Traject0ry

Like it would be a computer game, BAH!

I like to play games but you are free to enlist the legion. Good luck.

So true but a complete overhaul of the service weapons was made during 50's explained by the wear and tear on the weapons but it could be considered as an attempt to salvage and repair as many of the wartime produced weapons as possible. Those weapons later converted to new service calibre were thus already in good condition. As a warning: Do not post through communicator while riding the Tube, you'll probably type like an illiterate idiot

Upsie, was in a bit of a hurry sorry about the missing words and typos...

Uh, oh - you got me (again) For my defnse concerning the accuracy matter comes a long off the record explanation and my sources are mostly men (though with the profession of war) so some is bound to be erraneous. So as briefly as possible: 1) Bren Mk1 is an excellent weapon. Comfortable to fire and accurate. The sad thing is that while making preparations to "Overlord" a high number of weapons were to be manufactured. Also the Pacific theatre was grieving for equipment thus forcing the manufacturing companies to sad sacrifices. As noted under the "Scots Guard" the further versions of the Churchill were improvements but such not the case with Bren. Mk. 3 and Mk. 4 were simply cheaper production models thus allowing the company to make the ordered number of weapons on a reasonable expense. The later weapons were shorter, lighter and lacking both the excellent barrel backsight and the adjustable bipod (for quick positions on broken groud it would have been a nice addition). More importantly as I mentioned earlier the costs were cut with eight to 28 %! Now we are talking about a weapon which had loosely trimmed parts to allow abuse by weather and user thus giving some sactter as fired. As the more shoddier versions had a more composition it gave both the chamber and the muzzle nose more room to move. In addition to this the aims (both rear and front) were experiencing movement when fired. The rest is self-explanatory. Now the retirement of Bren in the 80's means weapons used then which were mostly either earlier quality models, those few elite crafted of the war time productions and some made after the war. After the war (shouldn't there be plenty left over after the war)?!?! My former comment earlier was ofcourse a bit out of order but it was the factory that gave the Bren a 1000 yards effective range but when the men at field tested two of the shelf Mk.4's by bolting them down they both gave a large beating zone. The iron sights (replacing the earlier barrel) were also hard to zero as the aims tended to move from the shock of the discharge. The troopers were not happy. Happier they were with the few Mk. 1's they already had for training. As a professional soldier I am always assuming the worst case thus acting according to my training. The truth is that only very few of the wartime production later models stayed on service after the wars (WWII+Korea) and the training weapons used after the war I have seen are usually either Mark 1's or manufactured after the war. Stenguns, cheaper Brens and other second class weapons were shipped to allies while own pros got to make their picks first. The reasons for the retirement of Bren are many including it's small beating zone (admitted) but the evolution of Bren on the battlefield is a model example of mass over quality. Once more please feel free to criticize... Damn, scanned nice (small) pictures of tripod mounted Brens but it seems they can't be posted here.

Okay, this Bren thing is getting out of hand. As far as I know Bren tripods were issued for troops in order to be used for long range fire (source: British Army Infantry Training Manual 1942) but the tripod featured rised position for AA work. Bren itself could be used with at least four different AA mounts, both single and twin - one of them is actually a different tripod than the one issued to regular infantry. The fact is that Bren is robust and reliable but it is not meant to be fired on long bursts. As it is not made by clocksmiths it gives wild scatter while fired upon targets further than 300 yards away even when mounted on tripod. As some1 already stated the use of tripod is to kill recoil thus adding accuracy. Since Bren is not inaccurate due to recoil but due to design tripod does not fix this. it's comfy to shoot though and trained man can get excellent results on ranges between 150 and 250 yards. The one I fired back in 1998 was fed from a 200 round drum magazine (not 100) which was (so I heard) issued during WWII but was prone to jam if abused. Thus troops dashing on the field suffered fatal rates of misfeeds and as far as I know it was not used at all by field troops. On small patrol boats and such when the weapon (and the magazine) get less pounding it was more common. What can I say, a tru guerilla weapon but for surgical work buy Austrian or Swiss Thus irrelevant feature (as the drum) on battlefield of men and armour it is easier to toss it from the game or some1 is bound to use it in an otherwise good scenario thus ruining the atmosphere. FORGET IT! Please stop all the GPMG and SAW talk here, mail or ICQ, it does not concern a WWII game.

As I could not sleep i spent my nights in research It seems that the number of tanks could cahnge from unit to unit and though the 3 * 5 + 4 was common some infantry tank units were also remodelled after the 4 * 4 +4 formation. It was not uncommon to have "missing tanks" as some units in other armies had assault guns in paper but bicycles in real world. This should be kept in mind as trying to figure out the unit strengths. Good guess is often better than paperwork done by the brass. They get the knowledge of casualties, breakdowns and sudden transfers often slower than the troops on the field. Especially during wartime when the paperwork is overwhelming

Haven't noticed any effects on the morale beyond the surrenderind feature but as it is the troops should suffer from group morale. As the enemy is closing the sound of the battle carries over long distances and the withdrawing men (do not consider all casualties as wounded beyond speech or dead) wounded and afraid are the worst source of knowledge concerning the enemy. I tend to think that a number of the casualties are wounded in the nerves (or simply ran out of the battle) and believe it or not the combat units can tell from these abovementioned sounds how tough it is on the other side of the hill - added to this the random straggler telling stories of the 4 meter tall enemy soldiers and battleship sized tanks all over his former position - the group morale is thus rationalized. Actually it is easier to concentrate on warfare when you are face to face with the opposition without time to think and hesitate as your tired brain is giving control to mechanical response to combat training (thus the greens tend to crawl and cry while the veteran fights often even in hopeless situation simply because he is trained to do so more than due to will to perform combat) than few kilometers behind listening to the noise of artillery rounds hitting the ground and discharge of many manner and size of weaponry. The morale "caving" effect comes when men start surrendering thus giving the others a moral permission to do so ("If Frank surrenders why should I fight and die?" or "Everybody I see have their hands up, there is no escape - even if I am fit and equipped for combat it is okay to surrender as others do it as well") and these can lead to surprising results when small patrols take prisoners by tens. The rest is ofcourse theory of morale on the battlefield but as long as any of the writers here have not been on one I think we should stick to the frame given us by the game.

