Ant

http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_originalUnit.htm I believe that the first use of the name 'Ghost division' was Rommel's 7th panzer in France 1940. It was called the ghost division because such was Rommel's individuality that at any point in time nobody knew exactly where it was....not even the German high command.

That's one of the reasons I use tracer mods to differentiate between axis and allied tracer, so you can tell incoming from outgoing. Not entirely unrealistic either.

I seem to remember reading in the manual that in real life an average infantry squad would have about 15-20 grenades. It went on to say that it was very unlikely that all these would be used in the space of a CM scenario and therefore keeping track of individual grenades was not really practical, and therefore not done by the game Will check that out when I get home from work but I'm pretty sure that's what the manual says.

I could be wrong but I also think that all the FG42s that were issued ended up in Italy.

Well I bought the CDV versions of both CMBB and CMAK (and CMBO for that matter) and I have to say that the waffengrenadier thing doesn't really bother me much, there are mods to change it anyway, and I can understand Seanachai's position on the seemingly never ending complaints about it. It's a topic that's been done over and over again. However, Seanachai is wrong when he says the complaints are pointless. It is precisely because of the amount of complaints that this topic generated at the release of CMBB that Europeans were given the option of purchasing CMAK directly from BFC instead of being forced to buy a CDV version, as had been the case for CMBB. I believe that BFC took a financial hit for not allowing CDV exclusivity in European sales. Which makes me ask....why has anybody who has a bee in their bonnet about this subject bought a CDV version when they could have ordered one directly from BFC? I also detect a hint of hypocracy with this subject too. I'm fairly sure that if we Europeans had an original Waffen-SS version of Combat mission, whilst Americans were forced to buy a Waffengrenadier version because of some Mexican law then the outcry would have turned this whole forum into little more than a rant about free speech and inalienable rights. I'm also extremely shocked to hear that Americans are allowed to read Terry Pratchett....just what is it that we pay MI5 for? [ February 09, 2004, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]

I think the Russians would have been pretty happy to see divisions taken from the Eastern front and moved to north Africa.

What? I had to read it and think about it properly? :eek: ..... Thanks Joachim. I made the mistake of trying to read it all when I probably didn't have enough time to do so and just 'skimmed' it. Just another sad victim of our 'attention span deficient' society

Very interesting but rather odd article. Yes but the counterattacks were usually clumsy and disorganised, so German defensive tactics at that time can hardly be held up as decisive. Because the Russian attacks then were rather less clumsy and disorganised Honestly. I find it a vey wierd article. I read most, but not all of it, but from what I gleaned the author seems to say that US defensive doctrine could learn from the early German defensive tactics. Tactics which only really succeeded because the Soviets were (at that time) usually unrefined at offensive operations. When the Soviets learned how to attack properly (as well as other factors) the initial German defensive tactics proved to be unsound, and so had to develop new ones afterward; yet the author is analysing the earlier tactics which evolved during WW1 and attempting to apply validity to a modern (at the time) US:Soviet confrontation. Maybe I haven't read it properly or I'm just misinterpreting it but I think, although very interesting, it would have been more constructive to look at German defensive tactics after March 1943.

Full minute buttoning is already present in CMBB. It was introduced with v1.03

Thanks. The title and subject strikes me as a bit strange though: 'Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II Prewar to March 1943' Surely the Germans did a lot more defending on the Eastern front after March 1943 than before it

I saw an interview recently with men who had served in both RAF bomber command and the US 8th AF in WW2. One guy who had been a bombardier on a B17 said that by the last year of the war any German town that had so much as a road running through it was regarded as a military target. So yes, at the time, Dresden was regarded by the allies as a military target. [ January 26, 2004, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]

Wrong. Only you can determine if you like it or not. It's got nothing to do with it being good or bad. That's a lot of the problem with game reviews today they rate games on whether they like them or not, which has got nothing to do with the game's quality and quite frankly any serious game reviewer that falls into that trap (and lots do) is just totally unprofessional There are plenty of games out there that I don't like, but nevertheless I recognise them as good games. Combat Mission is undoubtedly a good game. If you don't like it then fair enough, you don't like it; but that doesn't make it a bad game

You can download a high visibility tracer mod that gives the option of allowing you to pick different bright coloured tracers for allies and axis. It's a CMBB mod but works in CMAK too. It looks a little Star Wars but after hearing an old Commando talking about his experiences in WW2 on telly last week it might not be all that unrealistic, and it definitely improves SA a lot.

