Destraex1

Just wondering if the devs are working on improving the user interface especially when it comes to the interface appearing at the correct size both in the main menus and in game. Any terrain graphics and soldier animation improvements would also be appreciated to make the game less hard on the eyes. For some reason the desert terrain looked a lot more real to me than the current CMBN grass does... probably because desert is relatively easy to reproduce compared to vegetation.

CMBN is prolly the best. But is missing a strat layer and maps that have the scope of operation star which is also ratio 1/1 close combat - still very good kharkov\operation star - a good contender for CMBNs crown. Improve the graphics/animations and the smoothness of the way the game runs would be nice for me to appreciate CMBN more too. I know, I know.... its not about the graphics

hmmm. Horses for courses then.

At this stage I have a request to make for the new module. If possible can we have some kind of coop VS AI. Its very hard to get friends into a game like this when you have to tell them to learn it themselves and then play against you. A cooperative team experience can be a lot more rewarding than a pure VS experience. Apart from being an excellent way to learn the ropes it also allows one to really relax. You get on skype and beer and pretzel talk tactics and plans through the enemy positions. You can perhaps agree to split control of half the force at the beginning of the game. Each player does not even have to have your own seperate army against the AI. You can just have control of one side and agree to split forces. An example of this would be cossacks2. Usually one stayed at home and built while the other controlled the army. Alternatively you could traditionally just have a much larger map with two sizable forces. Similar to the way Company of heroes does things. Another option still would just be for the game to allow each player X number of points to spend. Each player could agree to build a force type with these points between themselves. For instance a HT/panzergrenadier formation with a few tanks might be chosen by one player as a breakthrough force, while the other player chooses support and defence for the main line. The ultimate though would be coop campaign. That is like the holy grail for most games. Fingers crossed. Destraex.

very excited about this. Just a request though... can we please have coop multiplayer vs the AI. Its hard to get new people into the game just by telling them to learn it on their own and then vs them. Plus its a lot more enjoyable to share and team up.

Often those training videos are more for the camera than anything else. But cool vid thx

Was it more common to exit a half track over the sides or out the back? Does anybody have any photos in particular of panzer grenadiers jumping over the sides of a half track?

those crafty germans keep hiding ze plens!!!

I reckon charities should NEVER be affiliated with any form or return or advertisement. Thats not charity, thats advertisement!!

I also have the BETA---- 700mb patch already.

Yes sorry I did mean tripod

The HMG could be detached from its bipod and used for extra firepower up front with the infantry. The over the shoulder approach was more common, but again I would not say ideal.

The question is was it the preferred method.... I would have thought most people would prefer to drop and setup prone rather than fire exposed. In house to house I cannot imagine you want a gunner up front... too slow to turn and barrel too long. That video shows how damned carefull the mg42 gunner had to be firing from the hip in hero mode. The second video that gent struggles especially in.

