76mm

Incorrect; see link below. I've also pasted the text of Steve's response; I see that he does mention Barbarossa, so that's good news. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104854&page=22 ********************* Correct. It makes sense to break up the Eastern Front based on the summer offensives and carry it through to the Spring. The primary reason is USUALLY the Spring was when forces did their reorganizations and equipment updates. Having a game that captures the whole period, but doesn't straddle another period, makes sense from both a production and a marketing standpoint. On the Eastern Front a lot of hardware was moved in and out throughout any given period of time. The new Pack strategy allows us to better cover this by giving you guys more stuff to play with quicker than we could with a full Module. The families are (in order of production): Bagration (Summer 1944 - Spring 1945) Kursk (Summer 1943 - Spring 1944) Case Blue (Summer 1942 - Spring 1943) Barbarossa (Summer 1941 - Spring 1942) ************************

IIRC BFC has already said that the Bagration game will cover from mid-44 to the end of the war (including modules), the next one (with modules) from mid-43 to mid-44, and then (again, counting modules) mid-42 to mid-43. Not sure if they've said anything about 41 yet, but that would be the logical next one.

Sure, all of us would like accurate release dates, but that's just not how it is, or how it will ever be. I just always assume that whatever I want (East Front!) will be release "next year" and eventually am pleasantly surprised. Works for me...

I expect that the initial game will be rather limited, hopefully the modules will include things like partisans, SS, luftwaffe troops, maybe some axis minors, etc. Also, I don't care much about Shermans but expect to see the SU-122s and other Sov assault guns/TDs. Can't wait!

ah, the joys of 1:1 representation...NOT

nonetheless, this MG is completely unsuppressed; I guess a suppressed MG would fire 180 degrees in the wrong direction? Frankly, It is difficult for me to understand how anyone could argue that these results are correct, or realistic, or whatever other term you would like to use--a small US unit being able to advance unscathed several hundred meters across an open field in front of an MG42? Really?

Frankly this is a little depressing given how long CMBN has been out. Is only the MG42 affected, or ALL MGs?

For this game? Are you sure? If so they are a well-kept secret. I've got a similar thread on subsim and no responses whatsoever. There is also a decent thread there on modding the game, but nothing seems to have been finished.

Tough crowd. So no one has had any success in creating custom missions?

hellooo out there, anyone there? Can anyone answer some questions about designing scenarios. I can create some basic ones but can't get some things to work right.

I just picked up SG as well; the price is falling, I only paid $10! Actually this game looks kind of fun, but it should never have been released without some kind of mission-generator. Last night I finally figured out the scenario editor though, and am having fun with that.

Has anyone tried this CMBN "Combat Recorder"? http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1959 It looks like it could be handy for a meta-campaign, but I haven't tried it yet.

Too cartoony for my tastes, doesn't really qualify as a wargame in my book; plus it is strategic rather than operational in scale. Right now I'm focusing on PzC but also looking at TOAW (as much as I hate the interface). As I said, I want my unhistorical campaigns to be "realistic".

I forgot to mention a couple of the other reasons why historical campaigns tend to bore me: --usually one side or the other is generally on the offensive, and the other on the defensive. Sure, there may be an occasional counter-attack, etc., but generally the US will be attacking in Normandy, etc. --in any given campaign, the terrain is going to be pretty much the same (in Normandy--bocage and small villages), and you really don't get the full spectrum of potential battlefields. --most campaigns are too short for there to be much variation in weather; it is a summer campaign, or winter, but most do not continue year-round in all weather conditions. A properly set up fictional war solves all of these problems.

