YankeeDog

Hard to say what your issue might be without a screen shot. A couple of wild stabs that are specific to walls: - for heavy weapons teams and especially MGs, the angle of approach to the wall affects how they set up the weapon within the action spot and therefore whether they will have LOF over the wall. Generally, you want to approach perpendicular to the wall for best LOF over the wall. Use extra waypoints to make sure this is the case, if needed. - Unit stance affects LOF. For example, a hiding or cowering unit may not be able to fire over a wall, while an unsuppressed and "up" (i.e., not hiding) unit can.

Feh. You can definitely do a fast jog with a 26kg load if most of it is distributed well on a backpack. Been there, done that, have the strap abrasions to prove it. But anyway, this is reported to the authorities. I'm not sure whether it was intended to restrict movement options for e.g., flamethower teams or not. Regardless, you shouldn't be able to work around by issuing a group order instead of an individual order.

Yes. They were used in limited numbers in a few other large river crossings as well. IIRC, for the Rhine crossings they actually managed to get a few of the somewhat larger LCMs overland to the river for use in the crossings as well.

Not much; in the CM context I agree that assault boats & rafts would be the most important. DUKWs, Schwimmwagens et al. would be very rare at the point of contact as CM depicts. One big exception is that the Allies did use a fair number of LVTs in Operation Infatuate (operation to clear the Scheldt Estuary), and in this operation the LVTs got directly involved in combat to some extent. They were also used later in the crossings of the Rhine and Elbe, but I don't know whether they got involved much in the shooting in those actions. As a side note the LVTs were used as much to cross the mud flats and marshes in the Scheldt Estuary as they were to actually cross open water. Interesting to contemplate how valuable it would be to have a light armored vehicle that could cross marsh terrain in the game...

For the detonation tests, regular soldiers. It would be interesting to test if engineers are less likely to detonate unspotted mines... I don't think so, but it's possible.

I don't remember which version I made these tests with but it was a while ago so probably 1.12 or something like that. However, AFAIK, there have been no substantial changes to the minefield modeling in recent patches/upgrades.

Not really. So if they're laid in an even 5x4 grid per action spot (which they probably wouldn't be, but for simplicity's sake), each mine is ~ 1.6 m from its nearest neighbor. A fairly dense minefield, but not so dense that a single person doesn't have a decent chance of walking across a single 8m action spot and missing all the mines. IRL, minefields were of varying densities depending on purpose and available resources. What CM gives us is at the denser end of the spectrum, what would be termed "barrier" minefield, as opposed to a "harassment" or "nuisance" minefield.

I have tested. I don't have the exact percentages in front of me, but infantry on SLOW are substantially less likely to detonate mines than on other move modes. HUNT and MOVE are about the same (but on HUNT the team will immediately stop if a mine detonates, while on MOVE they will start running for the next waypoint, so HUNT reduces the chance of a soldier stepping on a second mine before the team completely clears the mined action spot). QUICK and FAST are the most likely to set off mines. Size of team also matters; a 2-man team is much more likely to get across a minefield safely than a 7-man team. Note this can bite you in the ass if you're using 2-man scout team to look for danger ahead of a larger body; the 2-man scout team actually has a pretty good chance of making it across mined action spots without setting off a mine, but larger follow-on teams probably won't be so lucky. Generally, if you must try to cross a known but unmarked mine square, you want to SLOW or HUNT. If crossing a marked mine square, SLOW is near 100% safe, HUNT and MOVE are very safe (but there is still some small chance of setting off a mine), and QUICK and FAST are more risky. IME, a unit will usually get across a marked mine square safely on QUICK, but it's definitely not something to count on. CM does actually track the total # of mines in an action spot as well. I forget exactly, but IIRC the total # of mines in an AP mine square is about 20. So if there's a square that has already had quite a few mines set off, the chances of crossing safely go up substantially. Because of this, it's actually possible to use armored vehicles to set off AP mines and make a safer crossing for infantry. This comes at the cost of track damage, but a tank can usually withstand 2-3 AP mine detonations before the track damage becomes really serious. Distributing the track damage across multiple vehicles makes it more palatable. Run ~3 tanks across a single AP mine action spot, and that square will be fairly (but not completely) safe for infantry, especially if they SLOW across. Of course, if it turns out to be a mixed minefield rather than an AP-only minefield, your tank will probably be immobilized, at the least.

