76mm

Correct, you cannot make new maps, you can only take portions of existing maps. You're probably aware, but for those that aren't PzC is one of very few games that allows you to revise saved game files, either by by renaming the saved game as a scenario and opening it in the scenario, or modifying the saved game text file directly. Also, you can use any OOBs from the series, or ones that you make yourself, with any of the maps. I'm in the process of converting Sicily into an "Onion Wars" style fictional country wracked by civil war, with the sides represented by German and Soviet troops. You can also use Matrix's Modern Air/Naval Operations (which has some Soviet WWII era stuff) to depict the naval and air portions of the war). Buhaha, if I ever get things up and running I'll probably never leave the house... Kohlenklau, what can you tell me about this "software project [which] is underway to automate some of the editing in a manner which maintains FOW"? I'm working on a similar project, but at pretty early stages, real life keeps getting in the way...

I'm probably not interested in playing right now (too busy), but am interested in doing so at some point, so one of the things I've been doing is creating PzC units for each of the units in the CMRT OOB. In other words, creating a 43 Rifle Battalion, the various tank regiments, etc. The smallest units are platoons, which of course are generally not represented in PzC, but if you tweak a few parameters in the pdt file it seems to work pretty well). If you're interested, let me know and I can send you what I have. Note that to get all of the units in CMRT, you need to take unit values from a number of the PzC games, not just Mius (or Minsk for that matter). For a number of reasons (in particular, the scale, the fact that is not a board game (ie, has an AI, etc.), and the fact that all game files other than maps are easy to edit), I think that PzC is a good solution for CMRT operational games.

Thanks much; it didn't occur to me to look on the Mission/Data screen, and if it had, I doubt I'd have caught it with the Electronic Warfare label!

I thought that it was possible to set-up red-on-red battles in the scenario editor, but can't seem to figure it out, although it seems to be possible in Quick Battles. Also, at least in CMx1, it was possible to have a German force use items from the Soviet unit list (or vice versa), to represent use of captured equipment, etc. Is that no longer possible in CMx2? I can't find it...

Actually, I'm still trying to understand your position: Of course, but you seem to be defining content solely as maps and scenarios. Personally I'd rather have a couple dozen maps and scenarios with each game and the ability to share maps between titles than 300 maps, like with BS--pretty soon the usable map bank for the CMx2 series would be large enough that people wouldn't have to worry much about a shortage of maps. If people want yet more maps and scenarios, and the community doesn't provide them, then Battlefront can sell map and/or scenario packs as well. To be sure, I'm sure there are people who want 500 maps and scenarios with each title, but I'm of a different opinion. I don't follow here; two issues:1) If I have both games, I've paid for the content, so I'm not getting something for free, I've already purchased the content. If you're concerned about people who have only bought one game being able to use maps from all the games whether they've bought them or not, I'd have no problem at all if they limited map sharing to maps for titles that you already own, but of course that would require a conscious policy decision and some programming from Battlefront, which at least so far they haven't shown much interest in. 2) If you're implying that people that have bought both games still shouldn't be able to shares maps without paying more to Battlefront, because that right of common use should not be free, I'm not sure that I agree. Moreover, even if I was willing to pay for common use, there is currently no way to do so.

Vanir, thanks, that's very interesting data--more than 90% of 75mm kills and 80% of 88mm kills at less than 1,000 meters. On the east front at least, I would have guessed--without any data to back it up--that those percentages would have corresponded to 1,500 meters rather than 1,000 meters. Any idea how they determine the range at which a vehicle was knocked out? Seems like it would be difficult to tell in many cases? Seems like they'd have to conduct detailed interviews with survivors, if any, who may or may not have any idea where the tank that knocked them out was located ("...got us from that ridge over there..."), much less the specific ranges. Or is it German data? I guess they'd have some idea based on the aiming reticle that they used, but probably also difficult to say with much certainty... Anyway, it's probably the best data we're likely to get, so thanks again.

I'm actually surprised that the ranges are that long in Western Europe, I'd have expected a bit shorter, and I wonder if the ranges would be a bit longer in the East, where the terrain is less built up/more open? Those max ranges reported by Salt (3,000-4,800 yards!) are an eye-opener, but I guess they are comparable to a "hole in one" in golf; possible (barely) but rather unlikely. Also, I wonder how they determined that a tank had been knocked out by a weapon 4,800 meters away?

Thanks guys, very helpful, and more or less confirms what I thought--beyond 2,000 meters was rather iffy. Does anyone know the ranges involved in Operation Goodwood? It seems like as good a scenario as any for long-range panzer sniping, but I haven't read enough about it to understand if we're talking about 1,500 meters or 3,000 meters...

Yeah, I understand that most engagements were at less than 1,000 meters, but I'm trying to understand the max range at which is was realistic to engage targets under combat conditions.

