c3k

Didn't someone say that June 6th would be the appropriate date? It's getting closer every day... Ken

Nidan1, FTW! LOL, thanks.

Showing AI pathing BEFORE pressing the "Go" button in WeGo would seem to be impossible. To me, that's the fun of WeGo. If I give a poor order, I can expect poor execution. If the terrain is broken, I have to give chopped up movement orders. That is, if I care how they get executed. WeGo means you have time to organize your plan, but the execution is beyond your control. RT means you don't have time to organize, but you have control over the execution. YMMV. Try the demo, then decide. Ken

Using Iron difficulty levels with Unit Lock (tab) on the lowest visual level is exactly what this references. Try it... It's very hard. You'll never know what the map look likes from overhead, if that is your goal. To make it even harder, only lock your view into a single unit. Good luck! Download the CMSF demo and try it out. Ken

Ahh, I'm an "elite", myself.

If you have played CMSF and enjoyed it, you should. This game is different than CMSF: graphics have a different effect, terrain is different, units/effects are different. Viva la difference! If you're not sure, well, look at the screenshots for CM:A, and download the CMSF demo. That will give a slight taste of what CM:A is like. Ken

First, a huge "Thank You" to Tyrspawn for this. Secondly, wrt the RealTime vs. WeGo video, I think RT was a better choice. WeGo, which is my preferred method of play in almost every single instance, would've made for a much choppier presentation. The work involved in camera placement and replay editing to make a WeGo youtube video appear smooth would be very hard. Regards, Ken

"Death Traps": a good read, but needs to be filtered as a source/reference. Belton Cooper relates anecdotes, not verified facts. (Not saying it's falsified, but it needs to be looked at with a bit of a jaundiced eye. Similarly, "Band of Brothers" has been shown to be based on "war stories", with all that engenders, rather than researched and verified actions.) Ken

We NEED articulated trucks. The Redball Express cannot be simulated without them. Think of the ambush possibilities. How could the breakthrough at Stoumont during the Bulge be worthwhile unless there are fuel trucks waiting? And we'd need new animations: truck drivers grouped around the cab of a parked truck, having a smoke, and bitching.

Zetterling has published a very concise OOB of the German units in Normandy. One thing to remember for the German side is that just about no German division had the same structure as another. Within each division, they rated their battalions and battalion equivalents by a combat rating which primarily counted manpower (or its combat equivalent). The scale had, I believe, 5 ratings, corresponding with less than 100 men, 100 to 200, etc, up to the highest rating of over 500 (or was it 600? Shrug.). Not many German battalions were even close to their KStN strengths. Ken

Old notion (and wrong).

May desire win!

Several of the British attacks out of Caen utilized heavy bombers, similar to Cobra's bombing. In a singularly inept manner, the pathfinder bombers marked the target with orange smoke. Guess what color smoke the ground units were using to mark their lines? Yep, orange. Pretty slick staff work there. Coordination couldn't get any better. After that mess, they decided to try again the next day. (After clearing away the bodies.) Oh, points to the staff work at the IGS/RAF command level: they used the same orange smoke again. Consistency was rewarded with similar friendly casualties. Heavy bombers and front line attacks didn't work too well.

...find the opponents wanted thread...

The editor will allow you to create any battle with any of the units you desire, even US vs US, or German vs German (or any combination). Map size is limited to 4km x 4km (I think... It MAY be 2km x 2km). The mod comment above: visuals and sounds can be modded, but unit abilities cannot be modded.

Thanks for doing all this work!

+1. The in-grame screenshots could almost be photos of action from back in the day...

April? Isn't April right near May? And May is the neighbor to June? And D-Day was in June? Wouldn't it be more satisfying if the game were released on the anniversary of D-Day rather than some random date in the Spring?

Hmmm, the game "The Devil's Cauldron" is a company level, multi-division, multi-map game about Market-Garden. They are making an add-on for the 101st section called "Where Eagles Dare" (I think). The game is fun, it flows, and the production values are top notch. The next ones up are either Kursk or D-Day (I _think_ D-Day is first in line). So, if you can wait a couple years, it should be worth it....

D-Day: The Longest Day, by Avalon Hill? Lots of cardboard... Or the computer version?

fugazy, This has been taken up in the Beta forums. Let's see where it goes from there... Thanks, Ken

German artillery: look at Eastern Front accounts, especially after Kursk (or even after Stalingrad). Usually the German unit frontages were ridiculously long. The German battalions manning the lines were horrendously undermanned. However, the divisional artillery would have a lot of tubes. Sometimes over the TO&E allotment, extras "borrowed" from other units, captured guns, corps and army level assets, etc. The front units would man high ground and RELY on artillery on the defense to smash Soviet attacks. (MG's would pin, artillery would smash.) Their artillery was good, flexible, and numerous. Soviet artillery was VASTLY more numerous, but could not keep up after a breakthrough preparatory bombardment. Western artillery mixed soviet-style numbers with German-style flexibility, and added better comms for the ability to call in more than one battery at a time. It's not that the Germans didn't try to rely on their artillery - they did, and it was all that saved them in the East - it's that it was totally outmatched in the West.

Replacements: two extremes, US Replacement Depot (Repple Depple's) and German Field Ersatz Battalions. - The US version: Men would be placed in the replacement pool, irregardless of origin. A wounded rifleman returned to duty? They wouldn't get him back in his unit, he'd be placed in the replacement pool. The same with cooks, basic trainees, etc. Anyone NOT attached to a unit went inot the replacement pool. There, they were organized in 100 man units. These 100 man units would then be shoved into whatever manpower hole existed. If a division, in combat, needed 700 men, (say 550 riflemen, 100 gunners, 50 rear services) they would get 7 of these 100 man units. The division, if good and having the time, may've asked about experience. Otherwise the men were chosen randomly and shoved into the gaps. This would usually happen at night, given the tempo of movements and whatnot. That's what would lead to 3 new guys showing up in a squad's fighting position at midnight and being found dead the next morning. The Soviet conscription of "liberated" men directly into combat units in '43-'45 was only marginally worse. - The German system: they tried (at first when they had the luxury) of keeping all men from the same area in the same division. Not town specific, but regional. Remember, Germany had (has?) distinct regional characteristics. Hence comment like "The division acted just as you'd expect a division of Bavarians to act." Replacements would be trained in the unit's home base, by unit veterans, perhaps on convelascent duty. (They would have similar backgrounds, due to the regionalism.) Next, the replacements would get to the division. There, they would go into a special battalion, the Feld Ersatz (Field Replacement) battalion. They were organized and equipped as combat squads. The could, and did, participate in battle as a unit if absolutely needed. The cadre was made up of men just out of the front line battalions. Their job was to bring the replacement's training up to "front" standards. When the unit needing replacements was rotated out of the line, the men in the Field Replacement battalion would be assigned their new roles. A few days, or weeks, of fitting in, then up to the front. At least, this is how the system worked while the Germans had time and manpower available. It fell apart later. Which system do you think was better at integrating replacements into a cohesive combat unit? Ken

An interesting tidbit I picked up somewhere was that the average US soldier identified with his squadmates. He would fight and risk his life for them. The average German soldier identified with his company-mates. He would fight and risk his life for them. The different level of cohesion had a part to play. As did the MG42 in each squad. Ken

Agreed. Great eye for detail. The helmet should be corrected. Thanks for posting and taking the time to create the pictures. Ken