YankeeDog

A new "Base Game" would not, and and of itself, take more effort to produce than doing the same time period, units, and TOE(s) as module(s). It's the same engine; there is no "reinventing the wheel." In fact, releasing future titles as a new game family is in some ways easier because it means we don't have to go back and test to make sure none of the new stuff screws up any of the old stuff. See e.g., the recent issue with the PzIV(late) LODs in the Vehicle Pack for an example of how this can happen. A new game also game engine changes to be made without worrying about screwing up previously released scenarios. A good example of is the Air Support changes implemented in CMRT -- if hypothetically, CMRT had been released as a "module" to CMBN, everything would have to use the same Air Support system. In fact, CMBN was unintentionally switched to the CMRT "roving" Air Support in the initial release of the CMBN 2.2/3.0 engine upgrade, a mistake that was quickly fixed as it did indeed make some of the "official" scenarios and campaigns significantly more difficult and in some cases almost unplayable (e.g., the third battle in the Road to Nijmagen Campaign). But what really determines the amount of effort for a given title is how much new stuff that is included; whether it's implemented as a "module" or a "new base game" is really an execution and marketing decision. If BFC decides to continue with the plan to do 10/44 - 5/45 as a completely new game, it likely will be larger release, taking longer to develop and costing more, but in compensation players will probably get some major new game engine features with the new game family release, in addition to all the new units, terrain, TOEs, scenarios etc. If they change their mind and do the same time period just as module(s) to CMBN, then there will be at most a few minor game engine improvements, and the product(s) will mostly be just new units, terrain features and battle/scenarios. Basically, new game family = significant engine improvements, *and* stuff and scenarios. New module(s) = just stuff and scenarios. Which you prefer depends I guess upon whether you'd rather wait longer for more, or get less sooner.

Just remember that this will raise the price; what you're talking about would make a Pack almost as much work as a Module to produce.

AFAIK, public word from BFC was that ETO October 1944 - May 1945 is planned to be a new game "Family," with the initial "Base" release being centered around the Battle of the Bulge, rather than any further modules being added to the CMBN family. According to the official roadmap, CMBN is done as far as new modules. Steve has intimated that there might be an additional minor releases for the CMBN family, such as a "Battle Pack" or two with new scenarios/campaigns, but that's it. But it's possible plans have changed; it's been a while since Steve released the "roadmap."

Reference this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=117381 If the advice there doesn't help, let us know and we'll consider other possibilities.

After upgrading, Did you start load the saved game from a movie file or an orders file? As a general rule, you should *always* use orders phase save files to re-load games after upgrading. It's not 100% sure this will work, but it's much more likely to work than if you start from a movie file. Regardless, if starting from an orders phase save doesn't fix the problem, starting from a between mission save as LF describes should work fine.

Modern 7.62mmx54R ball is rated at 8mm RHA @ 500m, 0 deg. angle., so it should sometimes penetrate 251/1 side/rear armor, especially at short ranges with fairly flat hits. I don't know how the modern 7.62mmx54R ball projectile compares to the WWII-era one, though. Mv is about the same, but there may be differences in the bullet construction. 7.62mmx54R AP rates considerably higher in armor penetration, but I don't know how common AP-I in the loadout of WWII Red Army infantry. U.S. WWII infantry carried substantial amounts of .30-'06 AP (amongst others, BAR gunners were usually allocated some). But I don't know if the Red Army was at all similar in this regard.

Even if it did, the Vehicle Pack would only be required for those specific scenarios/campaigns in the Battle Pack that used Vehicle Pack units. I have no special knowledge of BFC's plans in this area, but I could see them releasing a Battle Pack that was something maybe 50% requiring base game only, 40% requiring content from at least one of the modules, and 10% requiring content from the Vehicle Pack. This way, there would be something for everyone; I'm sure Vehicle Pack owners will want to see some of Vehicle Pack units featured in the Battle Pack, but it would obviously limit the potential consumers to limit the Battle Pack to only Vehicle Pack owners.

