Fluf

I find the story about the man in body armour taking a 7.62 NATO round at point blank range and shrugging it off hard to believe, unless it was a softpoint or rubber bullet or something. Those solid point military rounds (7.62 NATO = Winchester .308) penetrate 4 inches of steel plate at point blank. I've observed the large chunks of turf that they toss way up in the air when they hit the ground in front of the target butts (not from MY shooting of course :cool: ).

Another 'real-life' anecdote about .45 slugs. A bud of mine was working in a bar in Hull, Quebec in the '70s - a rough bar. One night a drunk pulled out a .45 automatic and waved it around before shooting two men standing across the table from him. My buddy said that they were literally knocked off their feet and "they flew through the air" from the impact of the slug. He knew his pistols because he was a member of a shooting club. A grim example of the brutal power of big-bore pistol/SMG rounds at close range. I have read accounts of the 9mm pistol round failing to have this kind of impact during shootouts between criminals and police officers in the U.S.A. Perhaps some of our American buddies could elucidate on the old .45 versus 9mm controversy. I recall quite a debate on this topic not that long ago when the US armed forces converted to the 9mm Beretta from the .45 Colt auto.

A remodeled 6 pounder AT gun with distinctive wavy gun shield has been included with CMAK! I am content at last. For some reason the generic looking gun in CMBO bothered me and I had to do my on mod. But the CMAK mod is even better looking. Thank you! Now I await only for Michael Dorosh (who waits only for his postman) to convert his 'Ortona' operation to CMAK so that I may drag those shiny new 6 pounders into the rubble filled streets. I am enjoying CMAK even more than it's predecessors, and that is saying a LOT!

If a designer wants to make a scenario historically accurate, then close air support may be required, if it was there in the battle being modeled. And you only need to read the account of the Falaise gap battle in the South Alberta Regiment history by Donald E. Graves to see that friendly fire incidents from CAS aircraft occurred very frequently under some conditions. Since the Combat Mission simulators are intended to be as realistic as possible, then they must include this aspect of the WWII experience. It is a reality that ground commanders had to live with. Some of them certainly hated CAS too.

Oh, if only I knew what an "SD" was!

When I first got CMBO I created small training battles for myself based on typical real WWII situations - things like clearing a hamlet of light holding forces/snipers with a platoon of infantry, up to assaulting a heavily defended line with a battalion and tank support. I would treat these as training exercises, and experiment as I saw fit, changing the force makeups, troop qualities, adding/subtracting support weapons, etc. etc. to get a feel for the way a battlefield worked. In training exercises I feel free to retake moves a lot, experimenting with different tactics. Then I attempt an "official" scenario that I haven't played yet and treat it like a real battle, with no take backs, in order to feel a bit what battalion level command might be like - to live with the loses taken under my direction. I've read many accounts of real battles which criticize commanders for not doing their job right. Doing it right the first time turns out to be pretty difficult sometimes, as the Combat Mission simulators prove. It's a sobering and very challenging experience if you pretend for a moment that your men were real at the end of a battle. So, in 'real' battles I do not retake moves, I force myself to live with the consequences. The good news is that the training exercises have paid off for me. My first attack in CMAK proper (after the demos) was an 85% win with minimal casualties against a smaller but high quality enemy force. This was due to what proved to be a good battle plan (with hindsight), good co-operation between my combat elements, and as always, a bit of luck. I find these 'real' battles so engrossing that I have accidentally stayed up all night on more than one occasion - not noticing the passage of time. "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, my boy, practice!"

