c3k

I agree! What I mean is, the "Split Squad" command is irreversible if you accidentally select it. Sure, you can recombine them...LATER. IF they're in command. It also means you can't move them, etc. I already sent this request in to BF.C around the early CMBB days and was told that since we can recombine during the set-up phase, that's all we needed. It's minor, but it should still be fixed. EVERY OTHER COMMAND GIVEN TO A UNIT DURING THE ORDERS PHASE IS ABLE TO BE CANCELLED OR MODIFIED. That fact alone begs to have the "Split Squad" command become a two-step process, or add a "Recombine" order which takes immediate effect. Ken

Sgt AA, Because the rudder is less effective in air? Ken

Treeburst, Here's some data on smoke rounds. I used 3 each of Sherman M4A1, Priests, Hummels, Wespes. No wind, dry conditions, 1944, March (?). Each unit fired its one and only smoke round in turn one. All units "Regular" experience. They all started with a "Smoke" target at the beginning of the turn. The range was 282 meters in all cases. Unit/ Fired Smoke/ Smoke Started/ Smoke Ended Sherman 1/ 0:05/ 0:36/ 4:28 Sherman 2/ 0:04/ 0:34/ 4:09 Sherman 3/ 0:05/ 0:36/ 5:19 Priest 1/ 0:05/ 0:38/ 5:41 Priest 2/ 0:04/ 0:38/ 7:21 Priest 3/ 0:04/ 0:39/ 6:05 Wespe 1/ 0:05/ 0:35/ 6:18 Wespe 2/ 0:05/ 0:42/ 7:05 Wespe 3/ 0:05/ 0:37/ 6:42 Hummel 1/ 0:05/ 0:42/ 7:55 Hummel 2/ 0:04/ 0:35/ 6:45 Hummel 3/ 0:05/ 0:37/ 8:00 There is a wide disparity in end times for each of the smoke rounds. The begin times are somewhat tighter. Hope this helps. Ken

Thanks for the responses so far. I'd forgotten about the run across the bay in the Crimea. Nice. I do remember, vaguely, reading about that incident in the assault on Brest-Litovsk. I had not heard of the book you mentioned, MG-42. Thank you. Now, with all the assualt boats available in the editor, does anyone else have any river assault information? Thanks, Ken

Sergei, Expanding on the cover and concealment issue: currently, all weapons are given a firepower value. The sum of these values are then applied to their target. The value is decreased according to range and the terrain benefit. The terrain "blocks" a certain amount of firepower. It also blocks LOS. These values seem to be the same. Check LOS and you'll see that the deeper into un-clear terrain you penetrate, the less clear the LOS line becomes. The same for a "target" line. In fact, the "target" line will show the amount of firepower applied at the endpoint. This decreases as the line dims. It's evident that LOS and firepower application should not be directly linked. Just because I can't see into the back of that straw pile doesn't mean I can't apply effective firepower against it. I like the current LOS application. It "feels" right. But that should only apply to the concealment side of the equation. Cover needs to be treated differently. In addition to a generic firepower value, each weapon needs to be rated for an "energy" value. Each piece of cover would be rated for a "energy absorption" value. Call it what you will. This would make an SMG platoon ineffective vs. a concrete building (allowances for windows, etc., notwithstanding), but a harder hitting round, be it a full power rifle round or a .50 cal. would penetrate and be able to apply its firepower against that target. (Targets which are out of LOS would be treated the same as in the current engine where you use the "Area Target" command vs. out of sight units.) (All the above is my opinion and reflects no known facts. ) Regards, Ken

My thoughts, for what they're worth ($.02+/-), 1. A simple campaign "memory" system. After you finish a battle or op, all your forces are recorded in a spread-sheet format along with their respective kills, casualties, etc. You can then change your forces IN that spread-sheet. (For the anal among us who would add replacements, replace lost HQ's, etc.) Then, you could use that force and import it, intact, into another battle or op. 2. A separation between cover and concealment. I would like to see the difference in penetration of a .50 and 7.62 smg. (To see a building dismantled by a Ma Deuce is a beautiful thing.) This would result in a much more "realistic" portrayal of various weapon's effectiveness. I will expand on this idea if there's interest. 3. The ability to move units in and out of fortifications. Thus, I could purchase a bunker, then put my choice of units in it. (This is very similar to the treatment in ASL.)Some units would have to start IN the fortification (large guns), others could enter and leave. Regards, Ken

