RockinHarry

Well, no overhead cover then and well, ...no "hardened positions" in normandy. Since focus in CMBN is centered around bocage fighting, the scanned map from a book dealing with german field fortifications in WW2 maybe gives a more detailed insight: Uploaded with ImageShack.us Further explanation: A typical german hedgerow defense (self containing infantry company area of about 300 x 800m size) is shown, with faint lines representing hedgerows and double broken lines, sunken roads. Buildings were undefended, as they attracted artillery fire. There´s numerous "dugouts" to be seen, although graphically seperated from the rifle pits, these are mostly part of the 2 men foxholes ("Schützenloch für 2 Gewehrschützen mit Unterschupf" - "Foxhole for 2 men with dugout" - literally), providing overhead cover vs. airbursts and direct mortar hits. One also sees, that the rifle pits (foxholes), as well as MG emplacements are directly situated along the hedgerows and in sunken roads, with lots of trees and orchards around (effectively substituting "connection trenches" in liaison with hedgerows providing covered/concealed movements within positions). So this can be truly considered a "hardened bocage defense position", as opposed to the "soft" one as presented in CMBN right now. Well, foxholes and trenches do not provide overhead cover in CMBN now. Makes me conclude that the most effective "bocage defense" in CMBN is avoiding bocage and trees like the plague, or to at least use a "safe" standoff range? I understand that for some technical reasons, it´s currently low priority implementing overhead cover in this module and not a game breaker for the majority of players, but I hope this issue is given higher priority when it comes to modules, that deal a lot with battles in forests or along fortified lines (Bulge, german frontier battles from september 1944 to february 1945).

...and US tankers appear not to be very sensitive about squashing own dead comrades under their treads...

...and as well works the old CMX1 "cheat", where you plaster an area short of a concealed target with direct fire HE, in the hope that some shells fall beyond the aiming point and yet "effect" the target behind. Did that on a 57mm AT gun with a Panther in "Closing the Pocket". Both units didn´t have LOS to each other, but I knew the AT gun was there, as it foolishly engaged some my infantry shortly before. Took 5-10 rounds of 75mm HE to "silence" the gun during gameplay, but only after the scenario quit to the map review, I found the whole gun crew KIA/WIA, with the gun still intact.

You probably mean a "sweeping burst", intentionally extended to the left and right of the aiming point, in order to "catch" more troops attacking in a nice line. With <=10 rounds per burst fired by HMGs, the effect on a larger beaten area would be even less than it is now on a "point target". Short bursts in quick succession at neighboring targets would achieve a similar effect, but between burst intervals are too loooong in the game, as is target switching speeds.

I´ve played "Busting the Bocage" (from the demo), german side and I couldn´t see any benefits from having troopers on "hide" in foxholes and trenches, as there where always few guys sticking their heads up now and then, when under a mortar or artillery barrage. Can´t remember if it was just these guys getting killed/injured, when a shell lands nearby, either directly on ground, or more frequently as tree burst. So far, I didn´t notice any direct hit on the trench or foxhole, when casualties occured. Is the ingame 3D geometry of FHs/trenches taken for shrapnel/blast effects, or is there some abtractions applied to make these more realistically sized internally? Visually, the size of trenches make more for support weapon pits, instead of "slit trenches" that connect fighting positions. Generally, WW2 trenches are mostly from the "connection trench" type (180-200cm deep), which connect a squads or platoons individual fighting positions, which rather look like CMBN foxholes. They also may have step niches (140cm depth) for single soldiers to shoot from, when not fighting from the actual fighting positions. More elaborate trench systems may have segments covered with some logs and earth, in order to provide similar cover vs. airbursts and <80 mortar direct hits. What is "minimal overhead cover" for foxholes? Historically there´s either "no cover" at all, or cover that protects vs. shrapnel from air-/treebursts and direct mortar hits up to ~80mm ("Unterschlupf"). Anything between is useless and rather means of camouflage or rain protection. I´d rather prefer to have 2 types FH/trenches introduced. 1 without overhead cover and 1 with appropiate overhead cover, at greater purchase costs. The one with overhead cover then should give full benefits to (infantry) units on "hide". Graphical 3D presentation of FH/trenches does not need to change necessarily. I could imagine "hidden" soldiers to be blended out from the 3D environment and let damage (direct hit on the position) and other effects (morale?) calculate internally. "Hidden" units still can be accessed by their floating icon. I could also imagine implementation of squad dugouts and basements this way. This would be similar to CMBB "sewer movement", although troops would stay on the spot and accessible. I´ll keep dreaming....