I suspect that they are saving us the shock and grief of being blackmailed for a $25 brokerage fee which couriers such as UPS enjoy springing on Canadians after they have already paid for an order and shipping from the U.S.. I once ordered a game from Firaxis (Antietam) - it was about $30 dollars, plus shipping. UPS, who had already received their shipping fee, delivered it to my house when I wasn't there, and demanded a $25 customs brokerage fee PLUS a $4 COD charge for collecting the brokerage fee - and my innocent wife paid it, which, along with GST, meant that I paid more than double the sticker price to get the game in my hands. This happened again when I ordered a chess set from the States, so it wasn't an isolated incident. I now insist on my goods being shipped by post from the States. For anyone interested in the history of this bizarre situation - you may recall that years ago you would receive a bill in the mail from Canadian customs for duties assessed against goods delivered by courier or post. You were supposed to mail Customs Canada a check for the amount in the envelope provided. According to a friend of mine who works in Customs, 90% of these bills were never paid, so Customs said "screw this" and stopped sending bills out. Instead told couriers and the Post Office to collect the duties upon delivery. This annoyed the couriers who, in protest, charge a minimum $25 rate "brokerage fee" in the hope that we citizens will protest and force the government to make other arrangements for the collection of custom duties. It hasn't worked so far.

Wow! Thank you Mr.Dorosh for the in depth review of the Sten situation. I stand enlightened on the subject now, having previously based my opinions on anecdotal stories I had read. I'd also never heard before that they were using steel casings on Thompson .45 rounds. Sounds expensive! The closest I've gotten to an M1 .30-30 carbine was at an army cadet shooting match. While we were using the FN C1 7.62mm (Win.308) in the match, one of our cadet officers brought along his M1 carbine and fired off a few magazines. This was back in the 60s, so the 15 round mag was still legal. His grouping at 100 yards from a prone position wouldn't fit in the rim of a bushel basket. The rounds looked like pistol ammo to me. He was a much better shot with the FNC1. He was quite disappointed with his carbine - but as noted by others, it was designed for jungle combat, not Bisley matches.

Canuck forces were issued with Thompsons and carried them throughout the Italian campaign. When Commonwealth forces eventually standardized on sten guns - so they could use 9mm ammo - Canadian troops in Italy hated them and would trade, borrow or steal to get Thompsons again. My uncle, a combat engineer, carried a Thompson in his jeep at all times to the end of the war. The sten was a dangerous and unreliable piece of crap, and it was a crime that they were forced on our troops. They were prone to jam in battle, and if you dropped one they tended to fire off their whole magazine while rotating around in a circle on the ground. Canadian troops used Thompsons thoughout the Italian campaign and loved them. Canuck infantry squads are shown with sten guns as the squad smg in CMAK, but that is a small inaccuracy that has no effect on gameplay.

Unlax LBD, my package had a little green sticker that said something about $5 as well, but it was stuck to the package itself, and I wasn't required to pay anything when the postal clerk handed it over. Since I had asked about this before, and was told that custom duties were payable upon receipt, I assume that we ain't paying anything. Perhaps we shouldn't inquire too closely, though, and leave sleeping tariffs lay. In the meantime - I accidentally stayed up until 4 a.m. playing the fictional Canuck vs. Fallshirmjaeger scenario by Andreas. Riveting play! A very lucky guess when choosing my battle plan led to a lop-sided win, but it could so easily have gone the other way! CMAK was definitely worth the wait.

A slim package from Vermont was handed over to me this morning (Sat.) down at the post office here in Almonte. CMAK has arrived just in time! I'm home alone and have nothing to do for the rest of the day but check it out. So far very impressed with the graphics - even the pointy top British helmets . The on-disk manual is in colour. The biggest looking of the 3 Canadian battles that come with the game is the Melfa River crossing (Liri Valley). Great looking Canuck uniforms! Now we need the Ortona operation converted from CMBO. My sincere wish is that you lads out West and down in the Maritimes are also picking up your packages today.

Ah, Bruce Mines, home of my Mother-In-Law. A swirling metropolis, to be sure. Sault Ste Marie is the suburb to the west, right? No sign of CMAK in Almonte, but, checking in at the local post office revealed that they're down to 50% staff there and in surrounding towns due to workers and managers being "off sick". The parcels are stacking up on the other side of the counters.

