76mm

Steve, Thanks for the response and that's great news about module-sharing. Regarding Dalem and Vergelt responses that all we need is a couple of modules to basically cover the map--I don't really see how you get there. Given the relatively narrow scope of each module as I understand it, the Eastern Front might require the following modules to approach the scope of CMBB: --Barbarossa (summer) --Moscow 1941 (winter) --Kharkov (summer) --Stalingrad (Winter) --Kursk --June 1944 --Winter 1944 --Spring 1945 --Partisan warfare You could break down other major fronts in a similar manner, although I suppose that depending on the sequence in which modules are released, you might be able to simulate the Eastern Front in the summer of 1943 with units from a Stalingrad module and the summer terrain from a Normandy module, but it would look weird as hell having the French buildings. This is before you even get into minor theaters/campaigns--Crete, France 1940, Poland 1939. Even if modules are released every six months, in two years we'll only have four modules--say, Normandy, Kursk, Alamein, and Market-Garden? I don't see how we'll ever get close to the vast scope as the original games, although maybe third party developers could pick up some of the slack. I understand why Battlefront is moving to the module format, agree that it makes perfect sense, and have no problem paying for modules as they come out--my only concern is that they won't come out fast enough. 76mm

I'll be happy to pay for new modules with new units, terrain, functionality, etc. My only concern is that even after releasing several modules for a particular game, you will still only cover a tiny fraction of the campaigns and units available in CMBB and CMAK. Have you considered/decided allowing qualified third parties to develop modules for you to help flesh things out? Also, as new modules are released, will all of the previous modules' terrain, units, etc. be available for use in later modules, and vice-versa? For example, if the first module is Normandy, second module the Bulge--will players be able to use units from the Bulge module to create scenarios in the Normany module? Or use the Bulge winter terrain with the Normany units? (These modules might not be the best example of how this would be useful, but hopefully you get the idea...) Thanks, 76mm

Wow, these new building options sound pretty cool, although I don't look forward to building urban, or even village maps. Two questions: 1) Will the random map generator do a decent job of building towns & villages at least? I guess it would be too much to expect for it to build decent cities. 2) How will geographic fog of war be handled, if at all, with the new building options? For instance, units facing a building would have no way of knowing if mouseholes have been blown, what kind of windows/doors, etc. exist on the back side, or if the alley they are heading down has an exit or not. Will it be possible for players to zoom around and scout out the whole city in unrealistic detail? Ideally, the parts of a city outside the LOS of your units would be sort of "fuzzy" and not reveal certain crucial details. Any plans for this kind of thing? 76mm

Thanks for the info, sounds like a big improvement. I have one question though--all of the new detail, especially for buildings, makes it sound like it will be absolute hell creating any large maps, particularly something with lots of buildings--creating multiple entry points for every building alone would probably drive me crazy... How will it be possible to create maps with the new 8x8 grid without spending ungodly amounts of time? 76mm

At last an opportunity for input!! KEEP THE SAME: 1) WEGO System; 2) robust scenario/map editor; 3) large scale battles possible (at least battalion on each side); 4) dedication to realism CHANGE: 1) ADD DATA IMPORT/EXPORT or access to save files to allow for more player-designed campaigns, etc. 2) ADD SOME IN-GAME campaign functionality, although given that 10 players would probably have 25 different opinions on how to implement any campaign feature, I think that #1 (data import/export/file access) is more important, because the community will then be able to develop the various types of campaigns that people want. 3) IMPROVE AI, perhaps with AI scripting or other player-tweakable feature. 4) ADD FOLLOW ROAD/CONVOY COMMAND. 5) IMPROVE MAP EDITOR/GENERATION: The current map editor and generator are pretty good and much better than nothing, but I use a lot of max-sized maps and after auto-generating every map I need to basically scrape all the buildings, etc. off of it, and I shudder when I need to create a huge map with a river/stream and a town on it. The amount of effort seems like it will climb exponentially if CMX2 does away with tiles--will I have to place every individual bush, fence post, etc.? I would like the following abilities in the map editor: a) be able to tell the map generator to create linear features (road, river, etc.) that run from one map edge (or portion thereof) to another. although it will never be perfect, try to improve the map generator's placement of terrain (ie, no swamps on hilltops, etc.) c) be able to copy, rotate, paste sections of the map. For instance, if you are creating a large map you might create a farmhouse with fences, fields, a barn, etc., then be able to copy this whole farm, rotate say 90 degrees, paste somewhere else, and tweak a bit to individualize. Much easier than placing all of the individual do-dads. 76mm [ August 25, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

