simovitch

BFC's marketing decision notwithstanding, I think the fact that the CMBS setting depicts what would happen if NATO intervenes with all the superior weaponry and technology makes this a go-to title for me. It's not too far of a stretch to imagine that NATO intervention might have spawned a mobilization of higher-quality and trained Russian manpower so the discrepancies with what we are seeing today as far as Russian troop quality can be rationalized away for me. I'm playing the Russian side on the "Crossing the Dnieper" campaign and it's really quite fun. 4 games in and I Just had my first encounter with a Bradley and learned a few hard lessons on the outskirts of Dnipropetrovsk.

Anyway, on to the next scenario at Bucholz Station where it looks like the map nailed this location nicely.

The Our at Ouren is definitely an obstacle as you say. But Ouren is more than 50Km downstream from the Our at Losheim which begins as a trickle 5km upstream near Losheimergraben.

I'm starting the 3rd scenario with Peiper's Spitze group in the Losheim area. I've read good things about these maps and was a bit discouraged to see the Our River depicted as this major river obstacle on this map when in fact it is little more than a ditch with driveway culverts in this headwaters area. Looks like this one relied more on modern day google maps than the period topo used in the briefing, which is odd. Using the river tiles forced the topography to warp it all to fantasy land. I know I'm being pedantic here but it didn't make sense to me when the historic topo seemed to be available for these maps.

Oh yea I recall that now as well but I had forgotten the particulars. I'll keep going then assuming these things are just helping me out. I am getting batted around by the Germans pretty badly so this makes sense. Thank you.

I'm playing the revised Nijmegen Campaign with the latest engine and I've noticed two anomalies occurring in the Airborne infantry battles after the Neerpelt breakout scenario. There may be more to come, and I may have missed it in the first couple of scenarios, and I'm getting old, but here's what I can confirm: 1. When I saved and exit, and then reloaded I got nearly 3 hours to complete the scenario, instead of the original time limit. I noticed this in 2 scenarios. 2. One of my airborne 60mm mortar units that had 3 casualties before the reload, came back with a full fresh compliment of men. This happened in the infantry battle where the airborne has to capture the windmill and the hotel. I have a saved game that shows the 2 hours and 50 minutes on the clock if needed.

I just recently started developing a Lorraine project of my own so I'll be following this thread with interest. My intent is to keep them medium size and under, so just cherry picking certain moments from the campaign using historical mapping and OOB's whenever possible. My first scenario, only in it's embryonic map making stage (as I learn this new editor) will cover the remnants of Pz Bde 106 trying to extricate themselves from their predicament near Mairy, France (working title: The wind cries Mairy). Others on my tentative list will be small-medium actions at Gremecy woods, Luneville, Pont-á-Mousson, Dieulouard bridgehead, and others. Hopefully at least a few of them come to fruition.

This was a great effort and contribution to the game but I personally couldn't get used to the quirks of that road-straightening mod thingy that is required for the scenarios to look right. Too many WTF moments when I thought I had cover but didn't and paid the price.

Circling back to the Lorraine battles, I finally looked into the Scenario Editor for CMFB and the chronology starts in October 1944, so I will be doing these for CMBN for September 1944. I haven't done a CM scenario since the old CM1 days with Steve Overton and his "Historical Scenario Group". Bitmap overlays for the map editor and elevation auto-interpolation! That will save some time indeed.

I'm hoping to find enough time soon to start a CMFB series on Patton's Lorraine battles. I have all the topo and research from producing Command OP's (as yet to be released) "Bradley at Bay" scenarios but I just need the time and inclination to start in. I'm surprised there are only a smattering of battles from this campaign available for CM.

Yeah I was being an arse; just not used to seeing this kind of malaprop on this forum.

What's a "Panther IVJ"?

I noticed a few games back on playing as the defense (and depending on the design) that I could win by "ceasefire" before I got wiped out. It seemed strange and I would think the offensive player (the AI in this case) would take great umbrage that I snatched away his victory like that....

I have an isolated British tank crew HQ surrounded by Germans, with nothing but a pair of binoculars, and no C2 whatsoever able to call in fairly accurate offboard 81mm mortar support. They are in a building a few feet away from their destroyed Cromwell. This can't be right, can it? shouldn't the OBA display so "no contact" and disallow this action?

