RockinHarry

Correct, at least from october 1939 (conclusion of poland campaign) onward, in favor of more easy to handle and more powerful squad/platoon tactics. Germans started the war with assault/support team concept though.

With single soldiers beeing the entity for shooting and target purposes, there´s little valuable info to be given for a whole squad or section. Surely is different for AFV and single gun/weapon system engagements.

..and if it´s not a barn, it´s possibly damaged, which offers additional invisible openings. CMBN buildings aren´t obviously WYSIWYG objects. Windows do provide LOS opportunities for building occupants, but when serving as "firing ports", they´re likely treated to be much larger/wider than can be evaluated from visible sizes. Also seams between walls/stories appear to provide oftentimes just enough gaps to shoot through from in- to outside the building. Blind spots aren´t obviously modelled as well, as you can shoot straight down a window from the 8th story of a building to the space just in front of it. Unless BFC clears that up in detail, I´ll stick with that "wisdom".

Ya know I always say what I think and even if the matter has been settled (no opening up of the game) long time ago, I keep dreaming.

Interesting for sure! Let us know when it´s beyond beta stage. :cool:

I´d even go a step further request. Open up the game/engine so we can add content ourselves! :cool: I won´t name example games and companies, that benefit both, the company and players.

I wouldn´t wish for additional bunker types with the system currently implemented (vehicle variation). A hardenend building type would be way better suited IMO. This would also make them accessible for both opponents.

Interesting find from Intelligence Bulletin Vol III, part 9, Jun-Jul45, page 53: "Enemy action started about 0500 with diversionary shelling of the infantry on our left flank. At 0559 the enemy artillery shifted its fire into Captain Stouffer's area, and laid a heavy barrage for approximately 5 to 10 minutes. After the barrage lifted, the enemy patrol moved from its assembly point, and split into segments, as indicated on the accompanying map. Twenty to 25 men, equipped with automatic weapons and five light machine guns, established a base of fire. Twelve to 15 men, equipped with automatic weapons and a 20-mm cannon on a hand carriage mount, constituted the left flank patrol. (Later the 20-mm cannon was discovered to be a 20-mm Flak 38 con- verted to the ground mount.) Twelve to 15 men, with automatic weapons and bazookas, constituted the right flank patrol. Be- fore these elements moved into their positions, they proved ex- tremely proficient at disarming American booby traps, both the prefabricated and the improvised types. ..." The file can be searched here: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/

Maybe this one, if your computer can handle it? http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1315

Quick shot: Think it would take serious coding efforts to have FHs autoplaced under each defending infantry, since FH placement is more complicated and restrictive in CMBN, than it was in CMX1. Then there´s also these hard to handle micro pathing issues for single soldiers within an action spot, as well as the spread of teams in more than one AS.

valid point

German Company Officer's Handbook is not necessarily obsolete, but many german obsolete equipment went to second line troops like static infantry divisions holding the "Atlantikwall" and elsewhere. First line german troops had their 81 and 120mm mortars, partly subordinated at company level or centralized in the heavy weapons company.

Depends upon your imagination of a game, compared to RL. A hole or trench is part of your "selected" defense measures and holes/trenches do not dig themselves. You need to invest time and with regard to trenches you´ve likely (invisibly) assigned engineer support from superior HQ. You might have a free hand from superior HQ with regard to your defense methods (Auftragstaktik). It could be selecting a mobile defense with some armor support, but no entrenchments, or a static defense with infantry well dug in. None of these efforts are for "free" and "resources" (units, material, time) are always limited to some extend, so you have to "purchase" to reflect this. So just see "purchasing" holes, as purchasing time for getting troops dug in.

I do not quite get the grasp here. Does the quality setting with regard to LOD take "live" effect AFTER the map has been finally loaded in 3D? For me it appears that the game drops me with OOM during "preparation" of the map in memory (read data phase). Even setting Q to lowest everywhere did not help finish loading prcedure beyond "read data". But replacing a whole lot of grass types with plain dirt and sand did help loading a map, although in this state it was unusable (except for desert war scenarios maybe). Not that I really "need" push to the limit 4x4km, high density terrain maps, I can well get along with 2x2km maps, as long as no "normal" range (upto 1500m maybe) armored combat is to be expected.