A question for you armor grogs out there: what were the effective combat ranges of German tanks during 1944? I've always thought that typical max ranges in combat would be 1,500-2,000 meters, although I've just read that Nashorns could achieve hits at up to 4,000 meters under combat conditions (I read it on the internet, so it must be true!). Obviously one of the main impediments to hitting a target beyond 2,000 meters would be line-of-sight, but assuming that tanks had a shot--presumably firing from high terrain, etc.--could many German tanks hit anything much beyond 2,000 meters? Any good sources on this issue? Similarly, IIRC Russian tanks maxed out at about 1,000-1,500 meters, although I suppose the JS-II and some of the SUs could do better?

Bobruisk is in the 1/50:000 section of the same site: http://igrek.amzp.pl/maplist.php?cat=USSR050 search for "bob" so the funky polish spelling doesn't trip you up...

I don't understand what is wrong with people being granted access to more maps; they can already create maps in the scenario editor--if BFC wants to sell more maps, they should eliminate the editor as well. And I think it would be a good thing if BFC spent less time creating new maps for releases--because of the huge "map bank" built up for CMx2 games--and therefore could focus on releasing the most important content--more units, etc.--more quickly. That's why BFC does not allow adding or modding the actual units--because THAT is what they're selling in the new modules. As far as I know BFC has never stated any intention to sell "map packs", or even scenario packs, and we certainly haven't seen any. BFC has only spoken about the "packs" with oddball troops, etc., like the only one we've seen so far, for CMBN. I also don't agree that having more maps available will result in fewer scenarios--creating the map is only part of the scenario, and being able to start with a wider selection of maps means that scenario creators could spend more time on other parts of the scenarios. If someone wants to create "scenario" packs, people are buying scenarios, not maps, although surely it would be easier to sell such a pack if it included new maps as well. I also suspect, although am not sure, that people will be more motivated to create maps if they know that they can use them for more than one CMx2 game.

Not really; you've typically done some jockeying around to get into position, etc, and so its not like you drive straight up and then can back right out--the OP was talking about backing up "for any long distance", so not just backing up from your firing position back into a covered position, which I agree wouldn't be that complicated.

If the tank is unbuttoned, it is realistic enough to back up for some distance, although obviously in the absence of a second hatch (ie, help from the loader, etc) the commander won't be able to devote his full attention to any fighting. I've never been in a WWII tank, but I'd guess that if the tank was buttoned it would be very very difficult to see to the rear via vision slits, etc.

Thanks for the explanation! That does sound helpful if you're a PBEMer, which I'm not, at least not yet...

Could someone pls briefly explain what this tool does?

It's really pretty simple, I think--what do you find more interesting WWII or modern? Although Black Sea sounds like a great game, I doubt I'll pick it up; I'm just not that interested and modern and don't have enough time to play the games I've got... It's good to have these kind of decisions...

But there is an unofficial way to do it, although it is not foolproof. Here is the thread sburke mentioned: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117959-cm-maps-universal-translator-tool/

Yeah, of course, best to not allow players to touch or modify games in any way, why give them what they want? Personally, variety of maps is of critical importance to me, and the inability to use maps from the various games together is very frustrating. OK, your turn--why is it harmful for BFC to allow players to increase the number of maps usable with each title? Huh? So I shouldn't take one of your maps and make a new scenario with it? Or I shouldn't change any units on it, or what? Or would you prefer if I just 't use any of your scenarios? I can appreciate pride of authorship, but don't understand what you're getting at?

I'm very curious about this gecko business, although I don't have CMBB installed on my computer (moved on finally...) so can't check it myself. If any of you have too much time on your hands, upload a recording and we can figure this out!

This book is on my bookshelf, but I haven't read it yet. Thanks for the review, looking forward to it now.

Well, if you're going to give someone (who was trying to be helpful) a hard time, best not to rely on Google translate... Actually the meaning is completely different from your "translation": "За это время в общей сложности было обучено 428335 отличных снайперов, которые существенно усилили боевые порядки пехотных частей." "During this time, all in all 428,335 excellent snipers were trained, which significantly strengthened the combat formations of infantry units."

According to Frank Ellis' book The Stalingrad Cauldron (p 268), the Soviets trained and deployed 428,335 snipers between 1941 and 1944 (including 1,885 women).

I made a flavor object showroom file which shows all of the flavor objects in the game. Here is the link: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/115635-flavor-object-showroom/?hl=showroom

I've read the Grossman book, and while it is very good, I don't recall that it was a good source of tactical detail. I have not read the Glantz book but have read very many of his other books and generally they do not include much tactical detail. There are several other books, however, including: Soviet Blitzkrieg by Dunn; rather detailed, tedious book with lots of info about OOB and unit movements down to division scale--you could probably come up with plausible scenarios based on this book; Belorussia 1944 by the Soviet General Staff, translated and edited by Glantz; kind of similar to Dunn's book, although Dunn's is more detailed. East Front Drama by Hinze. I have not read yet, but flipping through it seems to reveal more detailed info, sometimes down to battalion and regiment level. Battle for White Russia by Niepold (out of print). Again, I haven't read yet, but flipping through seems to indicate a focus on the army/corps level. 500 Days: the War in Easter Europe by McAteer. While this book focuses on strategic level, the author fairly often dives down to the tactical level with some interesting anecdotes. All of the books listed above are available on Amazon, although the Niepold book is out of print and $$.