Thank you for your long answers, I try to use what I've got. (Also sorry about the typos - heh, heh)I'll clonsider my case closed but I'm happy to receive more tips via email : traject0ry@hotmail.com Yours truly, -T

I'm tired of swearing my 'ead off with scenario projects and a game engine difficulties... So here goes and help me God if all this people around here is of no use: Super morale? As it is most armies consider units suffering 20 percent casualties in a days fighting to be rendered "combat inefficient" and after 50 percent casualties as "unfit for any operations." In CM:BO troops suffer 80 percent casualties, refuse to surrender and manage to put up a fight? Sure we have all read about heroic action performed by paratroopers, grenadiers or even regulars or security troops but these are usually rare occurrences. As it is SS - formations took casualties between 180 and 310 during the whole war (considered heavy, naturally) and even 500 percent casualties have been estimated to some units but we are talking years here! It is probably true that only 60 men of the 6th Fallscirmjaeger were left (1007 if the wounded without prisoners and MIA's are accounted for) when they finally withdrew from the front lines where they had been over a month since the 6th of June. It is also true that whole companies (both allied and axis) gave up arms after a small firefight or routed from the front as enemy seemed superior. In CM:BO it not unusual to reach 80 percent casualties yet with mere a few prisoners and usually not one routed off the playing area. Not even the greens troops?! It is unpleasant to play a scenario with troops whose fire is inefficient, who tend to lay down instead of advancing and who have the unpleasant habit of running away from superior enemy or surrender when they ran out of ammo but it is also realistic. The real killer is that morale can be further boosted in the scenario builder by quarter or half - my eyes are wet. Also troops set up with reduced morale and freshness recover from these nuisances (the idea is to simulate fatigue from continuous fighting over a time span of days or even weeks) with a 10 minute rest. *SOB* Quick sand? How come the tracked vehicles tend to get stuck soooo easily on the wet/clear terrain. It is ofcourse a fact that many vehicles were immobilized during combat but more often the reasons were engine problems or lack of fuel. It is also very likely to get stuck on deep mud but the "in-betweens" to dry ground seem to jam the vehicles with looming certainty after several rounds of gameplay. Damaged vehicles? I can (and do) delete squads and support weapons from the platoons and even split the squads in two. I can also change the amount of ammo carried by the troops. What I can't do is to simulate earlier damage on the vehicles (I can knock out the main gun by reducing it´s ammo to zero) which could simply be done by allowing immobilization or percent damage to armour. Even locked-up units dug-in can be set up as normal vehicles by the more innovative player. Damn... Balsa buildings? Well, I've read about long battles where the defenders were firmly set in defensive positions in heavy stone buildings. After hours under heavy fire the damaged buildings still stand. Not in the CM:BO universe. It would be nice to see even one building standing 15 rounds from 105mm gun witout going up in smithereens. There is also a list of sad gaps in the "fortifications" list of the game but that and a few other problems can wait. The turn-based game is fun and many scenarios are enjoyable. Please help me to overcome these few difficulties and I'll be a happy customer... Thank you in advance!

Once more the British engineering produces a challenge in game designing with several Churchill variants. The truth is though that as in such detail levels as armour is handled by CM:BO differences would be noticeable but then again any accurate information of the models and refits used is extremely hard to get thus making the use of the basic models with varying quality of armour an excellent choice. This game has weaknesses but in my eyes they are elsewhere... I guess we have wandered off a bit from the original question and my conclusion is that using mixed variants of Churchills and aforementioned formations should produce historically accurate scenario if necessary maps and especially German troop compositions and deployments are somehow available. Good luck...

The MkI was widely used as a CS vehicle in the 21st and 25th Tank Brigades in Tunisia and Italy but there is no reference of use in Normandy. As only 303 were built (some were lost during "Jubilee") and most were later converted or shipped to USSR (They had some - that much I know) along with a good number of II's it is possible that some were present at the Normandy landings unmodified though in such numbers that including them in the game would only make the lists longer and add a vehicle that no1 dares to use anyway... Some were used as training carriages (with turrets removed) or as range training tanks. To add a rumour four were dug in to defend an airfield somewhere in Britain but I am not sure where (these had severe engine problems after Dieppe). The II's are a different matter as 1127 were produced, over 900 converted to Mks III and IV (some further on to funnies) or shipped to USSR. What happened to the rest or how many were actually converted in June 1944 I do not know. It is therefore possible that they were used with their original guns on the beaches but once again excluding them from the game just serves the purpose of not seeing them in self made scenarios. I would concentrate on using such vehicles that can certainly be placed on Normandy as making of a historical scenario author desperately needs all the details of the actual encounter he can get. Unsure about the equipment means that the scenario author does not know enough and in non- historical scenario only enjoyment, balance and playability count! Please ask me about Russian or German armour