Actually, if you're going to buy it, I would buy it from the Battlefront site to put a little more money into their pocket to spend on CMX2 development... 76mm

Selling for over $100?? Gee, I think the book is pretty good but I hope no one pays near that much for it... It is also on sale on Amazon for $20 new, and I noticed that someone was selling a used copy for $54 at one point. Pretty weird. 76mm

Shmavis, that would be good; please send it to my e-mail listed in my profile. tanks a lot, 76mm

Zalgiris, Hi, I'm the editor of the CMAK Companion, so I'm probably the best, if not the most objective, person to tell you what it is about. The companion is basically a collection of accounts of CMAK-level tactical combat in North Africa, Crete, Sicily, and Italy. The accounts come from about about two dozen sources and describe actions by US, British, German, Kiwi, Aussie, Italian, and Gurkha troops. The intent of the Companion was to allow CMAK players to get a better idea of what tactical combat was like in the WWII Med theater. The main difference from most WWII history books is that the accounts in the CMAK Companion focus purely on tactical-level actions--ie, it is not a historical narrative of any particular campaign(s)--it only addresses tactical level actions. Before each account I've written a brief commentary to provide context, etc. I think you can get a decent idea of the reaction to the book on this thread. Hope this was helpful! Regards, 76mm

But your average tanker, who has probably been through some engagements, maybe received some instruction, etc., and whose life would depend upon it, would probably have some idea about whether a frontal shot from his tank would kill the opponent or not from the relevant range. This is not true of many CM players, so what is more realistic? 76mm

Dear MPK: Thanks for the offer. Please send it to me at the e-mail in my profile. Thanks again! 76mm

Thanks a lot BigDuke6, that pretty much covers the ground! 76mm

Very cool map, but it doesn't seem to have anything labelled as a collective farm on it, and there is no legend to help identify some of the terrain symbols. So it shows villages very well, but not really how big the various fields are around a kholkoz, etc. This is not a big deal, but I was hoping that someone (somehow) would just know this stuff--the info people on this forum have never ceases to amaze me. TMR

I've got a question for you East Front grogs out there--what did a WWII collective farm look like? In particular, any idea about how big the wheat fields should be, and roughly how many buildings might be involved? The wheatfields in the randomly-generated maps look improbably small... I tried looking at existing CMBB scenarios, but it wasn't obvious that any of them was set in a collective farm--if someone could point me to a scenario with a realistic depiction, I'll take a look. Thanks, TMR

Hmmm, I live in North Dupont (near Lauriol Plaza), so I might have to take you up on this one, although I'm not sure if I can do it for the next week or so. What's your schedule like? 76mm

Thanks for the responses! Not a big deal, but does anyone know why the 105mm FO is called an Artillery FO rather than a Howitzer FO? Flamingknives suggests that is just a nomenclature issue, which makes sense. Thanks again for your help. TMR

I have a question about the German 105mm howitzer, which is available as a support weapon and in the Wespe in CMBB. My question is why there is no 105mm howitzer FO available? I find it hard to believe that they weren't used in an indirect fire role...is the 105mm artillery FO indistinguishable for CMBB purposes from the missing 105mm howitzer FO? Seems odd given the artillery/howitzer distinction for FOs of all of the other calibers... 76mm