In response to Wasi's interesting comments - allied troops were only too well acquainted with the effectiveness, power, and accuracy of the stock KAR98. The German practice of delaying allied infantry breakthroughs with ad hoc long range sniping by non-specialist troops was very effective in harassing and causing casualties. My own grandfather, who fought in most of the major Canadian battles in WWI and carried the Ross Tbolt for a while, admired the Mauser rifle and considered it the finest infantry rifle of the era, especially in that it withstood the conditions of the trenches better without rusting - as his Ross rifle was prone to. The Lee-Enfield .303 does have one special characteristic that might make it a bit more effective in a close encounter - the short bolt throw. Troops could work the bolt with thumb and two fingers, while pulling the trigger with the little finger, so they could fire quite quickly "from the hip". I never tried it with my Enfield (which I no longer own), but perhaps this feature, along with the 10 shot clip, gives the weapon a small advantage at close range over the KAR98. Like the KAR98, the .303 was also a very accurate weapon. My father (who was a superb shot himself) watched an old Algonquin Indian guide shoot two whitetail deer which were 800 yards away on the side of a hill with his army-surplus Lee-Enfield. He set the ramp sight to "800" and dropped them side by side. The second deer looked up at the distant sound of the first report, but must have assumed that it's companion was lying down because it was tired, and went on feeding until it too was hit. But, someone - Gen. Chris Vokes, or perhaps Pierre Burton - said that most Canadian troops might as well have been carrying pitchforks, for all that they used their rifles in battle. Vokes did scold his infantry for not using enough rifle ammo at one point of the Italian campaign. As far as ammunition loadouts - isn't this affected by the supply level attribute which is configurable when you are creating a battle? I have noticed that in CMBB and the CMAK demo, both Axis and Allied squads seem to deplete their ammo very quickly, once in contact with the opposition. This makes the planning for and use of reserves an important and realistic part of the game. I agree with Wasi that its hard to see why the mg34 would have a lower effectiveness rating then the Bren gun.

I've read 'Ortona' and Zuehlke's book on the Liri Valley battles. My favourite book about the Canadian forces in Italy was 'The D-Day Dodgers', unfortunately out of print. The book avoids political correctness and seems to get closer to the real feelings and experiences of the people who were there. I had two copies - gave one to my cousin, whose dad was a veteran of the campaign attached to a Light Aid Detachment of engineers. He had some amazing stories to tell about recovering damaged Shermans at night, bridging the river near Cassino, and of hearing the distinctive sound of the German 28mm squeeze-bore AT gun. I gave the other copy to an old vet of the campaign who lived here in Almonte. He passed away about a year later, so I'm glad he had a chance to read about the history he made. Unfortunately I haven't yet found a replacement copy.

No sign of CMAK yet in the metropolis of Almonte Ontario. It did snow, however, and that always slows everything down even more than usual around these parts. Here's a hopeful thought though: last month I ordered a chess set from Paris France, and it arrived two days later! So, with Vermont being just a 3 hour drive from here, and applying the mysterious Rule of Post, I should expect to have CMAK in my hands in, oh, about 2 weeks or maybe 3 if I take into account that they ought to get theirs out in Manitoba a week before I do.

I agree with Redwolf. I'm new to both CMBB and CMAK, and so was familiar only with CMBO. The only CMBB battle I've tried yet was 'Retake Viipuri' as Finns vs AI. I was surprised to see how quickly my Finns became exhausted while carrying out 'advance' commands. After playing the CMAK demo battles I noted a similar fatigue rates in both Allied and Axis infantry. Don't think it has changed between CMBB and CMAK, but a really big delta from CMBO.

My impression is that rather than representing a squad with three infantry figures, as is presently done due to resource limitations of the typical gamers system, the new game engine will provide a one-to-one representation of individual soldiers. I did NOT read that control over individual soldiers would be added. We'll just see 8 to 12 men in each squad instead of 2 or 3.