If the Pack is not worth the money to you, don't buy it. It's certainly not necessary for enjoyment of the game; there's LOTS of stuff to play with, even if you just consider the CMBN "Base Game" only. Personally, I think it's easily worth $10 to watch a platoon of Crabs flailing their way across a minefield in the game, and another $10 to watch a Sherman Croc trundle its way up to a bunker and cook it well-done. Playing with the M12 is also quite a trip. The rest of the Pack is just gravy. But to each their own. And bear in mind, the alternative if the Vehicle Pack does not do well is not "BFC releases future vehicle packs for less money," it's "BFC doesn't release vehicle packs in the future at all." From what I've seen, based on amount of effort required to make the product, amount charged, and likely sales, I'd guess the Vehicle Pack will probably have one of the lowest RoIs of any CMx2 product they've put out so far. It's a labor of love, not profit. But love only goes so far; it doesn't put food on the table or pay the mortgage. As such, I really doubt BFC will be inclined to in drop the price on any hypothetical future "Pack" releases. If the Pack it doesn't do well, they'll probably just scrap the concept entirely and stick to major game titles and large modules for the future. This will probably mean no more rare, but fun stuff like Crocs, Crabs, R-35s, etc. to play with in future games. It's just too much effort to include these things in the major game releases/modules; they need to get some kind of return on the amount of effort it takes to make this stuff.

Different beta testers test different bugs and features. Due to the NDA I can't talk specifics, but even with BFC's permission, I could still only speak with any certainty about bugs and features I personally tested on the vehicle pack. And I'm not even necessarily aware of all of the details of the fixes and new features I did test, especially "under the hood" changes that may not be immediately apparent, but do have a subtle effect on game play. And there are also fixes specific to certain platforms, video cards, etc. that I may have no knowledge of because they don't apply to me. It's like this with any large project. For example, a given worker on a car assembly line might be able to tell you all about the features of a car's transmission, because that's what he's involved with assembling. But his knowledge of e.g., the exterior paint and finish would be cursory at best. For all of these reasons and more, even disregarding the NDA that Beta Testers are obligated to observe, it's really best that an "official" BFC representative compile and release a list of the 3.10 fixes & features rather than each of us Betas spouting off with our best guess at a 3.10 changelog. I'm sure they'll get to it sooner or later. Lots of cool stuff going on, but it all takes time and effort. Patience will be rewarded.

I'm not 100% confident of this, but I'm pretty sure the gun "setup bonus" provides a concealment bonus, but no cover bonus. To provide additional cover you need to use foxholes, trenches, or sandbag walls. Note that foxholes & trenches only provide cover to the crew; sandbags are the only fortification type that actually provide additional protection to the gun itself. However, guns are quite resistant to light & medium mortar fire in the game, so it's very rare to see a gun killed by this type of ordnance; mortar fire usually disables a gun by routing or incapacitating all of the crew, rather than destroying the gun itself. Best protection for a gun is terrain. For example, guns in a slight depression, shallow enough that the gun can still see and fire out, but deep enough to provide the gun and crew some defilade, can be extremely difficult to knock out.

OK; I took a look at the file. The tank in question definitely has a regular TARGET order right from the start of the movie turn. So either this is simply player error, or the TARGET BRIEFLY is being converted to a TARGET during the turn calculation. The latter is definitely possible but we would need the orders phase save file showing the TARGET BRIEFLY plot to confirm. For now, I'll put this in my "Possible Bugs" list and keep an eye out for it in my own games. If anyone does manage to capture an incident of this with an orders phase save file preserved, please do PM me and I'll take a look.

Newsreel films are a little misleading as to how often this tactic would have been used. WWII Film footage taken during really intense firefights is fairly rare; most of the ground combat film footage was taken during less intense engagements where this type of thing was more common. It's a tactic that is more useful "mop up" operations against light opposition than in "hot" firefights. For example, imagine a town where organized enemy resistance has been broken, but there are still isolated enemy teams and snipers putting up resistance. There is one sniper in an unknown location somewhere down a long street. So a tank is used to shield a squad as they move across the street and get into a building with good observation so that they can try to pinpoint the sniper. You get the idea. It's also harder to execute than you might at first think. Bear in mind that, assuming that tank is buttoned, the infantry walking behind the tank has almost no way of communicating with the crew once the tank starts moving. A moving tank is way too noisy for even shouted voice commands to work, and the crew's ability to see behind the tank when buttoned is extremely limited. This said, it's theoretically something that would be nice to have. I suspect, though, that given the fairly intense nature of the combat in most CM scenario and danger to the nearby infantry if the tank does attract anything other other light small arms fire from the frontal aspect (VERY bad to be close to the tank if AP rounds start bouncing off it!), that players would use the tactic only very rarely even if a specialized command were available.

I don't think so. AFAIK, the vehicle status indicator is 100% accurate, at least to the player who "owns" the unit. That is, if it says "Knocked Out," the vehicle is damaged and cannot be recrewed, while if it says "Abandoned," the vehicle can at least theoretically be re-manned.

