Dook

Opening myself up for ridicule, but here it goes. I am still running OS 8.6! on a 350 mhz G3 and haven't had any problems thus far. Of course, I had been playing CMBO exclusively until a few weeks ago when I purchased CMBB. CMBB runs fine, althought it loads more slowly than CMBO and I suspect the graphics are downsampled. Understandably, I'm contemplating a new computer purchase soon. I may try to get a dual boot G4 in order to continue playing CM.

The other possiblity is that you are using some setting less than full fog of war. I don't know for sure, but mines may be spottable (not a word, I know) with less than full fog of war.

So you have a thing about sheep too? You should meet a fellow named Mace. He's about these parts now and then. As for me, I'm a wolf-man myself; never saw the attraction of sheep really. </font>

Thanks for the kind words guys. Glad I could help. As for the name,it's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment on the instititution of higher learning where I spent too many years chasing the mystical sheepskin.

I can perhaps shed some light on what Reincarnated was talking about regarding the Marines drawing inspiration from the Germans. The Germans were forced to surrender some of their excellent Fokker D-7 fighters by the Treaty of Versailles. A few Marines flew the D-7s, were impressed, and pushed for the development of a similar, American-made plane. The result was the Lewis and Vought VE-7 series and the Curtis Hawk series. Source: Peter B. Mersky, U.S. Marine Corps Aviation, 1912 to the Present, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, 1997). So, the Marines did draw on end of WWI German aircraft designs. They almost certainly did not draw on subsequent German developments in CAS, partly because those developments came very late - mid to late 1930s. “The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 successfully removed aircraft from the German inventory of weapons for the next fourteen years. Admittedly, there was some experimentation in Russian between the military of the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union. Moreover, Hans von Seeckt, creator of the postwar German Army, insured that a small but significant number of officers with flying experienced remained in the tiny postwar officer corps. These factors could, however, only mitigate a situation in which most officers had virtually no experience with aircraft.” The Luftwaffe published its doctrinal manual, Die Luftkriegfuhrung (the Conduct of the Air War) in 1936. The manual argued that the Luftwaffe could and should aid the ground forces. Still, CAS was treated as subsidiary to interdiction, air superiority, and, in some cases, strategic bombing. Industrial priorities with respect to aircraft were: 1) establish a strategic bomber force; 2) create an air superiority fighter force; 3) develop an AAA capability to defend German industry against enemy bombing. Little was done in the early rearmament years to prepare the Luftwaffe for a close air support mission. German participation in the Spanish Civil War played the critical role in the development of close air support doctrine in Germany. Source: Williamson Murray, “The Luftwaffe Experience, 1939-1941” in Case Studies in the Development of Close Air Support (Washington, 1990)

Okay, here's what a quick search of the web turned up. The Marines were some of the early pioneers (along with the British) in close air support, especially dive bombing. A Marine aviator, Lieutenant (later Brig. Gen.) Lawson H.M. Sanderson, first used the tactic during operations in Haiti in 1919. Dive-bombing was officially adopted by the Navy as a regular part of its operational repertoire in 1928. The first airplane designed specifically as a dive bomber was built by the Curtiss division of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. In 1928, Curtiss redesigned its F8C-1--a Marine version of the Falcon series of two-seat fighter-bombers--with a more compact and robust airframe, and the new 450-hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 radial engine. Although that prototype XF8C-2 crashed on December 3, 1928, just days after its first flight, Curtiss built an identical plane that satisfied the Navy enough to achieve production status as the F8C-4. It was the first of three Curtiss designs to be called Helldiver. Navy and Marine pilots demonstrated the dive-bombing technique at airshows throughout the country during the 1930s. German World War I ace and director of the Luftwaffe’s Technical Office Ernst Udet witnessed one of those public dive-bombing demonstrations at the Cleveland air show in the early 1930s (sources differ as to the exact year). In 1934, he persuaded the German air ministry to purchase two Curtiss Hawk II fighter-dive bombers for evaluation by the Luftwaffe. Udet later persuaded his superiors to produce a limited number of close support dive-bombers patterned after the U.S. Navy's Curtiss Helldiver. The resulting JU-87 Stuka dive-bombers equipped four of the five ground-attack groups during 1939. Sources: Maj. Gary L. Thomas, “USMC Air-Ground Integration in the Pacific Theater, ” (1999); Capt. Jonathan M. House, “Towards Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization in the 20th Century;” Lt. Col. Earle Lund, “The Battle of Britain: A German Perspective,” Robert Guttman, Aviation History Magazine (July 2000)