Gents, I'm trying to find out about various German river assaults. Specifically, what Eastern front rivers did the Germans cross using assault craft? When did they do so? I'm sure I can find out Soviet OOB and TOE info if I'm given dates and locations. Any pointers helping me out would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ken

Joachim and Sergei, Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for. Now that I know how it works, I'll be experimenting with it to fine tune my knowledge. Thanks, Ken

Good work. It seems that the overall problem is how BFC chose to implement FO's. They have some autonomy in how they perform their function, yet, the player must intervene. This is the only unit in the game for which this is true. You gentlement are investigating and discovering some useful work-arounds. I applaud your efforts and look forward to being able to use the results. The long-term solution for CMx2 would be one of two possible approaches: allow FO's to correct their fire automatically; or, allow the player to specify that spotting rounds be fired, and ease the manner in which the player corrects the spotting rounds. Once the player is satisfied with the correction, he can then toggle "FFE" for the full strike. I.e., either put full control and correction in-game or to the player. Don't keep it split. Ken

Gents, I agree that smoke was used by German troops when assaulting Soviet tanks. See Alex Buchner's "German Infantry Handbook." However, it seems that the entire game mechanism for squads to assault armored vehicles is somewhat abstracted. That level of abstraction may well include the use of blinding and choking smoke grenades. Therefore, I do not think adding a special smoke grenade capability would be worthwhile. Ken

Theike, Thank you for your response. I have learned how to use the editor to purchase and place units, both for initial set-up and as reinforcements. I appreciate you making sure that I understand how to do that. I thought it was possible to SAVE the units at the end of a battle, and then use them to start another battle. (Their ammo could not be replenished. That's my dim remembrance of that issue.) Can this be done? If so, how? Ken

Gents, I'm playing "Crisis at Slonin" via PBEM. I'm not sure where I got it from. Has anyone else downloaded it and played it? Thoughts? Ken

Gents, First, yes, I do have the manual. I have also read the manual. I'm trying to learn how to import troops and maps into battles and ops. I've stumbled across an effective method of importing maps. (You need to access the "scenarios" folder, then copy and move the scenario INTO the "quick battle maps" folder. This is stated nowhere in the manual.) I have yet to stumble my way into the proper method of importing troops. How do you import troops into a quick battle? Into an op? Please keep any answers to a basic level of windows expertise. Thanks! Ken

Bone_Vulture, Perhaps you're throwing them too softly? You know, they need to BREAK in order to work! Kidding aside, I may be the statistical oddity, but if I play with Molotov's, either mine or the other side's, there will be burning tanks. To me, opinion only, it seems that Molotov's should RARELY destroy a tank. It seems that 16-32 ounces of flammable liquid will not have a great effect. If it drips down the engine cooling louvres I grant that there should be damage to the wiring, hoses, etc., thereby resulting in an immobilization. The odds of a dribble of flame getting to some vital and exploding the vehicle are too rare to bother calculating. Possible, but very rare. Call it 1% and I'll be happy. Morale effects of a bit of smoke and flame? Well, would YOU leave your armored shell if the enemy is close enough to hurl bottles at you? Again, that's just my opinion, and putting that with what I've seen Molotov's do in the game, I think they've already been put almost on par with demo charges, anti-tank mines and airborne Tigers. Keep 'em as is, or lessen their effectiveness, but please don't make Molotov's any more effective. Ken

Hans, I HIGHLY suggest getting a copy of George F. Nafziger's "The German Order of Battle: Panzers and Artillery in World War II". It's a large, hard-covered volume, about 450 pages in length. It covers detailed organizational questions down to the level of individual guns and vehicles. There are several chapters devoted to artillery. If you're serious about your question, you will be very satisfied with this book. It is far too detailed for me to attempt to glean the info for you. Nafziger has a web-site, plus Amazon, and possibly Barnes & Noble, also sell his books. Regards, Ken

Gents, I believe the current Molotov's are OVER-modelled. I've destroyed many AFV's (closed-top as well as open) using Molotov's. The Molotov cocktail represents an ad hoc, improvised, anti-tank weapon. It should rarely work. If it were effective, the RPG-43 would never have taken up valuable production resources. I understand the frustration when your infantry cannot attack tanks which are on top of them. But isn't that one of the strengths of a tank? Regards, Ken

DaveR, I have also run into the same situation. In fact, I'm willing to bet it's the same scenario. I dealt with the Italian guns by having a platoon of Matildas suppress the gun and its neighbors while another platoon conducted overruns. Most of the guns were unable to damage the Matildas. Once the Matilda gets within a few meters, the crew will abandon the gun. I did suffer the occasional gun damaged Matilda. They were PERFECT for driving over the Italian guns. I also lost a handful of Matildas to unsuppressed large-caliber Italian field guns firing at point-blank range. Too bad. In any big operation you've got to expect losses. Regards, Ken