Thanks; intermittent bugs are difficult to track down so save files are very helpful.

If you've got a save game of a 0:15 TARGET BRIEFLY command going significantly beyond 15 seconds, please do PM me and I will give you my email address as this would definitely be a bug. One thing to be aware of is that TARGET BRIEFLY orders often go a little longer than the stated time because the gunner will finish whatever shot he was in the process of executing when the timer runs out. So if the gunner just started aiming a shot at 15 seconds into a 15-second TARGET BRIEFLY order, the shot might actually be fired at 18-20 seconds. If want to make sure a vehicle doesn't fire while moving, make the TARGET BRIEFLY order for 15 seconds, and the pause before moving 20 seconds, so that there's a bit of fudge room. But regardless, this should only cause an extension of a few seconds. If you're seeing something longer than this, then there might be a bug.

Yep; there's a reason why the primary personal weapon pretty much all armies today is a derivative of the MP44 (in inspiration if not actual engineering). IIRC, there is a 100% MP44 squad buried somewhere in one of the German TOEs for the Market Garden module. They're downright vicious in urban fights.

Might be a bug, or might not... While the StuG side armor isn't great, I don't think there's any way a rifle-caliber round could penetrate the side armor so if this is what is happening in game, then something is probably off. We've had issues before where some small plate somewhere on the vehicle is mis-coded as being too thin. However, the game does track ricochets, and depending on aspect, it is actually possible for a round to hit something like the side or back of the gun shield, and then ricochet down into the fighting compartment. If this is what happened, you should get a "RICOCHET INTO..." hit detail. Obviously, the hatches have to be open (or the vehicle has to be open-topped) for this to happen. It's a very unlikely thing to happen, but I have seen this happen a few times in-game, mostly with open-topped vehicles, but a couple of times with unbuttoned fully armored AFVs. Only once have I actually seen it KO a full-out tank --a Panther, no less. Fire was from a slight plunging aspect and must have caught the inside lip of the open commander's cupola, ricocheting from there down into the fighting compartment and registering a KO. EDIT to add: If someone does have a save file of a *buttoned* StuG taking a crew casualty or getting KO'd by small arms fire, I'd like to see it as this may well indicate a bug. PM me and I will take a look. Note that there an issue with StuGs that even if ordered to button, when pressed by enemy infantry, a crew member will sometimes unbutton of his own accord to man the top-mounted MG. This is a known behavior and I don't need a save file of this; what I'd like to see (if it exists) is a save file showing a StuG crew member getting hit by small arms *while completely under the armor*.

It's also worth remembering that the "Four F's" stands for "Find, Fix, Flank, and Finish." So whenever possible you want to avoid moving directly towards a dangerous enemy. Once you've Found and Fixed, if possible your closing force should move at a bias to the enemy, opening up the angle and forcing him to engage in two different directions. In this situation, the closing unit actually should move in "Line Ahead" formation, since the threat direction is from the side.

It's also often OK and perfectly realistic to let the teams get wider apart than visual C2 distance if you use some common sense in how you do it. For example, in your typical small-unit infantry assault, any enemy on or near the objective are much likely to target your closing maneuver team(s) rather than overwatch/suppressive fire units that are further away, so the fire suppression team(s) are usually OK without leadership. As such, you can leave the "heavy" half of the squad with the SAW back in cover providing suppressive fire, while the Squad Leader leads the rest of the squad in to flank and finish. I actually frequently extend this to the platoon-level assault -- for example, with a plain-vanilla German Rifle Platoon, I might split all of the squads and leave the 3 x heavy teams with MG42s back in an overwatch/suppressive fire position, while the "light" teams with the Squad Leaders (and SMGs) close to finish. It depends a lot on terrain, but at the decision moment when the close assault is going in, the separation between my heavy supporting fire teams and my assault teams might be as much as 200m. Not that this is an original idea on my part; this platoon fire and maneuver tactic is straight out of period tactical manuals.

Revolutionary War, American Civil War and even World War I would require pretty extensive modifications to the CMx2 game engine to get right. Among other things, you can't really properly simulate combat in these wars without somehow modeling the much slower and less reliable command and control procedures used. Certainly not impossible to do with the CMx2 game engine as a base, but a lot of work. Korea and/or Vietnam would be more easily doable. Having already done WWII and with a modern warfare titles, the stuff in-between is already pretty much within the engine's capabilities. This said, the development schedule is pretty full so I wouldn't expect Korea, Vietnam, or anything else not already on the "road map" anytime soon. It's always possible BFC will change their mind, but they'd have to drop something currently on the development slate to get any of these out before 2016 at the earliest.