Beaten zones and grazing fire make a difference, if i.e a HMG34/42 pulls a realistic volume of fire per "burst" in a game minute. Currently I do not expect german HMGs to be more "effective" than US 30cals with 10 rounds max spent each burst and long intervals between. No wonder, attacking (US) infantry does not feel that much bothered in the game. Minimum burst time for HMG34/42 s/b 1 second (~20 rounds) and if a good target offers (moving infantry in the open), there would be 2 second bursts (~40 rounds) and more. LMG 34/42 bursts (5-7 rounds) are just right in the game, but a good gunner surely needs roughly 1 second to reaim for the same target and pulls of another 1-2 short bursts. If "effect" is achieved, target would likely be switched within 2-3 seconds, or the gunner pulls back into cover, or alternate firing position. Other interruptions between engaging targets off course is changing barrel and loading a new ammo belt. Usually for this, the gunner and assistant do that in cover. Me guesses, that for technical reasons the CMBN game engine can not handle longer bursts with large volumes of fire from a single weapon like MG42, which would be a pity, as it takes a lot from its historic "efficiency".

Realistically, "rocky" or generally hard surfaced terrain, would be even more dangerous to infantry, as it causes more shrapnel produced by rock splinters and delivered on a shallower arc just above ground level. Is "soaking off" blast/shrapnel effects by "soft ground" modelled in CMBN?

I wouldn´t take some of the battle descriptions that literally. In particular: "...1 platoon was advancing across an open clearing toward another wood when it was met by heavy machinegun fire from 2 German positions dug in at the edge of the second wood..." I´d take it rather as "large volumes of fire taken from machineguns in 2 german positions dug in...." So I´d rather realistically assume the incoming fire was from the german squads LMG and NOT a tripod MG42 HMG. Same goes for mentioning of "machine gun nests", which can be any enemy (german) position including any sort of machine gun, but not necessarily a tripod MG42 HMG. The almost always understrength german infantry squads would preserve the squads LMG firepower for most defense tasks alone, with the remaining few squad members (if any) dropping in for close defense only. Fact is, that valuable german tripod MG34/42 HMGs were mostly employed, where they can give supporting fires to infantry in the line (Hauptkampflinie, forward edge of the main line of resistance) at longer range. "Ideally" that would be from positions well within the "Hauptkampffeld" (main defense area), at least 50 to several hundred of meters to the rear of the line infantry. In order to employ these supporting fires, HMGs either had to overshoot, ot shoot through gaps in the infantry line. For flanking/crossfires, HMGs were employed in ways, that they´re effectively "covered" frontally by terrain (slope, woods, houses ect.) AND secured by line infantry forward of the HMG position. That´s just the "basic" principle for employing HMGs under the assumption, that a german defense position is situated in appropiate terrain (good and rather long range fields of fire). If possible, supporting weapons were used to their best inherent effects. From my various wartime german FMs, pamphlets, training manuals, german LMG/HMGs were rated for employment as follows: MG34 LMG: "effective" fire, vs small targets, upto 1200m best effect, upto 1000m vs large targets, upto 1500m "practical" rate of fire: 100-120 RPM bursts of between 5-10 rounds, in short intervals. MG 34 HMG on tripod: "effective" fire, upto 3000m (includes indirect shooting, not covered in CMBN) best effect upto 1500-2000m beyond 2500m just "suppressing" effects "practical" rate of fire: 300-350 RPM "Continuous fire" (Dauerfeuer), per given task. A task would basically include the "target" (moving, covered/stationary, lethality) and number of rounds fired (50+) as given by the HMG unit section or platoon leader. If desired "effect" is achieved, targets would possibly switched to another one, or fire task repeated. LMG/HMG 42 has similar data for "effective" ranges and somewhat higher "practical" ROF. Something yet to consider is the preplanned defensive "fire plans" and the practice to employ ad hoc "Feuerüberfall" (concentration of fire) in order to amass most effectice (defensive) fires vs. an approaching enemy. A more "realistic" scenario test setup for evaluation of (german) HMG effectiveness in CMBN, would "ideally" include HMGs positioned to the rear of the line infantry, where supporting fires can be applied at greater range. If possible place them in keyholed positions, as well as covered frontally by line infantry, in order to apply cross fires in front of the MLR. Consider using HMG "fall back" positions, once they come into effective return fire by enemy heavy weapons, or enemy infantry coming too close. A single (german) HMG seldomly fights it out alone til close combat range, unless you assume fanatical troops ("Waffen Grenadiers", Paratroopers, ect.) Also a "prepared" defense needs to have included numerous TRPs, to have defensive fires maximized for ALL defending units, not just mortars and artillery. Just leaves the fact, that (german) LMGs and HMGs in CMBN do not apply a realistic (higher) rate of fire, as well as do not switch targets often enough, or in shorter intervals. That´s the only MG performance diminishing effects, that I observed in CMBN so far. Main reference resources: http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

From evaluating the range in the screenshot, I´d guess the Shermans are yet about 50-60m away, thus out of range. Stalking 3 unbuttoned tanks head on in open terrain looks suicidal anyway. Better let them come to you.