Now he tells me, after I've been looking for them for a fortnight ......

I wonder when that interview was actually given? AFAIK CMAK was originally going to be only available direct from BFC, but then at a later stage there was a non-exclusivity deal done with CDV for Europe. I'm afraid if you rely on only one source for all your info then this is the sort of thing that happens.

That sounds very close. Maybe in a urban situation perhaps, but I thought that typical combat ranges were closer to about 500 metres.

I think you're suffering the same affliction that I used to.....you're taking a game too seriously. You're getting frustrated when things don't go right and your main priority is to win. Nothing necessarily wrong with that but, seriously, I found out that I just increased my enjoyment by treating it as a game and realising the main aim is not to win...it's to have fun. So what if you lose? It's just a game. Fire up a new scenario and play that one sfterwards. It may sound obvious, and it may not work for you, but once I realised that the whole point wasn't to win but to simply enjoy the game I became far less frustrated and enjoyed it far more. You'll also probably find that you learn more from your mistakes if you play through the consequences rather than just aborting and reloading.

Yeah, I've noticed that. Quite a few of the SPW series seem to be mounting US 30 cals.

Last time I checked out that game the info was that the range of tank guns has been altered to fit in with the game map size. You can guess how happy that made a lot of people. I've seen plenty of eye candy for this game but found precious little hard evidence of how it will actually play or how realistic the unit compositions will be etc. Not saying it will be a bad game but the many people hailing it as the next greatest thing in realistic wargaming might be in for a bit of a disappointment.

Seems that the SAS have been getting some psychic training......the film 'The Pink Panther' was from 1964

This isn't just about making money. BFC have said that they've got no interest in the Pacific theatre and aren't going to make it. When you're in the position that BFC are in you get to make what you want to make, and they don't want to make a pacific theatre game no matter how much money it might bring in.

That's wierd. I've been playing CMAK for a week now and haven't seen anything like this.....until last night when I was playing 'tigers and 2 pounders' One of my M3s decided it was going to go for a little drive in the woods for no reason whatsoever. I wondered what the heck was going on but just reissued an order and it ws OK after that so I forgot about it. Your post just reminded me.

I don't mind which they use as long as it's consistant. At present (so far as I've seen) all units use the CMBB rank system apart from the US and the British airborne (standard brit/ commonwealth infantry use the rank method). So we've got two different styles in the game at the moment.

I've never really understood the criticism of the BAR that I often see. I think it's unfairly compared to the MG34/42, which is in a class of it's own. If you compare it to the weapons in the same class that the other major armies were using ie. the British Bren gun or the Russian DP then it seems to be quite similar. The only real disadvantage is the small masgazine of 20 rounds, but the Bren only has 30 (usually 28 used) and from what I understand you can't really pour out constant fire from a bipod anyway because the accuracy and effective range drops too much. Meaning that you're essentially limited to frequent short bursts. So why does the BAR sometimes get criticised when the Bren or the DP don't?

I'm not a grog so somebody will no doubt come up with some better info but from what I've read the BAR was developed during WW1 to give more firepower at the smaller unit level.....essentially (together with the British Lewis gun) it was one of the first attempts at a squad automatic weapon. I believe the reason why it was kept to be used in WW2 instead of designing a more modern LMG was because the US army decided that a semi-automatic rifle (in the form of the Garand) was the way to go to give the smaller units increased firepower rather than develope a replacement MG for the BAR