Certainly nothing wrong with the idea; I'd play the game. This said, don't underestimate the amount of development work it takes to release a new game family; CMFI was able to borrow pretty heavily from CMBN and it still took a lot of work to get out the door. Going back to 1942 N.A. would be more work; there are actually some pretty substantial TOE and equipment changes that have to be modeled for the game to properly represent 1942 formations. Lots of new terrain as well. Overall, I wouldn't expect a N.A. game anytime soon unless BFC changes its mind and decides to bump one of the other titles already on the "roadmap." It could happen; they've changed their minds before. But I wouldn't consider it particularly likely.

The PzII models deployed in Barbarossa had a 20mm autocannon main gun, which was sufficient against the BT-7 and T-26 that made up the bulk of the 1941 Soviet tank force. The PzII was considered second rate by Summer of 1941; they were still in service but rapidly being replaced by PzIII and IV in the front line Panzer formations. The PzI was the only German tank of WWII deployed in significant numbers armed with only 7.92mm MGs (it had two in the turret). While some PzIs were still in service in Barbarossa (~400), they were definitely considered second line at best by this point, and many were used for non-combat duties like command and liason. The PzI had always been intended primarily as a training tank to be used until better AFVs could be constructed; it was only pressed into combat service in 1939-1941 to make up for a shortfall in more advanced designs. The most common tank type in the German forces committed to Barbarossa was the PzIII, most of which had the 50mm L/42 gun at this time -- More than sufficient against the T-26 and BT types, but quite insufficient against the few T-34 and KV-1s that actually managed to engage the Germans in 1941 -- substantial numbers of the T-34s and especially KV-1s broke down or were abandoned due to lack of fuel or other causes before ever engaging, due to poorly trained crews and incompetent logistics.

Thanks, but I think I'll just stick with the conclusions Glantz and all of the other authors and academics who apparently "lack a rudimentary understanding" on the topic. If you want to lump me in with this group, that's just fine with me...

Prior to the Fall of France, no. But the Fall of France took place about a year before Barbarossa, and everybody in the world sat up and took notice when that happened. The German success in France caused a radical re-evaluation of strategic plans and doctrine in the Red Army. Prior, a heavily dug-in, linear defense had been favored, not unlike the French defensive plan. After the Fall of France, the Soviets trashed this doctrine and began a transition to an overall strategic plan that included large tank armies held in reserve, which would counterattack and envelop and attacking enemy from the West. Specifically, if Germany invaded, a large mobile force was to be held in reserve in Ukraine. It was to sweep Northward and cut off the invading foe. After this was accomplished and the German Army was defeated in the field, the mobile tank armies would continue into Western Europe. Barbarossa actually caught the Red Army in the middle of this transition, which is one of many reasons why the Germans were initially so successful. Red Army forces neither here nor there; the bulk of the Red Army wasn't in well-entrenched forward positions, but the mobile tank armies hadn't been completely trained, equipped, and positioned yet, either. As it was, several of the large tank corps did attempt major counterattacks early in Barbarossa. But for a whole range of reasons, they failed miserably. At the strategic theory level, the Red Army was actually pretty good. It was their operational and tactical execution that was a complete shambles.

Any prophesy of a planned a Soviet attack into Western Europe in 1941 or even 1942 is fantasy revisionism. It's true that Stalin and the Soviets considered conflict with the "Capitalist Imperialist West" inevitable (not surprising, especially considering the direct military support the West provided to the White Generals during the Russian Civil War), but the entire Red Army doctrine of the time revolved around defending and then counterattacking a Western invasion into the Soviet Union. The Red Army of the 1930s expected to fight and defeat the capitalist armies on their home soil, and then invade Western Europe after the foe had been smashed. A fairly logical thesis considering the history of how invasions of Russia had generally played out prior to this time. In a way, Barbarossa is exactly what the Red Army and Stalin expected to happen. They just didn't expect it in June 1941. Further out, 1943 or later, it's harder to know what might have happened. Like everyone else, the Soviets were reacting and adjusting to a shifting world reality and it's hard to predict what the world might have looked like had Hitler not invaded Russia in 1941 (would UK and Germany have stalemated and come to some sort of uneasy peace? Assuming a peace, how successful would Germany have been at placating and subsuming conquered territories? What about Japan and the U.S.; how do their actions change if Germany and the USSR are not in direct conflict? What about China and Manchuria?)