Not necessarily. Substantial amounts of .30-'06 ammo for Garands was shipped directly from the U.S. already loaded into bandoliers in en bloc clips; you can actually find examples of these supplies still in the shipping box on the collector's market today if you search around. Some (but by no means all) M1 Carbine and Thompson SMG ammo also left the factories already loaded into mags. Other ammo was shipped loose in boxes, and some was carried this way even by forward units. For example, IIRC the BAR gunner's load was divided between pre-loaded into mags and loose in boxes, partially to reduce weight and bulk. The BAR gunner also had an assistant who was supposed to be reloading mags at every opportunity though, something you have to assume is abstracted in CM. MG units usually kept substantial amounts of ammo already belted in reserve caches. It might have shown up from rear areas in boxes, but it didn't stay that way for long when it reached forward areas. What isn't represented in CM is that especially rifle-caliber ammo reserves would be in one form or the other, and therefore not readily available to supply any and all weapon types. E.g., if a given amount of .30-'06 ammo in a supply cache is already loaded into Garand en bloc clips, it can't be quickly coverted for use in a belt-fed MG, and vice versa.

I don't think this is all about automation vs. micromanagement. There are a lot of "proud nails" in the current Acquire system that I think everyone would like to see pounded down. For example, it is currently impossible for a 4+ man unit to Acquire from a vehicle with a passenger capacity of <4, which has no basis in any kind of "real world" limitation (and yes, I have had this situation come up in games before). Inability to undo an error is another big one for me; I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally acquired M2 Carbine instead of M2 .30-'06, and ended up either having to quit and re-loaded, or just lived with with a squad toting around several hundred rounds of an ammo they can't use for the rest of the battle. And whatever your stance on the level of micromanagement the player should be allowed, less clicks for the same level of control is always a good thing; it does seem to me that with a bit of development time, a more elegant system could be implemented. Not necessarily on my list of "most desired" game improvements, but still something that would be appreciated.

AIUI, the "cover save" mechanic applies to all small projectiles (whether they be bullets or shell fragments), and is intended to represent the kind of factors you describe. My SWAG on how it works is that the game first calculates whether a given projectile intersects the 3D model of the soldier, in which case it is registered as a "possible hit", and then there is a "saving throw," which if in the soldier's favor will turn what would otherwise be a hit into a miss. Not sure of all of the factors that determine the "saving throw" chance, but ground cover definitely a big one -- a soldier in something like heavy woods gets a much better save than one on bare pavement.

Blasting a path through mines is one of the tasks Bangalore torpedoes are intended for, so if we assume that one of the things CM's abstracted one-size-fits-all demo charges could be is a Bangalore kit, then yes. However, a Bangalore would only detonate or destroy mines in a narrow path about 1m wide by at most about 15m long (length depending on how many Bangalore segments are used). So the net effect was more like the current "Mark Mines" for engineers, creating a narrow path that infantry can pick their way along rather than a wide, completely cleared area. Overall, I don't think a CLEAR MINES command for engineers on foot is justified as actually clearing an entire action spot of mines without the use of something like a flail tank would be a slow, tedious process. But you could argue for both a MARK MINES and a BLAST PATH function, the latter having the same effect as MARK MINES, but being faster to execute, at the cost of a demo charge.

Mine markers (colored green for cleared) appear in every action spot where the flail has actually detonated mines. Action spots that have been flailed but no mines detonated are not marked in any way. I suppose ideally there should be a clear path of scoured ground wherever the Crab flails. Lack thereof hasn't bothered me much.

Yeah; they're pretty great. IME, the Crabs are 90%+ effective at clearing mines, AT and AP inclusive. They leave one undetonated just often enough to keep a bit of suspense when you send something else through the breach, but as long as you stick to the breach path, it's pretty safe.

If I read the tests correctly, the MP40 & Grenade casualties in 7-9 all happened at less than 50m ("once the assault squad got within 50m the MP40 and hand grenades still caused significant casualties..."); in those tests the assaulting teams "quick runs on turn 3 and makes to the building on turn 4," so apparently the assault teams closed all the way into the building containing the sniper team. So we're close combat casualties here. Ranged small arms suppression can reduce the likelihood of taking casualties in close combat assault, but IME, you really need to have a close team fire a few bursts of automatic weapons fire and ideally grenade(s) before you do final assault into a building. This still doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of a surviving enemy inside getting off a parting shot or grenade (nor should it), but does dramatically reduce the chance of taking casualties.