I´d like to see simultaneous vs. armor and vs. soft target covered arcs for all units, including split teams, weapon teams, Pak, ect. Maybe a small engagement range interface (without CA) would do a similar purpose. Dreaming of a squad fire tactics interface: Engage with squad LMG only, at xxx m. Engage with other small arms at xxx m. Engage armor with small arms: Yes/No ...? Similar settings for armor, AT and support weapons teams. Surely a nightmare to code, with numerous exceptions and unexpected situations to deal with, particularly for the AIP

Well deserved punishment on a commander using self propelled artillery as assault gun in the frontline...eheh If Wespes and Hummels ever get into contact with enemy armor, there went someting terribly wrong beforehand. Imagine using Sextons and Priests vs. german Tigers in the same role.

I´ve tinkered some with water tiles (in demo) as well and found results quite satisfactory. Some feature I´d like to see (in case I´ve overlooked) would be different riverbed variations like sandy, grassy ect. as I found the standard rocky/gravel streambed tiles ofently not looking to what I need. Particularly when combined with (neighboring) marsh, they don´t quite fit together.

Interestingly, I just saw a documentary about history of german "Autobahn" (highway) few days ago and constructions like the one above, were already build in the late 30ies, so it´s anything but unrealistic. Germans had to stop expanding the highway net in 1941, when resources where needed elsewhere.

I noticed repeatedly german squads light MG42 gunners blasting away with bursts of 6-7 rounds, even from crouching position, which is unrealistically anyway. Intervals between bursts should be probably shorter. Didn´t yet count bursts for the MG42 on tripod, but due to its role bursts should be 10 and above. The tripod allows changable settings for fire in depth and width, as well as for point targets sort of. I guess CMBN HMG42 just has a "one fits all" setting. If needed I could dig up more specific stuff from HDV130/3 and HDV 73, but that surely goes beyond what could be coded in CMBN. Same goes for ballistic (over-) shooting.

Unless BFC might add a contour line feature for top view, at least map and scenario makers could add contour lined tactical maps to the briefings. GeorgeMC and me already worked something out like that for CMX1 and could possibly reused for CMBN. It´s an expedient for sure and just gives a rough overview of the map.

+1 Prime task for infantry is dividing enemy infantry from its armored support, even in the face of getting plasterd by HE in return. Just as YD describes, it´s oftenly more wise to fight a "point target" (HMG nest, HQ sections, unbuttoned crews and weapon crews) with the infantry squads most able marksman in a stealthy manner. This doesn´t necessarily needs a scoped rifle available, when the target is at close to middle ranges. I saw things like that mentioned in (german) WW2 infantry field regulations as well (HDV 130/2a & Feuerkampf der Infanterie). I´d also vote to introduce a dual "vs soft & vs hard" covered arc for all appropiate units, in order to give better fine tuning opportunities.

It´s mostly those guys that raise their binocs quite often. Maybe the TAC AI notices and thus makes them priority targets.

Still enjoying it much. Have a scenario in the pipeline, that just needs the briefing finished...finally. So I might guess there´s still some testers around, if I´ll upload it over at TPG soon? 8) While having some fun with CMBN demo, I think it´s great looks with yet too much of CMSF under the hood, to give it true WW2 feel. I´ll purchase it within next 2-3 months nonetheless. Also PCO does not appear to be a true alternative to CMBB yet. There´s lots that I like, but not enough to draw me away from CMBB.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us The infamous MG34 assault rifle

I´d some friendly fire in the Pocket scenario (Iron mode). A german squads machine gunner hit a nearby tree, while aiming at some GI´s in the distance. Unfortunately that tree served as cover for another german from a different german squad, forward of that machine gunner. I couldn´t finally resolve if that unlucky german got killed by a ricochet or a direct hit. I´d highly appreciate if spotted friendly units deny LOF, as this would allow way more realistic tactics, as leaving gaps in the infantry line, in order for rearward heavy machine gunners just beeing able to shoot through these gaps. Overshooting would be another nice realism improvement if circumstances allow (from higher ground and/or sufficient distance to allow ballistic shooting).