CMBB has changed the AI behavior in this instance. AFVs continue to area fire at buildings after they collapse - at least until you change the order for the next turn.

There is a substantial body of thought that thinks something like "battlefield shock," to use your term, exists. Most recently, it was the idea underlying much of the planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The media seized on the idea, simplified and distorted it, and "shock and awe" became the buzzwords of the war. I'm not sure if your example illustrates the usage and kind of effects envisioned by proponents of the concept. It is more commonly used for offensive warfare and usually involves the use of rapid maneuver and decisive firepower against key enemy nodes to "break" the enemy psychologically. Your example seems to be representative of a more common phenomenon, the "gee, I'm taking fire unexpectedly, maybe I better not cross an exposed bridge without figuring out what I'm facing" effect, for lack of a better term. Essentially, very few commanders will simply send men or tanks blindly into the fray without taking the time to assess the situation.

Could be a convenient date, and that's all I'm going to say.

As the posters above hinted but didn't say explicitly, you don't have to manually switch your winter mods and your rest-of-the-year mods, even if you don't have CMMOS. Winter mods have a different bmp number and only appear in the game if there is snow on the ground. So, you can have one set of bmps, with both summer and winter mods, and the game will do the switching for you.

Martin, Will the CMBB special edition be available only for the PC like CMBO SE? As a Mac user, will I have to order online from BFC? Thanks.

For OOB on a independent tank battalion, go here. For OOB on infantry divisions, try here or here . The last one is the 100th infantry division site, which has the clickable fields Andreas mentioned above.

Thanks for the comments. You probably played v. 1.0. Without giving away too much, your suggestion has already been more or less incorporated in the revised version available at the Depot. Thanks again. Glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks from me too Admiral. Just another example of why the Scenario Depot is top notch.

Version 2.1 of my scenario "Road to Jülich" is available for download at the Depot. More details below: Title: Road to Jülich, version 2.1 Location: Roer Plain, Germany Date: 22 November 1944 Time: Day Weather: Overcast, Mud Type: Allied attack Length: 35 turns Accuracy: Semi-Historical Best played as: Two player or Allies vs. AI (stick to default setup) By November 1944, the Allied Ninth Army had begun planning for an offensive intended to drive deep into the heart of Germany. The XIX Corps, consisting of the 2nd Armored, 29th Infantry, and 30th Infantry Divisions, would make Ninth Army's main effort to seize a crossing of the Roer River, the last water obstacle before the Rhine. Their target - the town of Jülich. Two obstacles stood in the path of XIX Corps. The first was the weather. Rain fell every day but two in November, turning the ground to mud and limiting the cross-country maneuvering ability of Allied tanks. The second impediment was the defensive scheme devised by General der Panzertruppen Hasso von Manteuffel, commanding the Fifth Panzer Army. Von Manteuffel's plan combined the villages west of the Roer into a series of defensive arcs protecting Jülich. Defenders in each village constructed defensive positions in built-up areas, laid mines, and converted dominant terrain features into strongpoints consisting of foxholes, machine gun nests, and anti-tank positions. When the offensive began on 16 November, Maj. Gen. Charles Gerhardt, the commander of the 29th ID, planned to exploit what he believed to be the defensive system's weak point by sticking to open terrain and isolating the villages in his sector. Gerhardt's hopes were soon crushed. The Roer Plain's open terrain, the poor ground conditions, and the stiff resistance of Generalmajor Peter Körte's 246th Volks Grenadier Division made advancing across exposed ground deadly. The villages surrounding Jülich would have to be taken, one by one. After a slow start attributable to the ill-conceived initial strategy and a reluctance to employ armor due to the muddy conditions, the 29th ID began to roll on 18 November. Over the next four days, troops of the 29th penetrated the outer two rings of Jülich's defenses and reduced its defenders to tatters. The advance threatened not only to destroy VGD 246 but also to disrupt the upcoming Ardennes offensive, in which it was to participate. By 21 November, the 29th ID was only 1.5 miles from the Roer. Gerhardt urged his regiments on, expecting a German withdrawal. War, like life in general, does not always live up to expectations. This scenario depicts an attack by elements of the 29th Division against a village on the Roer plain in November 1944. It was inspired by a map in a 12th Army Group Intelligence Summary depicting German plans for the defense of the villages protecting Jülich. The units involved are historically accurate, although the exact numbers and deployment are not. If you play it, please take time to review it. Thanks. [ August 30, 2003, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Dook ]