Gents, This post contains SPOILERS! If you don't want to know what's going on either close your eyes, cover your ears and say "na-na-na-na-na-na" ad nauseum, or stop reading. I'm currently playing "Kruglowka Railway", included on the CD. **************SPOILERS********************* * * * * * * * * I opened up the editor and noticed that the Germans (who I'm playing as, vs. the AI) should get Stukas as reinforcements in Battle 4. The odds of the 3 Stukas appearing are 100%. Too bad for me, the weather on that battle, despite being toggled to "Good" ended up as "Overcast". No stukas. This operation alternates day battles with night battles, hence, the next battle, number 5, is night. Will the Stukas appear in Battle 6 (weather permitting)? Or, are they lost forever? If lost, is there any method for a designer to ensure that airpower shows up in an operation? Of course, adding air support repeatedly would unbalance most ops. Is there a more elegant solution? Thanks, Ken

Istari, This is a common issue in this game. BFC has a solid reputation for accuracy. (Hmmm, that is both an understatement AND a pun!) However, there is a widespread feeling that the inherent superiority of the German sighting equipment is undermodelled. There is also a widespread feeling that Soviet sights and optics were given too many "benefits of the doubt" when it came to issues of their inferiority. This has led to the feeling that the Soviet sights are overmodelled. These two issues, combined, yield less than expected results when Pz IV longs battle T-34's. Regards, Ken

I hate anti-tank rifles! In fact, when I find an ATR team which is trying to surrender, the call for a flammenwerfer area fire goes out. Harsh? Yes, but only by the harshest treatment will the Soviet use of this criminal weapon be purged. The liberal use of this fiendish contrivance shows how desperate the Stalinist regime is. In a recent op, I started with 2 halftracks, a pair of PSW 222 armored cars and an 8-wheeled 232. They were all knocked out by unspotted ATR fire at a range in excess of 500 meters. As was my 37mm PaK and my 75mm lIG. So you can see why my command considers use of this weapon as abrogating any laws of armed confict. Regards, Ken

Eichenbaum et al., Well done! Let us know when BOSv2 is ready for prime time. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Just finished a quick test. I bought 2 platoons and split the squads. I ran one set of 1/2 squads far away to prevent re-joining. The other set of 1/2 squads sat there and fired off all their ammo. They all got to "LOW" ammo state. I then rejoined the two sets of 1/2 squads. The ammo state of the rejoined squads was the average ammo state of the individual troops. Squads which started with 44 ammo and 10 men split into 5 man 1/2 squads. When recombined, the squad had 22 ammo. Squads which started with 32 ammo and 9 men split into 5 and 4 man groups. Depending on which size group fired off all their ammo, the rejoined squad had either 17 or 14 ammo (4/9 or 5/9 of 32, the fraction used was the number in the 1/2 squad which did not fire their ammo). Ken

ckct, Just like stikkypixie said. Each CM turn needs 3 emails to complete. (A-Plan 1, B-plan 1 and watch 1, A-watch 1. Then the cycle repeats with B-Plan 2, A-plan 2 and watch 2, B-plan 2.) Email is a great system. It allows you to play the game with a human opponent at your own speed and during your own free time. The vast majority of email opponents are generous with their time and great to play against. Ken

Charles Sharp has produced a multi-volume set of soft-bound books which detail the various TO&E's throughout the Red Army. It is far better than the surface treatment Zaloga gives the subject. (Zaloga is a good start, but Sharp is much more detailed.) I found my set at Nafziger's web-site. (A quick search will give it to you.) If you're serious, find Sharp. Regards, Ken

Rune, As for that 5000 meter HE shot, I agree, and stated so, that it must've been exceptional for it to've been mentioned. (Plus, the effect of disrupting the column was observed when that 3rd round hit, but I don't know if it was an actual, hard, hit, or the Russians fled to avoid a possible hit. At 5000 meters I think it would be difficult to tell if a round landed 10 meters short and then everyone ran.) I have also run into the same information dead end: I can quote many "Tiger hit a target at X range" but no rounds fired info, or the preferred range is X, but, again, no info on whether that means 1 or 2 rounds to hit. (I wouldn't think a game question would be important enough to dredge up your uncle's war memories, especially if it is a subject he and the rest of your family feel would be best kept sleeping.) Regards, Ken