I've got Slaughterhouse (bought it in the Amazon package you mentioned); I bought it mainly for the weapons data tables, but overall I didn't find the book very useful. It is not meant to be read cover-to-cover, but its usefulness depends on what you want to use it for--if you are looking for unit chronologies, short bios of some German and Soviet commanders, or the OOB of various Axis and Allied units, you might find it interesting. Let me know if you have specific questions. 76mm

Have any of the non-parachute enthusiasts found any official documentation by the Soviet army on their use of non-parachute drops, either experimental or under battle conditions? In 1987 when travelling in Russia I bought an official Soviet history of their airborne forces (in Russian). This volume described these experiments (which struck me as being so crazy that I've never forgotten). I've moved many many times since 1987 and doubt that I still have this book but I will rummage through the basement and see if I can find it... 76mm

Hmmm, maybe I'm one of the "more gullible forum members" cited by Pirx, but I really don't see why it is so hard to believe that under controlled (ie, non-combat) circumstances and at a very small scale, soldiers could survive experimental jumps into snow without parachutes (certainly with a fairly high proportion of broken limbs). First, these jumps would presumably have occured at a very low altitude--tens, rather than hundreds of feet--from prop planes, even biplanes, with relatively slow prop planes. Second, these jumps would not necessarily have to occur into open, rather shallow, fields of snow--presumably the pilots (and jumpers) would aim for extensive drifts, where--under certain circumstances--snow could easily be 3 or more meters deep. I suspect that someone who knew what they were doing could pick out such drifts from the air, or (again, under controlled circumstances) the drifts could have been marked or even built up by "pathfinder" type crews. Given all of the presumptions and favorable circumstances required, this kind of undertaking would seem to have virtually no practicable use, but I don't see why it should be considered impossible on an experimental basis. 76mm

Whoa! Now we're firmly in urban-myth territory--the story about the scuba diver in the tree is just BS. After reading the rather interesting back and forth on the topic of Soviet jumps sans parachutes, what is the consensus? To me it sounds like: 1) the Soviets probably--almost certainly--conducted some experiments on deploying airborne infantry without parachutes (maybe using sleds or other protective gear); 2) the Soviets might have done a couple of combat jumps without parachutes, but this seems pretty unlikely; and 3) it seems pretty much inconceivable that combat jumps without chutes were a regular practice. 76mm

Hmmm, Moon's hint is certainly intriguing...but what does it mean? There are at least three general ways for BFC to implement a campaign level for CMx2, in decreasing order of complexity: 1) provide an entire operational level game for some specific campaign; or 2) provide some method for providing greater context to individual battles by linking them together into a campaign via a series of scenarios (generated randomly or by some other means); or 3) provide players with the tools (data import/export or text file editing, etc.) to allow them to create player-made campaign tools. Pure speculation, but it seems like #1 would be an insane amount of work for little upside. #2 could essentially be an upgrade or variation of existing operations, but allowing the use of different maps, etc., and maybe more player control over forces. #3 would be excellent, but Steve has apparently already ruled out the text file editing of scenarios files (see other bone thread), and said that import/export was being considered. I'd be thrilled with #3 and maybe #2, depending on how implemented. Moon, more info please! 76mm

Some years ago I read in a Russian book on the history of their paratroops that initial Soviet pre-war airborne experiments consisted of Russian soldiers--without parachutes--lying on top of the wings of airplanes, hanging on to ropes. To deploy they would let go of the ropes and drop into snowbanks. I suspect that this technique had been, uh, improved upon by the time of the Great Patriot War. 76mm

Wartgamer, I asked the question about weather/seasons and Steve replied that the modules will only include the weather/seasons necessary for that module (ie, a Normandy game would only have summer weather. 76mm

Wartgamer, I asked the question about weather/seasons and Steve replied that the modules will only include the weather/seasons necessary for that module (ie, a Normandy game would only have summer weather. 76mm