordered to abandon conventional formation and create attack groups of four or five men. O'Connell remarked, "The best tactic was to first place very heavy concentrations of mortar fire on all suspected enemy lines and then to follow this up with a liberal use of grenade launchers and hand grenades." Again, more historical context than practical advice here. In game, I've personally found that command delays don't seem to matter too much for Regular or Veteran troops out of command.

Great photos there. Thanks for sharing.

There were many anecdotes from the Western front of both sides holding fire on clearly marked medics and ambulances. I'd guess this probably happened far more often on balance than shooters deliberately targeting them. The most frequent occurrence, I suspect, is that the medic is partly out of view of the enemy, and his identity and activities are not apparent, or he is in proximity to other men who are actively shooting. So the enemy does not withhold fire and this gives rise to an "atrocity" rumour in men already predisposed to think the worst of their enemies. As the war went on and the Germans became more fanatical, their snipers in particular started to play by harsher rules, e.g. gut shooting a guy to use as bait for anyone coming to his aid. Which was why they didn't tend to be taken prisoner if identified.

I'd love to see a generic 1-2 man unarmed or pistol-armed unit in the game that can b designated for various support tasks such as medic or ammo bearer. But I'd sooner have men able to drag casualties out of the line of fire.

You cam create your desired "Extreme Bocage" with a little work; first create a 1m high embankment using the Elevation editor. To make it impassable use the Heavy Forest tile. To make it passable with difficulty use Light Forest or Mud. Top it off with Bocage or Low Bocage, whichever suits you. Hedges do provide some nominal concealement to units prone and Hiding behind but generally I agree with the criticisms previously expressed. The foliage in this game is about a meter too low in terms of its LoS effects.

"For this module I sold my virtue"

CMx1 is a traditional ASL-style tactical wargame nicely rendered into 3d. It's good for battalion level fights, but IMHO to wargame "in the boots" (omniscience issues aside) of a company or platoon commander you simply can't beat CMx2 (the current engine). The two games are simply different, at least when it comes to infantry (CM1 was already 1:1 on an AFV scale so it hasn't changed so much). Neither CMBO nor ASL is going to explain to you just how a single sniper can pin down an entire rifle platoon for an hour, or exactly why and how 9 out of 10 Allied infantry attacks stalled within yards of their LDs under a withering rain of German MG and mortar fire. Maybe that's not why you wargame, but there are plenty of us who want that and are delighted that there's a game company and community with the stones to pursue this segment of wargaming. For those who want a higher scale and less micro there are plenty of other options out there for you. The engine will evolve over time, absolutely, to tweak things like infantry cover seeking and ability of buttoned tanks to sniff out concealed infantry, and to add features like true CoPlay, AI "triggers", more autonomous road pathing and perhaps unit SOPs (formations). But that's hard for a small shop to deliver in one mouthful. So the demos are always free: keep trying them and who knows, someday the engine may fit your personal comfort level. Don't give up.

I suspect anyone with a prerelease copy is beavering away testing and finalizing the core content at the moment.

Since I'm in the camp that says non-gap Low Bocage should be crossable by men and vehicles, albeit at some risk of bogging, I usually stick in a Hedge segment or two on top of a Mud tile to give a crossing point. Like Schultz, I use gapped Hedge mostly for added underbrush (the existing Brush is fairly useless desert scrub) although it doesn't stand in for a thicket (i.e. doesn't block vehicle LOS).

Think about what bocage is for.... to shelter the patchwork of small fields against bitter winds coming off the Bay of Biscay, especially in the Norman highlands. The original mounds are spoil (rocks) pulled by the ancient Celts from the fields to allow cultivation of the relatively poor soil. Hedges are then allowed to grow up on top. Starting in the 1500s or earlier, improvements in commerce drove the rural economy from subsistence to export of dairy products and apple brandy, on the Ricardian model. OK, so what? Well as you move inland and downland onto river plains with better soils, winters aren't so harsh and more of the land is given over to seasonal crops. That means bigger fields as medieval strip farming gives over to tenant-farmed manor estates. Fields are still enclosed, but in low rock walls which evolve into lower hedgerows over time. Pastures and orchards still need windbreaks along their western and northern margins to protect their comtents from the aforementioned winter winds, but stands of tall trees make more sense than high bocage.

"That man is the biggest nuisance on the beach."

My apologies if I put words in your mouth. As I've noted subsequently, I believe most of the solution lies in better map design. If you don't want to be selective about maps or muck about in the Editor, then I suppose you're right -- not much you can do as a player. But if it's any consolation, I strongly suspect you will see major improvements in the CW module.

Yup, that's all too common an experience. My suggested fix is simple: go into the Editor and everywhere you have a forest tile with trees that's adjacent to non-forest (i.e. receives sunlight), drop in a randomly selected and "gapped" Bocage, Low Bocage or Hedge segment to represent the bushes and smaller trees that would in RL make LoS through this "forest edge" terrain spotty at best in summer. The gap is there to allow infantry movement. Suddenly you will find you are playing a VERY different game. Uberkitteh fetishists and on map mortar abusers will howl with dismay when they actually have to think hard about where they place their "superunits". And suddenly the Allied tactics of seeking flank shots from multiple angles against solo Tigers don't seem so futile. I swear to you: 9 out of 10 of the supposed "Fatal Flaws" © in this game (and CMSF) are simply a function of hasty map design. Mapmakers: spend a little time at ground level with the Target tool. Is the visibility meeting your intent? Does it seem like June? in Normandy? Throwing down buildings, roads and trees on a Google Earth footprint ain't enough.

Fighting Seabee's Pont du Hoc scenario is excellent too.

Cover seeking and cover has been tweaked some since the initial release of CMSF and is noticeably improved since those early days, though it remains a work in progress. However, I disagree that 1 to 1 modeling is inherently futile at CM scale -- it requires a lot of micromanagement, true, but to my mind delivers more satisfying results than more abstract tactical games like ASL, CM1 or PC. YMMV. At this point, prone Cowering and Hiding units in any kind of cover terrain, especially entrenchments are pretty invulnerable to all but direct hits and very near misses. The major missing component that accounts for the outlandish kill rate is getting them to "hit the dirt" in a timely manner when the shells are coming in and I have a feeling that fix will be made sooner rather than later. One other observation about mortars: most CMBN maps are wayyyyyyy too open -- you can see right through copses of trees for hundreds of meters, settlements don't have walls or hedges, map designers didn't bother to put in gullies, ditches, elevated road or railbeds, etc. etc. that would otherwise break up the LOS. When most of the map can see most of the rest of the map, this massively favours the player with the most lethal ranged weapons, whether 88s or mortars.

No, you are hardly the only one. My own opinion is, it isn't the mortars, it's the failure of the pixeltroops to take cover promptly and stay down.