Do not mean to revive the thread, but found the pic in Ospreys US Infantrymen in WW2 - ETO, while actually searching for something else:

The true problem is AI use of forts. As mentioned in another thread, it would help much if reloading soldiers would dive to full cover within the forts. Could be abstracted if it´s for the lack of animation sequences. Same goes for buddy aid. No need to kneel on the trench/foxhole ledges to apply BA to the soldier below. There´s yet the problem with pathfinding, where single soldiers find better "cover" behind the foxhole mounds, instead of within, particularly after using "face" which is a tricky feature anyway. "Normal" foxholes are deathtraps for treebursts. That´s realistic. Not realistic, is that in Normandy a whole lot of foxholes were not of a "normal" type. That´s also covered in another thread exhaustively. Trenches do not provide overhead cover as well. The thing is, if a defenders position is not pushed back within say 6-12 hours, every minute of non combat time would be invested improving positions in the following order: 1. Two men foxhole (few hours, say 2-3) 2. Above plus overhead cover vs treebursts, splinters, medium mortar direct hits for the foxhole occupants (upto 6-8 hours). 3. Improved (2.) foxholes would be connected with at least crouching trenches to allow covered movements within the squad position and beyond. (half a day) 4. Digging full depth connection and combat trenches. (one day and beyond) 5. ...out of scope (squad bunkers and other elaborate defenses) Not included in the time investement is measures for camouflage, improving fields of fire, obstacles, mines, switch and fake positions, range measuring and so forth. So in CMBN, we basically have 1. and 4. and nothing between obviously. Maybe a "simple" solution could be introducing more expensive FHs and trenches that provide abstracted overhead cover for units on "hide". Maybe things are not that "simple", can´t tell.

Without going over all of the topic again, I say there´s a particular imbalance with artillery and protection against it. While it is realistic that artillery is the infantry mens worst enemy, particularly vs. moving and in the open (trees & treebursts are equally deadly), the game lacks some protection measures that entrenched infantry would have many times in the normandy theatre. It were cellars, trenches & foxholes spiced up with small dug outs (2 log layers and some earth vs. mortar and splinters) and true squad bunkers, that are not well presented by the shelter type stuff in the game. Anything else is on behalf of the scenario maker, ascertaining that either maps are large enough in proportion to force sizes, or with a particular view to an initial battle situation. Were bombardements already done, prior to the assault? Are forces already that close to each other (map size), that an attacker, as well as defender could not properly use their artillery without endangering own forces and thus need to depend on given heavy support arms (mortars, HMGs, tanks) ..and such. Also worth of considering would be likely counter battery measures. Games like Steel Panthers WaW have something like that modelled.

I think I noticed that "hide" in the foxholes/trenches now provides reasonable cover vs artillery and such. It´s still as deadly as before when it comes to treebursts.

Interesting! I bought my computer 9 month ago (see sig below), but I just have 2 gigs of Ram and a 512 MB GA. What´s your OS? Hopefully BFC provides some solution anytime soon, or at least gives a definite answer on hardware/OS/driver requirements that one can depend on. Edit: No off course it´s not tile types alone. On another test map I could load a plain, even 4x4km grass map, but once I added 1 square km of forest to it....OOM.

Yep, although I did not post the close combat clasp example for the purpose of deriving loss statistics from it.

Don´t miss the info from this not quite so old thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99777

I tested removing/replacing grass with dirt/sand on various maps I could not load in 3D view of the editor. i.e I could not load GeorgeMc Huge rolling hills...map, prior to replacing half the maps ground tiles with sand. It destroyed the map, but it indicated that amount of grass is one reason that certain maps do not load on my system.

surely not rare for the cases I posted at http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1315091&postcount=87 what do you disagree with there? If statistics speak of 20 Million Wehrmacht soldiers counted vs. close combat clasp recipients, then this means...Wehrmacht. It´s army, airforce and sea forces combined during all of WW2, not actual frontline troops, which is the fighting parts of the army. I don´t care if close combat makes 1% or 10% or anything of overall losses. If conditions apply, then close combat as well as hand to hand combat oportunities rise considerably. That´s what I like to be portrayed in the game. I don´t care at last if pixeltruppen close combatants beat each other with rifle butts, stab with bayonet, punch with fists, mow with SMG,...or run away or surrender.

Doctrinally it was about to avoid the edges of towns, similar to forests as these make a good enemy target for support arms and artillery. So usually the main defenses had been laid well within towns (forests) to avoid this and just have the edges outposted. Actually works well in all CM games.

oh well.. if it´s just for adding something to your sig, then may it be so.