No Ghurkas? My uncle was a vet of the Italian campaign as a Canadian Combat engineer. He said you had to be careful to lace your boots up in the correct allied criss-cross manner and not the German straight-across way because the Ghurka night patrols would sneak up behind sentries and feel their bootlaces. If they were laced up wrong the hapless sentry got his head whacked off with one of those great bloody kukri blades. The buzz amongst Commonwealth troops - and it may have been just rumour - was that axis troops were really spooked by having Ghurkas in the vicinity. Anyway, after reading some of the citations for medals awarded to Ghurka soldiers in the Med theatre, I believe we can simulate them in our CMAK battles by using Commonwealth troops and then setting the fanaticism level to about 100%. We'll just have to imagine the kukris during hand-to-hand engagements - if we have the stomach to.

SPOILER | | | | | | | | | | | I took Axis for this one because I like the looks of the panzerIIIM. Preliminary eye level check of the ground revealed the central ravine. I sent all but two platoons of infantry up this ravine as they arrived. First went two recon platoons and two armoured cars. The other two armoured cars I used to shoot-scoot in the center, but they both took turret casualties right away. The three half-tracks tried it on the right and I lost one. These losses did reveal the presence of Grants and several light AT guns. I placed 105mm FO, 81mm FO and a heavy mg in the central rocky patch on the ridge. The 81mm fired at the positions in the vicinity of the church yard, while my recon infantry with armoured car support emerged at the far end of the ravine and engaged infantry and AT positions in front of the oasis. An armoured car moved toward the church but was knocked out by a side shot and rolled up on top of the berm. The other took a turret casualty and hide in the ravine. I sent one platoon of PnzIIIs up the ravine with the above mentioned infantry, one platoon with their infantry passengers to the right, and one to the left. I planned (and executed) a 105mm smoke program in the center of the map to mask the Grants followed by a fast tank assault on the right with infantry follow up, while the PnzIIIs on the left tried going hull down to distract the Grants while the central PnzIIIs got into position to pop up along the berm in front of the church. I lost one PnzIII on the left to long range Sherman tank fire comming from the vicinity of the oasis. I had to then use shoot/scoot with the remainder of that platoon. As the 105mm smoke arrived the attack on the right went in with a tank charge right up to the enemy foxhole area and succeeded in tying up the defences well enough to allow the infantry to work there way in and overrun the area with the aid of the 2 remaining halftracks. The infantry emerging from the ravine also contributed flanking fire on these positions. But M4s cleverly ducking in and out of the palm trees ahead started plinking this tank platoon, and I eventually lost 3 PnzIIIs to them. As the infantry positions on the right were overrun the central attack was ready to go in, although one PnzIII was bogged back in the ravine. The 4 remaining tanks took hull-down positions on the berm across the front of the church area and their sudden appearance caused great confusion amongst the Grants. The PnzIIIs on the left now came to hull down positions so that the Grants were caught in a cross-fire, and were all destroyed within 2 minutes, along with a halftrack. Several of my panzers sustained crew casualties. Two burning vehicles set massive brush fires in the US positions. Next, while the central and right panzers played cat-mouse duels with some Shermans emerging from the palm trees near the church rear, the panzers on the left charged down to take up positions along the berm fronting the flag on the left. The two Shermans near the church succumbed to massed fire, while knocking out one of my panzers. Meanwhile I had been preparing a central infantry advance based on the berm near the church. Two heavy mgs were established there now, and I began moving platoons forward as the left and central tank platoons closed in on the stone walls. On the left I charged the four tanks forward and split the platoon, turning two left to engage the infantry positions from close range at the left flag, and the other two turned right to flank the churchyard and penetrate into the stone walled area. The enemy infantry on the left were unlucky with their bazooka, and withdrew or surrendered within 4 minutes or so, leaving this flag in my hands. In the center the flanking armour attack combined with intense pressure from the front caved in the positions near the church and as my infantry got in amongst the gravestones and assaulted the church building the enemy who hadn't withdrawn were taken prisoner. Finally, as the infantry closed in on the church the central PnzIII platoon (4 tanks) crossed the front of the church and attacked through the palm tree grove to deal with the remainder of the sherman platoon which was still engaged with the two remaining tanks of my right hand platoon. My haste here cost me my platoon leader as his tank came suddenly upon a retreating sherman, who won the draw on him at close range. This sherman was quickly taken out by the wingman, and a last sherman withdrew off the map before anyone could get away a round. The enemy surrendered at this point. The win level was at 74%, with my losses being an armoured car and halftrack (plus casualties in 3 others), and 5 PnzIIIs (not counting the bogged tank) plus casualties in 3 other tanks. Infantry casualties were about 34. The enemy lost all but one vehicle (the sherman, with a damaged gun), their AT guns and mortars, about 60 prisoners and over 100 infantry casualties. The final position looked grim, with three big brush fires burning and the black plumes of several brewed up tanks hanging over the crater-pocked battlefield. A very intense and sobering engagement. It appears that the Sherman has a small advantage over the PanzerIIIM, and the match-up was very interesting. Since this is my first AAR I hope you will forgive the clumsy writing.