I find a different approach to be most enjoyable, although I'm sure it would be anathema to some... I find playing historical campaigns kind of dull--most of the battles are too large, you already know who won the campaign, and the situations tend to be kind of repetitive (take this hill or that crossroads...). I like much more open-ended situations, so I basically create a fictional war in a fictional country using the German and Sov forces. With CMx1 (and ASL before that) I had campaigns where both sides started with small forces, made up of a couple of dozen platoon-sized units, limited to infantry, light guns, and armored cars (all of them green). The campaign lasted for months or years, and gradually the forces increased in size, acquired more powerful weapons, gained experience, etc. In CMx1, I was able to start with 1941 OOBs, with periodic (and randomly timed) upgrades to 42, 43, 44, and finally 45; obviously that won't be possible with CMx2. The war itself is wide open, with either side able to win. In my CMx1 campaign, I fought more than a hundred battles, including partisan ambushes, tank battles on the frozen steppe, Stalingrad-esque city fights, meeting engagements, night attacks on rural villages, in sun, snow, rain, blizzards, mud, night--you name it. Some of the battles were truly epic, some small but decisive, but almost all of them interesting in some way (but not all of them, so I want to retain the ability to resolve battles in the op layer as well). The resources available to each side (necessary for replacements and new units) depended on how the war was going, and units gained and lost experience as battles were won or they were diluted by replacements, etc. Individual leaders improved, were promoted, or killed/wounded. It is much easier to get attached to units and individual leaders. Obviously, it would be a stretch to call such a campaign "realistic", although I tried to keep it as real as possible by limiting the number of super units such as Tigers, etc. The biggest challenge is coming up with a good map and having the right unit density. At first most of the battles are platoon-sized, but as the armies grow the battles grow larger as well, until at least one side had a battalion or more. Previously the big drawback was lack of an operational layer and the need to manually import/export all battle data to/from CM. I'm playing around with Panzer Campaigns now, and think I'll be able to use it to create an editable op layer, although I'm still trying to figure out which map would be best. I'm trying to create a database front end that will make it simpler to manage the PzC layer, but the CM layer will still be manual unfortunately. [EDIT] Another difficulty is the time commitment necessary to make all of the maps for the CM battles, and I'm afraid that this will be even worse with the increased difficulty of making maps in CMx2, although I can't say that I've tried it yet.

I'm also working on some kind of operational layer, but only for the Russian Front. I've been playing around with the Panzer Campaigns data, scenario, and save game files, and you can really do quite a bit with them. I think noob's sistem is interesting, but for me it is pretty important NOT to have to play every operational battle in CM, so I'm looking at ways to do that.

I've lived in Russia for many years. Russia is actually a very fun place, indeed probably more fun than you can imagine. But yes, summer here is more fun than winter.

buhahahaha. Thanks for the update, can't wait.

Thanks for the link MikeyD. Steve says "we're actively working on our first Eastern Front game (Bagration to end of war)," so it sounds like the end war period will be a module, which is great... I guess we'll have to wait for more info on what will be in the base game vs modules, unless battlefront has mentioned that somewhere?

More questions about CM:EF: 1) Will the Bagration game have modules that go through the end of the war, or will late 44-45 be another game? I hope you go the module route, although I guess all of the buildings, etc. will be different, and I guess there would be a fair number of new units. It's just that the end-war is the least interesting period for me and I hope you don't waste a game on it rather than moving to 43 or earlier... 2) I might have missed it, but any clarity on what will be in the Bagration modules? Surely partisans, if they are not in the base game, but it seems there were quite a few troops types: Heer, SS, Luftwaffe, standard Russian, Guards, etc. So any indication of what will be in the base game and what in modules? Really excited about moving East! I don't play CM:BN much but will certainly pick up Italy.

Aha, and I thought I was missing some kind of utlity. By the way, have you checked out Volcano's mods for the unit portraits? They look much better than the stock portraits.

Noob, where did you get the pictorial list of all of your units, I haven't seen that in the game.

Noob, how do you move the units to a hex at the edge of the map in PzC? I can't see how to do that in the OOB editor?

Maybe in Normandy it is 7 companies vs 5, but on the Russian front it could well be 7 battalions vs 5. While I rather enjoyed such large battles in CMx1, so far I find them kind of overwhelming in CMx2. Especially if you have to fight ten such battles for every PzC turn... I think that farming out the CM battles is a good idea, but even if you do so, I still think that creating the necessary maps will be a major bottleneck (in particular, if you are fighting a huge Russian front battle, I am not sure how many existing maps can be re-used). Also, even if you have the players and the maps to play several CM battles for each PzC turn, it will probably be weeks before all of the CM battles are finished, so the PzC turns will really crawl. Anyway, I'm just looking at whether it will be feasible to use this kind of sistem on the Russian front, I guess I've got a year or so to figure it out!

Noob this is all very interesting. I'm also looking at doing this same kind of thing, but for the Russian front, so am playing around with the Mius demo. At least for me, doing this on the Russian front will require that many, if not most of the battles be resolved by PzC--the battles will be too big (multiple battalions on the Russian side) and there will be too many battles (little operational maps generally don't cut it for Russian games) to make it feasible to resolve every single battle in CMx2.