dw

This is from a a Technical Manual dated March 15, 1945 (and says this is material based on information available up to February 15 1945) The manual is TM-E 30-451 http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIItms/ for example from page VII-82 dealing with the armor of Pz V model G Armor, Front glacis plate 80 mm at 55°.* Front nose plate 60 mm at 35°. Rear plate 40 mm at 30”. (undercut) Hull sides 40 mm vertical. Superstructure sides. .50 mm at 30°. Turret front 110 mm at 10° Turret sides 45 mm at 25 ° Turret rear 45 mm at 28° There are pretty detailed descriptions of all the tanks - and the with the AT guns they do have some penetration info - i.e. will penetrate 56mm at 30 degrees at a 1,000 yards - and they do have specific muzzle velocity...

Where do I find these in the menus? When I bring up an individual tank I can find the gun in the reports section - but nothing on the actual armor penetration at various ranges - nor can I find what the armor thickness of the tank is. In the defense report there is a generic report - but I was looking for actual numbers. Am I missing something? Thanks

I am waiting for the DVD before installing on my Mac. When I get the DVD will I have to apply the Hotfix?

I got the confirmation e-mail, but not the game available e-mail. My address is not Gmail or other general names - wonder if the two lists are separate, and BF accidentally only mailed one of them. (Checked the spam - and it was not there either).

Waiting for the DVD version - will this need the Hotfix?

Just pre-ordered - Great to have this on the Mac!

I have bought several Battlefront Games, and consider myself a customer of their products (purchased 4 titles in total, plus a strategy guide). While I come and read these forums I very rarely post, but I have to say I am befuddled by Battlefront's approach to dealing with this game. It is almost like the customers are an annoyance to them. What the customers are asking of Battlefront is just some basic common courtesy. All customers are asking is for Battlefront to interact just a little with them - most businesses are normally eager to interact with their customer base and view that as an opportunity. How long does it take to post a brief update, a couple of minutes at most. Is keeping your your customers happy worth two minutes of your time?

How is this going to work? Even in the countryside - farmhouses (and the like) were critical points of defense - this changes what tactically should happen in a battle quite a bit!

This is a really great idea!!

Couple of additional thoughts.... I don't think CM killed SL/ASL - ASL killed SL. ASL was supposed to be a refinement of the SL, but was introduced as a whole book of rules that signficantly changed basic rules in SL. However, unlike SL there was no programmed instruction that could ease one into a large and complex ruleset. I tried to keep up with ASL - but found it difficult. Paratrooper (an attempt to reintroduce programmed instruction) almost got me back in, but that was for infantry only and AH never got around to Tank and other modules. MutliMan Publishing is trying the same thing and maybe it will work. However perhaps the overall question is wrong. Would CM have succeeded without SL? What many of us learned from the SL effort was a detailed understanding of morale, firepower, armor thickness, movement, tactics, etc. That understanding (while being a pain to CM developers) gave critical insight to what we wanted in a game at this level, and ulimately and appreciation for the product now in our hands. SL let us understand how the system should work and the results it should generally produce (while also building some myths). The intro scenario (Guards Assault) taught everyone the difficulty in crossing a street in the open. Great Stuff!! While CM is a much more rich game, the dichotomy (sp?) is that much of it is unseen as just part of the code. In SL we could see it all and had to work through it all and had a better understanding of what had happened and as a result could predict better what could happen. So while I play CM a lot occasionally I pull out SL/ASL to brush up my understanding better - not actually playing it - but just glancing through the rules on specific topics. Finally, the one thing SL had that is still missing in CM is being able to follow units through a variety of scenarios - watching leaders evolve, promotions from within the ranks, and the strengthening (or weakening of units) over a campaign. PS - I do hope that MultiMan does keep publishing the programmed instruction gamettes and I will buy them, but I am now a firm CM player - I just wish Battlefront would add a campaign element to the game.