The first round of tests that show 90% hits are for the squad basically running blindly at the sniper, with absolutely no suppressive fire. That's just bad tactics. I understand why it was done as part of the test; it's a control. But it should not be viewed in any way indicative of the effectiveness of "Real Life" tactics in CM. Hitting fully exposed man-sized targets at <250m with a decent scoped rifle for a Veteran shooter is gravy, even if the targets are moving. Also bear in mind that since the targets were moving towards the sniper, there was little lateral movement, which is the harder type of target movement to deal with for shooter. Note that the snipers hit % went down to <10% once he was under suppressive fire. As for the MP40 and grenade casualties incurred as the assault team got close, the assault team(s) should have set up another overwatch/fire support position and poured on more support fire as they got close to the building, rather than just running the last 50m into the building; this would have probably dramatically reduced (but not completely eliminated) the chance of the Sniper's security escort with the MP40 getting off an SMG burst or grenade before he was eliminated. It's all about tactics. Use stupid tactics and you will take stupid casualties, Do thing right and you'll keep casualties to a minimum. Given the tactics used, the results in this test look about right to me.

Great! I'll PM you with my email address and you can send there.

Do you have a save file? IIRC, someone reported a similar bug in CMBN some months back, but I had trouble reproducing it so it's still in the 'unresolved' file. Seems to be one of those things that happens in a specific and fairly rare situation, otherwise more more people would be reporting it. We need to nail down the exact conditions that trigger the bug to fix it.

Fun trivia: In the first years of the United States as a nation, With federal government in its infancy and paper currency not yet widely available or standardized, whiskey was one of the few items whose value in trade was universally recognized and as such it was widely used in trade as payment for goods. In other words, whiskey was arguably the first national currency of the United States.

[emphasis added]

One of the problems with doing lots of small incremental releases is that this increases the number of installers BFC has to compile, and us Beta Testers have to test. I don't think it violates my NDA to tell you that we spend a LOT of Beta time testing installers, and we FREQUENTLY find problems, which means then BFC has to fix the problem, compile a new installer candidate, and the process starts all over again. Not the most fun part of beta testing. Basically, if ETO 10/1944 - 05/1945 is going to involve X new game features, Y new units, and Z new scenarios/campaigns, it's more work to release all this stuff in multiple small releases as opposed to one big lump. This said, there's a balance that has to be struck between releasing new stuff on a regular basis and therefore maintaining interest in the game, and efficiency. This is the balance BFC is trying to find with the Base Game-Module-Pack system. They may or may not have found the correct balance, but as a business that has to be their overall goal.

Well, now that we have concrete gun bunkers in CMBN, you could certainly do the Assault on the Merville Battery undertaken by Brit Paras on D-Day. IIRC, historically the Merville guns were larger caliber than the options given for gun bunkers in the Vehicle Pack, but tactically the difference would be minimal as frontally assaulting an unsuppressed gun bunker with infantry is suicide. And actually, IIRC there was at least one German AT gun in a Pillbox defending the bridges in Operation Deadstick aka Pegasus Bridge. So you'd need the Vehicle Pack to properly represent the German defending forces in that battle.

Sure; very easy to do. Only qualifier is that if you're looking to modify someone else's work, you should get permission from original author if you plan to release for public consumption. Actually, second qualifier: For campaigns you'd need the broken-out individual scenario files to modify; you can't work with the compiled campaign file. IIRC, someone created a program that will actually break apart a compiled campaign file into its constituent battles, though.

So it's clear some are disappointed the Vehicle Pack did not include any scenarios featuring the new units. Understandable. Rather than dwelling on the negative, let's examine the positive: What scenario premises would you like to see made, which were not possible before the Vehicle Pack came out, and are now possible with the units that came in the Vehicle Pack? Some of us might be interested in trying our hand at authoring a scenario or two that uses Vehicle Pack units... Personally, I prefer scenarios that are at least loosely based on a historical engagement, but whatever you wish to suggest.

As far as I am aware, soldiers have *never* picked up SMGs via Buddy Aid, except maybe in rare cases where the soldier doing the Buddy Aid is armed with only a pistol. This has actually been an issue of some contention pretty much since CMBN came out, with some players arguing that soldiers carrying a rifle should prefer to pick up a downed SMG, and some arguing it's good the way it is. IME, Buddy Aid usually does pick up a downed SAW. It's not 100% -- sometimes they don't, which AIUI is intended to represent situations where the downed weapon is fouled or damaged, but more often than not a SAW on a downed soldier is picked up. IME, pick up of AT specials is IME slightly less frequent than SAWs, but still happens more often than not. I am not aware of any changes to "weapons scrounging" behavior made with either 3.0 or 3.1, but I'll keep an eye out as if there are, this may not have been intended.