Dandelion, You don't make a bad critic at all. IMHO, Reinald's initial post presumed too much and was phrased rather indelicately. You took the underdog's side and made a respectable argument. I should add that Martin's and Rune's replies were model responses to well-intentioned criticism. It would be nice if we could maintain that level of debate more often.

As Cabron66 points out, mines in CMBO are not as prominent as they were in real life, at least based on my reading, although the AI does seem to buy more mines than most human players. The same is true, incidentally, for artillery. Much more artillery was used in RL than in CMBO. AT mines could be fairly effective, especially in extended operations. During the Roer Plain offensive, most of the Allied tank losses came from mines and mud. The 747th Tank Battalion had only 2 tanks operative one week into the offensive. Some of the differences between RL and CMBO can be explained by the scale of the game. Tanks could hit mines as they approached their line of departure and prep barrages could occur before the scenario begins. Still, my impression is that actual battles had much more artillery, many more mines, and much less movement than CMBO battles. I know Dandelion argues that German doctrine did not provide for the extensive employment of mines, but what I've read about the Roer plain suggests that they were very common in that area. My 2 cents, hopefully presented in a civil manner.

Note that there are different file extensions for scenarios and operations and for CMBB and CMBO. For CMBO, the .cmb extension is for scenarios and the .cmc extension is for operations. For CMBB, the extensions are .cme and .cmf (I think) but since I don't have the game, someone else will have to tell you which one is for scenarios and which is for operations.

The following account of an Australian soldier on Crete in 1941 suggests that there were American rifles distinct from American-made Lee Enfields used. Later on Crete, our Lee Enfield Rifles were taken from us and given to the Infantry and we were issued with a collection of American Rifles such as Remington, Winchester and another make that eludes me, but all were in the same pattern except for the engraved name and fitted with a bayonet that was not worth the trouble to make. Ill fitting and if you tried a couple over a fire to singe a bit of meat, they bent like bananas, not like the Lee Enfield which would have probably supported a Sheep. For the full text, see this site.

On its way. I look forward to your comments.

That's why I suggested modding the ford instead. Don't know which terrain type - ford or bridge with obstructed approaches - will give you the desired effects though.

Any comments from those who have downloaded and played the scenario? I've received a few comments and am working on revisions aimed at increasing the historical accuracy. It would be helpful to have some reviews on how the scenario actually plays.

One other possibility would be to recruit one of the Mod Gods to create a pontoon bridge that would replace the ford tile for the scenario.

I just spent more time than I should have searching the forum for threads discussing a higher incidence of auto ceasefire for partisans and found nothing. One of the threads discussing the high incidence of auto ceasefires mentions that several of the games involved partisans, but there was no conclusive evidence or confirmation from BFC indicating that games with partisans have more auto ceasefires. This doesn't mean it's not true, just that I couldn't find it. It would make sense if it is true though.

Try putting the unit just on the other side of the bocage from the enemy. Units actually -in- the bocage do seem to get spotted fairly easily.