Oh man! Got home at midnight last night but just had to try the CMAK demo. Tried the African scenario as the attacking side. The first time I look up to check my watch and its like 4:30 a.m.! Wow. So does anyone know if the AI opponent sees and reacts to those impressive dust clouds? As an aside, the new explosions/gun flashes are certainly realistic looking, but the child in me did love the old expanding concussion spheres of CMBO. They were so satisfyingly explosive.

Lordfluffers, us fluffy types must stick together. You must be trying to download from Tom's site using Netscape, or something other than MS Internet Explorer. I had this problem as well. The solution was to start up IE (which cannot be removed from your MS pc anyway), and use it to save the download from Tom's site. He takes advantage of the 'save as file' feature for downloading that IE has, but Netscape does not appear to have. I will post exact instructions when I get home - unless Tom beats me to it.

I ordered this excellent piece of software from Canada and received it in less than two weeks. Ties with Fritz6 chess engine and Aces High as the finest PC software I've ever used.

Thanks Mike - I didn't know there were any existing mods out there - I'll go and get yours!

Hi, Firstly, I am quite inexperienced in PC graphics techniques. I have been FLOORED by the amazing mods folks are creating for this game. I would like to upgrade the appearance of the 6 pounder (57mm) AT gun. My attempts to mod the gun shield to give it the wavy top edge characteristic of the weapon have been disappointing however. Thinking to emulate the amazing Panzer IV mesh sideplates added by one of you ingenious moders I attempted to 'pink' out the upper straight edge of the shield, but this just results in a blackened area. Obviously I'm clued out here. My question: is it possible to actually modify object shapes in CM? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for all your input everyone. Blackburn's description of gun assignments point to very flexible options - one-gun targets, section (two-gun) targets, troop, battery, regiment, division, and even larger groups of guns. Furthermore, any of the six troop FOOs (two assigned per infantry battalion, usually one per forward company HQ), 3 battery FOOs (one assigned per infantry battalion HQ), or regimental commander (normally located with brigade HQ), could request fire missions from these different sizes of fire groups, with some restrictions depending on circumstance. Blackburn himself, acting as a troop FOO, called down a regimental or divisional SOS target his first time out. These FOOS were also able to call for fire missions on a shells-per-gun basis, or a fire-until-I-say-stop basis. They could give a simple "repeat" command as well. The problem with this flexibility was that the FOOs could wind up contending for the same resources during major attacks, and Blackburn mentions a number of occasions where FOO so-and-so tries to call in a target only to be told that "the Colonel has the guns" and he can't receive his fire mission. Although it would be nice to have this realism in CM, it would also be necessary to emulate the artillery practices for all 6 nations and other artillery types represented in the game in order to be fair - a huge task that would represent an enormous development effort. Perhaps this will be done in the future, but the current system seems like a reasonable compromise to me, taken in proportion to the other compromises needed to make such a complex game/simulator work so well. I WOULD like to see on-board indirect fire enabled, so that a battalion mortar battery, for example, was able to recieve fire mission requests as a group from a radio equipped FOO somewhere else on the board. I recall that this was an oft requested enhancement for 'Squad Leader' that never made it into the game. Never-the-less, CM is the most engrossing battle sim I have ever experienced and I'm grateful to the authors for their ingenuity and integrity.