General Jack Ripper

Split ‘Em Mark.   I have a blog post on that subject too:  Splitting Squads

I’m biased, because I always split squads not matter how large or small the battle. The only time I don’t is when moving up to the Line of Departure and the troops are very clearly out of the enemy’s sight. So my answer is “Split them”!😉

I could just lack some context here...but the StuG only has around 25-28 rounds of HE for its main gun. It's not designed for prolonged combat and not very good at suppressive fire since it lacks a coaxial machine gun. The MG34 on the roof is really just for self-defense since the gunner has to expose himself to fire it. The Ausf D used to have more ammo....but no one liked that version since the short gun it had couldn't defeat tanks easily. The Ausf G came around because the infantry desperately needed more anti-tank capacity but the StuG suffered a commensurate loss in its usefulness as an Assault-Gun because of this due to the larger size of the StuK L/48's shells and the need to stock more AP rounds. This was a particularly acute problem in the Wehrmacht too because supply lines were so stretched most tanks probably couldn't expect ammunition for days or maybe even weeks at a time. Would a resupply mechanic for tanks in the game be nice? Sure. Is it absolutely critical for us to have? I don't think so. 

Please show some screesnshots of Soviet winter uniforms!

'Attempt to shoot the tracks' is like telling police to shoot an attacking assailant in the leg. Cops are taught to aim for the center of mass for the simple reason that handguns are notoriously inaccurate at anything beyond point blank range and you're likely to not hit anything at all. In the game we see bazooka rounds impact the ground in front of the tank and panzerfaust rounds soar over the top of the vehicle. If hitting the vehicle at all is problematic then demanding the pixeltruppen go for a trick shot against the left rear drive sprocket is an unreasonable expectation. Such advice is usually included in manuals for the morale of the troops. Telling them to aim for the tracks is better than telling them to despair and surrender. Still, in the games I've been playing recently I've suffered a fair number 'immobilized ' hits on my attacking armor. You can't say it doesn't happen, though there's no dedicated animations of specific 'heroic' acts.
 

In reality, Dick Johnson huddled in his foxhole was protected from the evil Steel Elephants because he was huddled in his foxhole, and the enemy had no way of knowing Dick Johnson was in his foxhole. The enemy infantry closing in on his foxhole, on the other hand, are equipped with mortars, machineguns, and grenades which make Dick Johnson's life very short indeed. However, if Dick Johnson decides to poke his head and weapon out to fire upon these closing enemy infantry, then the evil Steel Elephants can spray him quite liberally with bullets and shells. This is why tanks and infantry are meant to work together, and in reality they did work together at every available opportunity.
However, in a combat mission quick battle, you're fighting against another player with the benefit of full knowledge that foxholes usually hold occupying troops. There is no practicable reason for the opposing player to NOT lob a few shells at every foxhole they see.
Now if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, "well foxholes should make infantry immune to direct cannon fire," then that is an entirely different thread we can have, and is in no way related to the use of tanks in quickbattles.
Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.
 
AT ditches are far outside the general context of a quickbattle.
I suppose one player could edit the map and place some ditches that could serve the purpose, but that would be up to either side to negotiate. As far as the cost of such things is concerned, I have no real input. How long does it take to craft anti-tank obstacles? How long does it take to emplace antitank mines? Should the price for such things scale up or down depending on the number purchased to reflect the time commitment of emplacing said obstacles and mines? Is this quickbattle intended to simulate an attack against a very heavily fortified enemy position? If so, why not make it a scenario instead so you have more leeway?
Quickbattles are intended to be somewhat "evenly balanced". The use of anti-tank obstacles of massive size and scale is distinctly "unbalanced". I don't think many players are going to agree to attack the Siegfried Line in the course of a quickbattle.
 
It's not borg-spotting. Just because Dick Johnson can see the opposing enemy infantry, doesn't mean Steel Elephant can.
What DOES happen, is the player in charge of Dick and Elephant can simply order Elephant to fire upon an area which Dick knows there are enemy present.
That depends entirely on the conduct of the player against which you are fighting. I generally do not use area fire against any spot that does not have a contact marker upon it, unless it's part of a pre-battle fire plan.
The TAC-AI is incapable of using area fire unless specifically programmed to do so by the scenario designer using an AI order and specifying a location to fire upon, so this point: "players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted" is entirely incorrect.
Tanks do not area fire unless the player tells them to.
 
