gunnergoz

Thanks, YD, I'd always assumed that the German MG barrels had the rifling blown out and that is why they were disposed of. I knew that the game modeled the switch but never figured it was a "recycling" process so to speak.

You have to smack it smartly with your Bren tripod first.

AFAIC, destroyed vehicles should block all fire. Even with the 88 we are not talking about an Abrams 120mm main gun, whose APFSDS can go through two T-62 class tanks...if double penetrations were commonplace in WW2 we would hear of many more of them. So apart from the one in a million fluke where a Panther round goes through two adjacent M5's, I'd say it is generally more realistic to have destroyed vehicles block both LOS and LOF.

And do we really want the game to have to track how many spare MG barrels we have on hand?

Yes, but just penetrating a mature (2 foot diameter) tree does not chop it down, unless you are talking about a whole lot of .30 cal bullets.

Sorry I can't make out anything from those small jpgs. Any chance you can post larger ones? Perhaps with some indication of where the dark squares are? And what sort of rig are you running and what video card?

Quick is good but they tend to stop and fire back if someone opens up on them while they are en route to their new cover position. If that is what you want, fine. Fast is good too because they tend to keep running no matter what to the new position instead of stopping and becoming even better exposed targets. Of course you get tired from Fast but you can recover once you are in cover.

Where does one turn shadows on and off? Nevermind, found it, Alt-w. Silly me.

I timed one MMG at one point. My impression is that each MMG and HMG fires a short burst approximately once every 5-6 seconds. It got to where I could sort of pick up a rhythm. The guns do not appear to fire more often as the enemy closes or I would hear the difference. One would think that gunners would be tempted to fire more often as the enemy neared their actual position but that does not seem to be the case. I'll keep checking.

The two extra HMG's altered the balance considerably. After 30 minutes of advancing, the US company had failed to take the objective, although the Germans were beginning to waver and break from their own losses. Once the US got within 300 yards, the Germans could not keep up the same rate of knockdowns and eventually the US gained some measure of fire superiority, although at horrendous cost to themselves. At 200 yards so many US troops were cowering and near panic that it was taking a long time between team rushes, so it is conceivable that the Americans might have broken entirely at the final rush. It was more like a race to see who would break first. Final Tally: US 63 OK, 27 KIA, 35 WIA Germans 19 OK, 7 KIA, 17 WIA The foxholes helped the Germans resist return fire until about 300 yards and after that they were getting picked off as they stuck their heads up. A most interesting experiment. Had the Americans more time, they possibly would have taken the objective, but the company would have been reduced by more than half by then. A Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. The Germans might have sacrificed themselves but they did not go cheap. Since both sides were evenly matched on other soft factors this could be a baseline to study extremes and variations, but clearly I need to allocate more time so things can play out to a final conclusion. An interesting variant would be to swap sides and see how M1 Garand equipped troops with M1919A4's and A6's will fare against a German force. I suspect the US defenders will do better given their superior individual firepower. But for now I can answer the question "do HMG's work as advertised?" with a qualified yes. And infantry will continue to advance into the teeth of horrendous fire.

Everything was set for average, including morale, on both sides. I expected to lose the Germans, but I expected also to have them take out more attackers before they were eliminated. I'll check things out and get back to you.

You want that with the MMG"s too? For a total of 5 MG's? Or in lieu of the line platoons and their MMG's for a total of only 2 MG's but both being heavy?

At the risk of being accused of being a fanboi: you tell 'em, Steve! I've played a lot of wargames, board and computer, and this one is the capstone of WW2 tactical games IMNSHO. It just doesn't get any better than this. So there, I said it. And no, I'm not 200 years old, just 63 but if this game (and PC's) had existed when I was a kid, I probably would have never finished high school...

LOL. Doing research presently, watching South Park to learn what I can about Alien devices.