*SPOILERS AHEAD* If playing germans, you´ll notice in the default setup, just half the foxholes and trenches are actually occupied. The majority of germans are placed in the orchards and bocage without any protection vs. the deadly treesbursts. If playing US and the computer takes this faulty setup, then no wonder germans can be wiped out by artillery alone quickly. So I´d say, there´s not too much US artillery (didn´t they always have plenty of it?), there´s too little protection against it!

Depends. A quickly dug foxhole (1-2 hours) surely does not have one. German HDV 130/11 (field regulation for field fortifications) suggest to add "Unterschlupfe" (miniature dug out in a 2 man foxhole) for protection vs. light mortars and splinters from bouncing (timed fuse) and tree burst for a half a days work. Trenchlines which take between days and weeks to build, surely have more of this kind, including true underground group shelters and such. So in what category do CMBN fortifications fall? Also depends upon terrain. FHs and trenches in forests are plain death traps, without overhead cover. In CMX1 a dug in defender in forests is no less vulnerable from tree bursts as a moving attacker, which makes recreating battles from the bulge or hurtgen forest as good as impossible. Maybe it´s not too much of an issue in the Normandy theatre, if a defender stays out of woods, but something needs to be done for the CM Bulge module. Just played another turn (3) as germans in BtB and a 6 men german squad in a trench placed in an orchard, suffered 3 casualties. These were from 1 tree burst and a near miss. I even had that squad in "hidden" status, assuming they would benefit even more from their "cover", but obviously that doesn´t make any difference, just like in CMX1.

Ah...thanks. Just did few turns in BtB, US side, before I decided to try the other scens, playing germans. So started BtB this time as germans and found the foxholes and trenches as you say. That´s the good thing. The bad thing is, that I find these to be the worst features in an otherwise graphically brilliant game. Additionally, you can´t place these were actually needed, so the "busting the bocage" experience is far from beeing realistic. Troops also appear to be as vulnerable from artillery as in any other terrain and I would expect, that at least the "trench" thingy would offer some overhead protection vs. tree bursts, even if not visually presented (abstracted). I´d have been more than satisfied with some abstracted forts like in CMX1, just having the 2D tile on top of the terrain and let soldier figures "sink" into these tiles, let the bullet and casualty tracking be abstracted somehow. Even if the game engine does not allow a different solution ATM, I find those foxhole and trench things looking just like crap, not placeable where needed and not offering realistic protection. CMBN is a true beauty, but as soon as I see these, the impression is destroyed instantly. Well, overall not a gamebreaker. It´s CMx2 WW2 and there´s no true alternative to it.

So far, I like what I see, particularly graphics, which also give good frame rates on my machine. Some problems I have is with the sounds, as mentioned elsewhere. While playing the CtP scenario I also had problems with the 6 men german HMG squads, whose members do not position themselves intelligently. They positioned in sort of "line formation" with all crew members forward and ammo bearers engaging the enemy with there rifles at ranges that I wouldn´t consider emergency (above 300m or so). Normally just half the crew would be operating the HMG, with the remaining members keeping somewhat to the rear and concealed if terrain permits. Whished one could "split" those HMG teams as well, in order to keep the exposure of the whole squad low. The "cowering" animation also lacks a bit. What´s yet mssing is crying for mummy voice file and ****ting pants textures. Seriously, a pinned soldier just makes it flat with the ground and does not roll sidewards to increase silhouette. Basic soldier training actually. Infantry squad members s/b way more dispersed, but I understand the problem for coding that micro path finding. Maybe it gets hopefully solved in later CMX2 revisions. I love the map editor functionalty and too sad, I couldn´t save my first map making attempts. Is there any foxholes or trenches anywhere in the Demo scenarios? I´ve particularly had a look for those, but couldn´t find some. Dust clouds look more like white smoke clouds, but might be my graphics card and driver (Nvidia Geforce GT 240) does not work right. Also when in the editors 3D preview and with weather set to fog or hazy, there´s none. Spray rifle bullets hitting the ground also look odd sometimes. Either there´s sparking blotches, where you wouldn´t expect some (like very small HE rounds) or there´s sort of large earth fountains when looked at from far away.

Well, I surely see the fun factor in that. ...maybe some motivating "Men, I show you were Iron Crosses grow" (in heavily accented german off course), or "Damn, that was close! I just **** my pants!" ...I´d try for sure, as long as it´s one sort or the other (funnny Hollywood, or realistic), but not mixed.