If the evil Steel Elephants have closed to within 60 yards of your position, you probably shouldn't still be occupying that position.
If you HAVE to occupy that position, ordering your troops to 'Hide' and placing a very short 'Anti-Armor' cover arc will increase their survivability somewhat.
You might even kill a tank or two if they're being poorly handled.
Any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault an enemy tank, just like any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault a bunker.
The real question is, why is this necessary in the first place?
Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable.
If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns.
 
Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake.
An enemy who becomes over-confident can occasionally nearly lose his sole remaining armored unit to a PIAT gun firing from a church tower. <- Personal anecdote.
 
I agree. If the underpowered unit can spot and shoot first, then they might as well take the most effective shot they can. It would be nice to see more determined efforts by the TAC-AI to do this sort of thing, but I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how this is modeled.
If the overpowered unit shoots first, I'd rather the underpowered one focus exclusively on saving it's own skin. A weaker tank still alive is worth vastly more than a weaker tank who died gloriously for the Motherland.
Generally speaking, I think this point deserves it's own thread and doesn't reflect on the overall combat power of tanks at all.
A 20mm armed Pz-II is not going to kill a Sherman, no matter how hard it tries. If you are in a situation where you have Stuarts versus Pz-IV, you should curse your own poor force purchasing skills, not the lack of effectiveness of your main armament. OR: You could no doubt use your superior numbers to bait that Pz-IV into exposing it's weaker side armor to a flank shot.
 
In a quickbattle the makeup of your force is based on your own decisions, and the actions and effectiveness of your force are based on relative player skill and the aforementioned agreed-upon house rules.
I haven't seen anything in your bullet pointed list that is directly related to the game engine itself in terms of the effectiveness of tanks in quickbattles by themselves.

*spits just sipped coffee all over computer monitor*

Yeah.
*sips coffee*

*spits just sipped coffee all over computer monitor*

Quite a few, but not as many as I would like, sadly.
Welcome to the forums.

In reality, Dick Johnson huddled in his foxhole was protected from the evil Steel Elephants because he was huddled in his foxhole, and the enemy had no way of knowing Dick Johnson was in his foxhole. The enemy infantry closing in on his foxhole, on the other hand, are equipped with mortars, machineguns, and grenades which make Dick Johnson's life very short indeed. However, if Dick Johnson decides to poke his head and weapon out to fire upon these closing enemy infantry, then the evil Steel Elephants can spray him quite liberally with bullets and shells. This is why tanks and infantry are meant to work together, and in reality they did work together at every available opportunity.
However, in a combat mission quick battle, you're fighting against another player with the benefit of full knowledge that foxholes usually hold occupying troops. There is no practicable reason for the opposing player to NOT lob a few shells at every foxhole they see.
Now if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, "well foxholes should make infantry immune to direct cannon fire," then that is an entirely different thread we can have, and is in no way related to the use of tanks in quickbattles.
Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.
 
AT ditches are far outside the general context of a quickbattle.
I suppose one player could edit the map and place some ditches that could serve the purpose, but that would be up to either side to negotiate. As far as the cost of such things is concerned, I have no real input. How long does it take to craft anti-tank obstacles? How long does it take to emplace antitank mines? Should the price for such things scale up or down depending on the number purchased to reflect the time commitment of emplacing said obstacles and mines? Is this quickbattle intended to simulate an attack against a very heavily fortified enemy position? If so, why not make it a scenario instead so you have more leeway?
Quickbattles are intended to be somewhat "evenly balanced". The use of anti-tank obstacles of massive size and scale is distinctly "unbalanced". I don't think many players are going to agree to attack the Siegfried Line in the course of a quickbattle.
 
It's not borg-spotting. Just because Dick Johnson can see the opposing enemy infantry, doesn't mean Steel Elephant can.
What DOES happen, is the player in charge of Dick and Elephant can simply order Elephant to fire upon an area which Dick knows there are enemy present.
That depends entirely on the conduct of the player against which you are fighting. I generally do not use area fire against any spot that does not have a contact marker upon it, unless it's part of a pre-battle fire plan.
The TAC-AI is incapable of using area fire unless specifically programmed to do so by the scenario designer using an AI order and specifying a location to fire upon, so this point: "players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted" is entirely incorrect.
Tanks do not area fire unless the player tells them to.
 