On a different subject. Actually, the one we started to discuss. What a concept. I just tried my hand at making a little test, using the scenario builder for the first time. I made a 300x1000 meter map, totally flat and placed a US infantry company (all regular/normal/fit/neutral leadership at one end (minus mortars and HMG's) and told it to take the other end. On the other end I placed 1 German infantry platoon in the open, same soft factors, sans schrecks but including any fausts they might have. I did allow the US to keep its bazookas since they were often used in an anti-personnel role. The Germans opened fire around 600 meters. The US return fire started to take its toll around 300 meters. The end? All 30 some Germans eliminated (they had no place to run) and the Americans ended with 4 KIA and 15 WIA, with over 100 remaining OK. Just one trial and not proof of anything except in this one instance, MG42's did not show much killing power and there were 3 of them there. I expected exposed defenders to die like flies. What I did not expect was the relatively low losses they inflicted before the Americans got into range to return fire and do some suppressing themselves. I'll probably play around with this some more, add some foxholes and see what happens. But I must say that this was surprising, given that in the regular game scenarios, it just seems and feels more...credible. Maybe this is just too extreme a trial to prove anything. Comments?

I said let it go. Do you not know when you have been told politely to back off?

You don't read very well either, or simply like to twist facts to suit your perspective. I never claimed to be Ukrainian, simply married one; and I wrote she was my mother in law, not my grandmother. And I don't defend Stalin. But I sure as hell don't defend Hitler either as you clearly seem to. "Preemptive strike?" In your dreams...but that was Hitler's excuse so its yours too. Now let it go - you and I are from two different worlds and of that fact I'm glad.

I realize this is a bit stale but it was news to me. R.P. Hunnicutt, whom many of you know as the author of a series of probably the most thoroughly researched engineering studies of US Armor, passed away on 4/29/2011. http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=34073&st=0 I never met the man but greatly admired his works and proudly own all of them. Until now, I was not aware of his wartime service and postwar contributions to the armor history community. He shall be missed.

Gotta love the grogs in this place...

I'd presume that BFC's researchers used historical records of each army's "unit of fire" issued to batteries during the war. There were such standards published that established how much ammunition should be kept on hand based upon projections of daily combat requirements. If so, those could be used as a baseline to determine how much ammunition off map artillery would have on hand in the game. Of course, precisely what those game numbers are is a good question...

I know this and it pertains to Eastern Ukraine's border regions, not the entire country. Ukrainian nationalists existed before the Germans invaded. At the same time, Stalin said nothing to the Russians beyond the fact that they would all fight the Germans together. Sure, there were the usual exhortations to move the glorious revolution forward, but I don't think they affected anyone but communist "true believers." OTOH, I do not recall reading of any "promises" being made to induce the Soviet people to unite to fight the invaders. That would have been insulting, not to say unnecessary. That was not the first invasion Russians had endured. They have long memories. Local nationalists made hay of the opportunity to rise up, as noted, but most of the people needed little inducement to knuckle down for a long, hard and deadly fight. What they wanted to know from Stalin was, was he with them or would he seek an accommodation with the Germans as he had in the pre-war pact with the supposed enemy? Once it was clear that Stalin was staunchly behind the fight, the people surged to the mobilization points. Steiner's attempts to whitewash the invasion as some sort of humanitarian effort by the Germans to liberate the downtrodden communist masses just reeks of BS, I'm sorry. Your view is better balanced but IMHO still reflects some things that are not supported by my first hand observations and experience with people in the FSU. BTW I'm responding with this post because I was directly addressed and to not reply would be rude.

From what I read, 12 were present in one battalion which faced the Brits on their side of the invasion cantonment. Apparently none were confronted by Americans in Normandy. So I'd expect it in the Commonwealth module to come.

Sorry to hear your of your frustration, Gautrek. I'm sure it pains you and I hope that over time you feel better about the game. I haven't played CM1 in ages so the transition was much easier for me. But this new game has much to offer and I suspect that the CM2 games to come will address many of your concerns. Try to stick it out, you may be pleasantly rewarded for doing so.

That's funny, when I was there recently, I saw newly-wed Ukrainian couples still in their wedding clothes laying flowers on the local community WW2 war shrine. That is still a fresh memory in their minds. And my Ukrainian mother in law, who'd been a forced laborer for the Germans as a teenaged girl, still cannot listen to their language without flinching. Yes, some Soviet communities (particularly in Eastern Ukraine) welcomed the Germans at first. Some people even fought for the invading Germans later, that is true - but not with much "motivation" as even this game shows. But the 90% (which you yourself concede did not go turncoat), had very good reason to resist the Germans body and soul. Germany invaded Russia, or did you conveniently forget that? Was Germany there to "liberate" the locals? I think not. You speak of propaganda but what I hear coming from you is the rankest sort of the same. Spend some time with people in their own land and get to know them real well, before you make comments like that. (As for the rest of the forum, I apologize for my contribution towards hijacking this thread and I hereby conclude my comments on the issue.)