I have read that German doctrine in ww2, at least late in the war when they had two LMGs per squad allowed for one LMG to be fired on the move from hip or shoulder without resting on anything. The problem is I cannot imagine this being too accurate and was wondering whether it was supposed to actually kill anybody or just suppress on the assault to get the LMG in position. In addition to this other things I have read seem to suggest that the gun (mg34/42) was held back and used to cover for as long as possible. Either covering flanks or directing fire ahead of troops going in for the final stages of assault. The 34 may have been the spearhead of the formation but I do not think it was intended to go in firing from the hip. Was it also German doctrine to assault buildings with an LMG or get into close combat situations with it? I know with later western doctrine where rifles were replaced with automatic rifles that the LMG or GPMG were mainly kept away from "going right in" with assaults where possible, rather they would support from prone once a good position was found, and even later than that we again have an assault gunner with the rifles and a gunner (usually both 5.56 light) as fire support. However I am talking about the big heavy bulky ww2 mg34 and 42. You would need a strong man to carry out an assault with what amounts to an GPMG and still be steady enough to fire accurately from the hip or shoulder with it. I ask because of a Red Orchestra (but still applies to combat mission BN and how I will use it in this game) kind of argument I am having with a mate. He reckons that the LMG should be easy to use from the hip in all sorts of situations for accurately killing foes. I say you would avoid it and rest the gun on bipod or terrain where ever possible. He says its the most common thing in the world to use the mg34/42 from the hip or shoulder. I say it would be rarer and that red orchestra got it right by giving it kick to illustrate that most people would be exhausted on assault and have trouble hip firing such a powerfull weapon. Unless you are arnie and have the stamina in battle of a horse I would think it is best avoided. Whats the point of having all of that fire power if your going to waste yourself on a bayonet/knife assault? Your such a significant % of the german squads firepower in ww2 that you really want to get into a good position and do some damage\keep heads down while the riflemen do the assaulting. Another point of course is the link (unless you have a drum) and reload problems. Reloading from the hip aint the easiest. You really need to rest on something. Everybody wants to be a heroe with a machine gun. But in reality I think its best used to suppress and support. Not assault. Red orchestra is right to encourage that. In some cases though I acknowledge that the germans used the mg34/42 in assault and fired on the move. But I think it wastefull and only used due to the low volume of fire their rifles put out and the lack of any Bren or BAR type weapon that would more properly be described as an LMG.... and not what the mg34.42 really is which is a GPMG used in the LMG role. You may use the 34/42 from the hip to get from A to B, in most cases though I would have thought it more common to bolt from A to B before setting up again. This friend on mine argues that if he had 7 seconds to fire at escaping enemy he would not bother dropping to the ground and firing even from an already deployed bipod. I say i would drop in two or three seconds and more easily take the enemy down. Standing up and preparing for the recoil would take almost the same time. I cannot imagine it would have even been that comfortable for the firer to grab the bipod with a rag, I think that the user unless a big man would be rather stretched.... perhaps a strap especially tethered for an assault would fix this. But that would prevent going prone too easily rending it useless in most instances where you wanted to be able to go prone?? I guess the question I am asking those in the know here is. Was it common and was it effective to fire and mg34/42 from the hip and shoulder? Was it out of necessity or a really effective way to fire in assault? Where was the gunner placed during a house assault/street fighting? Why if it was so easy and accurate to fire from the hip did gunners use their number 2's shoulder for support in a pinch?

I agree that arty is extremely accurate to the point of ridiculousness. Did an assault over a 500m wide square really carry this much support? It is not much of a challenge to cowardly bomb from afar, but it is a challenge to get spotters in good positions.

yes Many people say that realtime with pause is the best way to play. You get the goodness and chaos of realtime .. war is hell people. Then you get to pause and see whats on the other side of your map. Personally I would not want to pause in realtime multi.. but if it makes more of the pedantists play then I am all for it. My favorite way would have been bigger map, split forces and coop vs AI. I always find teamwork more fun than VS friends. Even teams of two would be good vs human teams of two.

oh sorry. Believe me. Thats the first time I have seen language of that type on the wargamer too. It is what it is though and the final straw to the banning.

Elron Hubbub just got banned at the wargamer over a related CMBN thread... http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=557037&mpage=7 Does anybody here know who this guy i? I remember seeing his name in this forum.

This is true. I just have to wait until I have some down time to enjoy reading it properly.

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3066/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy-it's-a-new-dawn Not a review, but its close.

how much do we need to bribe one of the big reviewers to get of their proverbial?

Losing 50% of your Panthers to breakdown each mission.

I just cannot argue, when its put like this. The Sherman was a good tank because priority was elsewhere. The panther was a crap tank because the germans prioritised it. I must be a nazi.

Agree. The real t34 copy (the panthers competitor) was rejected because of a political scare campaign claiming it did not look german enough.

Your accusing me of being a nazi like were called a pro american because I think the Panther was superior to the Sherman?