If the evil Steel Elephants have closed to within 60 yards of your position, you probably shouldn't still be occupying that position.
If you HAVE to occupy that position, ordering your troops to 'Hide' and placing a very short 'Anti-Armor' cover arc will increase their survivability somewhat.
You might even kill a tank or two if they're being poorly handled.
Any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault an enemy tank, just like any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault a bunker.
The real question is, why is this necessary in the first place?
Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable.
If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns.
 
Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake.
An enemy who becomes over-confident can occasionally nearly lose his sole remaining armored unit to a PIAT gun firing from a church tower. <- Personal anecdote.
 
I agree. If the underpowered unit can spot and shoot first, then they might as well take the most effective shot they can. It would be nice to see more determined efforts by the TAC-AI to do this sort of thing, but I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how this is modeled.
If the overpowered unit shoots first, I'd rather the underpowered one focus exclusively on saving it's own skin. A weaker tank still alive is worth vastly more than a weaker tank who died gloriously for the Motherland.
Generally speaking, I think this point deserves it's own thread and doesn't reflect on the overall combat power of tanks at all.
A 20mm armed Pz-II is not going to kill a Sherman, no matter how hard it tries. If you are in a situation where you have Stuarts versus Pz-IV, you should curse your own poor force purchasing skills, not the lack of effectiveness of your main armament. OR: You could no doubt use your superior numbers to bait that Pz-IV into exposing it's weaker side armor to a flank shot.
 
In a quickbattle the makeup of your force is based on your own decisions, and the actions and effectiveness of your force are based on relative player skill and the aforementioned agreed-upon house rules.
I haven't seen anything in your bullet pointed list that is directly related to the game engine itself in terms of the effectiveness of tanks in quickbattles by themselves.

Do NOT put the mods in the Mod Tools folder.  The Mod Tools folder contains tools for making mods.  Someday you'll learn that but it is probably a little early .  
CMBN works slightly different from the other titles.  Normandy originally did not have a mods folder In the Normandy Data folder.  If it does now (i'm on an older version as far as this folder thing goes)the mods go there.  If not create a folder inside the data folder and name it Z.  Place your mods in the Z folder. 
Also this is how it is done for Windows.  I think it is different for Mac.  

😁

Yawn.

Please give me a StuG III Ausf D so I can try and make a scenario based on this old image I have...
 

Yeah I have to parrot @DerKommissar on this one. Citino is very highly regarded by the US Army among others, and his book titled “Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm” is in fact a fantastic overview of modern maneuver warfare. I would say Citino is quite well versed in the nuance of at least operational warfare in a WWII and post WWII world. 

While I’ve read his maneuver warfare book, I have not read any of his books that cover in depth German military operations, strategy and operational art during WWII, but I also know that these works are highly regarded by sources I trust. So again I have to disagree with your claim that he lacks the needed knowledge to discuss/analyze these topics. 

It's the same thing. If your economy produces more aircraft, more artillery and more tanks, than you have the better army.Your company commanders don't need tactical brilliance to take a position, they can call on artillery assets your enemy can only dream of, and those artillery batteries have enough ammunition they care fire harassment missions around the clock. The better army has good-enough tanks everywhere instead of perfect tanks somewhere (or broken down). The better army can make road moves in daylight instead of being bombed and strafed between sunrise and sunset.

Really excited for 2020, the roadmap looks almost identical to my own internal wishlist. Good to hear UNCONs are coming to RT, and fingers crossed for CM:FB Scheldt campaign.
I am surprised that you dismiss Citino so easily. All the lectures I've seen, have been hosted by the US military in US military institutions. I believe he worked at West Point, and other military colleges -- his specialty being Wehrmacht operations. I'd recommend checking out his lectures on youtube, because he talks about how/why Jerry lost WW2.

If the CM3 would have a similar look to what CM2 has, the UI could be changed so that the sides on the bottom are being used in stead of only being black filling which will remove the abstructing text we now have when the game is paused or whatever.

A lot of frustration with the CM engine comes from its low tolerance for movie-style heroics. The tactic of "I'll just run up to the enemy and..." or "I'll just hide here and..."  tends to meet with failure. Because being reliant on  you opponent's slow response time or inability to spot practically guarantees that he'll have a quick response and you will get immediately spotted. Its Murphy's Law in action.

Sorry I've been away, but Santa doesn't deliver Christmas, I do. 😁
Normal service will resume shortly.

You have wounded my very soul Steve.

Add me to that list. It was the most fun I ever had playing CMx1.

As my dad always says:
"There's always one *sshole who ruins things for the rest of us."

Add me to that list. It was the most fun I ever had playing CMx1.