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. At the same time you and I may be looking at the term "motivation" differently, even in game terms. I use it to mean the amount of personal commitment in each soldier to carry out orders he is given. This in game terms affects how soldiers in a team or squad regard one another and how they tend to behave when things go sideways. Factors like outside coercion, political disaffection, and poor leadership can definitely influence overall morale, but they do not necessarily impair a soldier's sense of duty and obligation to fight for whatever he values most. As a Soviet citizen I might detest the commissars, fear the KGB, remember with hatred the purges and the artificial famines - but in the end, I will be most influenced by friends and family and my concern to preserve them and to maintain my image with them. That is a cultural issue that might vary with another society. In this respect, the Russians seem more Asian than European, IMO. Whether or not they are intrinsically brave or craven, scared or fearless, dashing or sullen, soldiers at some point have to decide whether they are going to get out of their foxhole and move forward to do what they have been told to do. Soldiers who are poorly motivated take a lot longer (if at all) to decide to follow orders than those who are more committed (motivated) towards a goal. I would argue that most soldiers, being only human, equally value their lives, but some place an even higher value on other factors, which may lead them to overcome fear and hesitation. There's a scene in Band of Brothers where Lieutenant Spears, who is notoriously impervious to visible signs of fear, comments to the effect while another officer still hopes to live through the war, Spears already considers himself a casualty, so he finds he can do things on the battlefield that self-preservation might prevent in others. He has conceded his combat death is all but guaranteed and this frees him from the paralysis that comes with fearing for his life. That is something akin to the "fatalism" that I have observed in many people from Russia and Ukraine. Life is short, you only have today, preserve and defend your family the best you can and hope they remember you as an honorable man...that's how many of them see things still. All I'm saying is that a given population's degree of fatalism and acceptance of the likelihood of death is going to influence the way they fight. WW2 Americans, Germans, Russians, Japanese, Italians and so on...all these cultures had different cultural starting points with respect to how a soldier looked upon the tension between duty and self-preservation. Every man was different, but he was a product in the end of a culture that inculcated certain values in him that ultimately affected his behavior when under extreme stress of combat. So be a man be individually brave or not, he and his comrades in arms likely shared a number of beliefs that affected their unit performance and these shared beliefs could at times overcome individual shortcomings. Generalizations are of course a very crude measure of reality, but we all know something of stereotypes and such that each combatant nation had of themselves and of the other side: Americans were reluctant to face direct fire, supposedly, while Germans had an extreme sense of duty and did so without hesitation, while Russians were herded like sheep until they overwhelmed the enemy with their masses. Some of these stereotypes were occasionally true, but hardly were they uniformly in evidence. But this is only a game and we pretty much have to use anecdotal evidence when hard data is lacking, as it is when measuring an intangible element like "motivation." In the end it is a subjective decision what motivation level to assign to a given force. We have historical results to guide us (i.e. we now now who broke and who kept going) so that can be useful. What is less useful is assuming that the other guy is just like you, when we, today are not much like our grandfathers, let alone know much about the other guy's grandfather. My sense is that wartime Soviet soldiers were on the whole very well motivated to do their duty. They were let down by leadership and circumstance, to be sure, but they seldom just packed up and surrendered without a fight...not on a tactical and individual level at least. Exceptions happened of course since people vary and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union had varying cultures and degrees of loyalty to the regime. I just finished reading a book about Stalin's "court" and it was very descriptive of Stalin's disdain for his son who was captured by the Germans - Stalin pretty clearly would have preferred that his son died on the battlefield than allow himself to be captured. When the son was reported to have died during an escape attempt, Stalin was somewhat mollified for it showed everyone that his son was at least attempting to resist his captors. What was less forgivable was that he had allowed himself to be taken alive in the first place. So I assume that you and I could create two scenarios about the exact same situation, units and weapons (say on the Eastern front) and they could well be very different to play out and experience because we each have different subjective opinions about where our pixeltruppen's motivation lies. Nothing wrong with that. Thanks for bearing with me and getting this far (assuming you have!) It is obviously a subject dear to my heart. If that affects my perspective, well, so be it.