Not to belabor a constant refrain from many owners of the CM series, but a campaign component for the game would really be a welcome addition. Battlefront has done such a good job of presenting a realistic (or as close as a game would allow) environment, I would like to see them take a crack at also presenting a gamer with realistic replacement situations as well. I agree with their assessment that some other games let you upgrade in an unrealistic way so that you can game the system and end up with all elite troops supported by Tigers and Tiger IIs creating unrealistic results. I would like to see how they would handle this and create real battlefield choices so that gamers would not recklessly throw all their troops at a position because there are no post-game repercussions. Heavy losses would result in either a degrading of quality of troops (if you were lucky to get replacements quickly). The obvious problem, and the one I think the developers have had the most problem with, is how troops gain experience in a realistic manner. The bottom line is that the longer soldiers survived the more effective they became – the degree of effectiveness varied, but they became more effective. Replacements were rarely of equal quality. This was a consistent problem for battlefield commanders.

Thanks for the quick response!

How many maps are in the book?

The basic scenario problem has always been defining the length or number of turns (Whether for this game, Steel Panthers, or Squad Leader). By defining the length of the game you are imposing the tactics the players will have to use. For example, if a player has to cross a huge amount of ground, but only has 15 turns to do it, they are going to be much less cautious than if they had 25 turns. Timing becomes a valid component only when an event is going to occur. For example taking a key postion prior to an enemy attack; or secruing a key crossroads for yout troops to pass through (or a bridge like Market-Garden). Otherwise a reasonable commander would be deliberate in an attack to minimize causulties. In a real combat environment(assuming no event as described above)would it matter if a commander got an objective in 28 minutes versus 21?

Screeny - I agree that those are the two likely methods of setting up a campaign environment. The Panzer General idea of campaign was intended for fun, not realism. I do think that the standard that CMBO has established for a focus for realism should be kept in place for all spects of the wargame. A campaign game should refelct that realism. You are a battlion commander. Most of the time you will be fighting with your battalion. There are times when an external unit might be added to help you in a particular situation, and certainly there would be times when you have access to both off-board artillery and air support - but most of the time it would be just the battlion you have as your only unit(s). Replacements and upgrades should be done as they historically might have occured. If you are a German commander late in the war and suffer severe losses - you are likely to be stuck. If you are not a Guards or SS unit - getting the biggest and the best is less likely. If you are a Russian in the early part of the war the chances of getting soldiers with minimal weapons is higher. Since most units are likely to take losses, the mix of replacements versus veterans will balance out experience - some units may avoid extensive losses, so some units will be better, but a commander is likely to have a mix. The leadership might be different - a loss of an experienced company commander could change things dramatically - and hopefully you have a good platoon compander to take over. All of this items I think would greatly enhance the game - and given BFS remarkable (and very much appreciated) focus on being accurate - I think they could really present the complexity of tactical decision making and command that would both increase the enjoyability of the game, and create another jump in quality similiar to the jump from Close Combat to CMBB.

This is the first time I have posted here. I have purchased both CMBO and CMBB and found it to be a remarkable representation of WWII combat. I started many years ago on SL and then onto ASL. Like many who started with those games, the Close Combat Series and Steel Panthers were very welcome, but the Battlefront series was really a huge step forward. However, as much as I think BFS has done right, I believe this wargame needs a campaign component - not because of the high demand from customers, but because it would increase realism in decision making on the "digital" battlefield. Generally the denisty of units represent about a battalion level conflict. In mangaging a battalion there are a variety of elements that a campaign game would introduce to make decision making more realistic. 1) Attacking Objectives - Decisions to make "final assaults" to achieve objects are quite different in a campaign game. Losing most of your battalion in assualting a position, when you are likely to be on the defensive after the present battle is over is a key decision. Is it worth experienced soldiers to temporarily achieve an important position that you will give up shortly? 2) Use of Troops/Leaders - In a single scenario or opertation you might conclude the action with an assualt with your best troops. In a campaign game you might assess whether the situation warranted risking your best and instead presented an opportunity to use other soldiers/leaders. A key difference with a campaign game is that there is clear motivation to balance victory points against keeping your guys alive to fight another day. These items alone create a different and more realistic decision making tree. Like others I would be more than willing to pay for this as an add-on - even if the cost were the same as a new release.