Also, I have two sources that it was the Mk V (Panther) Battalion that attacked Ouren, not Mk IV. Perhaps something to adjust in the CO2 scenario? According to the unit history, The II Bn reported losses of 15 MkIV on December 16th (probably the losses outside of Lutzkampen), while I Bn reported no losses. So probably whatever tanks showed up above Ouren on the 17th were mostly from the I Bn PzV as you say since II Bn had only 8 operational tanks available. So it appears that II Bn was committed first and the CO2 scenario (semi-historical) assumes this. I Bn is available if the player starts the game requesting additional reinforcements.

rocketman, I hope you do get the Bulge pack eventually. One of the scenarios I did for CO2 called "Stuck in the Teeth" covers the 116th Pz and 560th VG attack during the first few days of the offensive. It assumes that the bridge at Ouren was strong enough to carry the Mk IV's of the panzer regiment across the Our, contrary to what the commander considered as "too flimsy". A few US tank destroyers crossed it on the 16th and 17th so it's not out of the question. Here's a portion of the Map showing the at start positions of the Germans:

I have hi res scans of most of the Ardennes; 1943 GSGS 1:50000 and several of the 1:25000 1938 German ones of the Eifel area. Also some very cool 1:25000 scans locating the westwall bunkers and dragon's teeth. These look to be like the actual asbuilt plates, not the overlays on the modern topo that you find on the internet. I'll post some screens when I get a chance.

OK thanks for the responses and insights guys, this is reassuring and CMFB is likely my next purchase. And it's good to see some of the old breed still around. I think the last time I posted on Battlefront was back in 2008 when I limped away from a pedantic flame war with JasonC. That's not to say I hope he's gone, I enjoyed his posts immensely. Looking forward to learning the new editor. I'm not so worried about Monschau being off but hopefully Hofen is in good shape. If it hasn't been done yet that might be my first project... cheers.

I purchased the CMBN big bundle a few weeks ago and I must say enjoying the new CM graphics and features a lot. I also played out the CMFB demo and was pleased with the graphical representation of the Ardennes in the winter. I've been there enough times in December to be struck by the familiarity of the terrain from my desktop here in California. My question is, now that it appears that we can create maps with topo underlays, are the CMFB maps accurate for 1944? I've seen mention of mapmakers using google earth and I shudder to think that the road net and forestation will be based on modern extents. Compared with the 1943 GSGS or the 1938 German topos I can't imagine what google earth would be good for except maybe dragons teeth lines or watercourses? A ground level screenshot of the Rocherath-Krinkelt map from the Ruppenvenn looking towards Krinkelt would be helpful... Thanks!

Jason, The driver's ed analogy was not meant to be personal dogma, it was a reference to the obsolete demo. It is not the design concepts of the different wargame genre's that are vague, but the evidence being provided to support an argument why one is 'better' than the other when we all have different and overlapping preferences. I did enjoy the Rune T34 analogy, but my point with the 'HE direct fire' example was a breif example of AA's ability to allow management at that level of gameplay, for those who are seemingly unaware of the ability to play at that level. Why I need to explain this to a professional educator and philosopher of abstract thought processes is beyond me. I respect both your education and your position in the field of math and scientific interpretive methods. Your well structured argument against the AA system was established many posts back, but your last few posts here seemed dogmatic and misplaced to me. If they were meant to shut me down as just another misguided fanboy, then perhaps you can feel that you were successful, but (rhetorically speaking)why?

JasonC, once again you pose a compelling argument for or against some vague aspect of conflict simulation. And as usual your dogmatic tone undermines the effectiveness of your approach. Here, I'll apologize for you: "...sorry, I missed your point entirely - JasonC"

Critisizing the gameplay of the AA engine based on a few hours with the RDOA demo is like refusing to ever get a driver's license after failing highschool driver's ED. Sure, I enjoyed SL, ASL, Up Front, Go, chess, and most all AH games ad infintum, and I even play a rousing game of Plauge and Pestilance with my wife and kids now and then. I know the Art. I helped design and playtest a number of games for my brother, who is a part owner of GMT and a former AH employee. A new AA demo is due out soon. Micromanage that tank Co. and order it to direct fire on that last known enemy Mortar location until it runs out of HE. The supply convoy may or may not get to you until the morning but what the hell? Granted No PBEM is a big minus, and that is likely the reason the AA system lacks the sales volume of CM and others. There has been talk in the skunkworks about emulating a PBEM system very similar to CM, but that is a while off yet.

AdamL, The 2. Pz had few, if any JgPz IV's on 16 Dec. Most of the PzJg Bn was comprised of StuG's, as was half the II Bn of the panzer Regiment. So it was more out of necessity than tactical doctrine. Gutmann advanced through Clervuax. Elements of Pz Lehr advanced through Munschausen.

Redwolf, 'we' are wondering the same thing. I think the fans of the Airborne Assault series are tooting the horns the loudest because we really think we have found the next generation of wargaming, and we want (nay, implore) the rest of the wargaming community to give it a try. Being a long time hex gamer, I started out as just a guy looking for a good game on Market Garden before going on a tour of the Netherlands a few years back. Although wary of the RTS stigma, 'Highway to the Reich' seemed like the best thing out there on the subject, so I bought it. Now, I doubt I'll gaver go back to IGOUGO hex based games and to boot, I've managed to worm my way to head up the Data Design team for the development of the next release in the series covering the Ardennes Offensive (now in beta testing.) If you're a fan of the Bulge, I ask that you head over to the Matrix Games public forums and take a look at the 'Battles from the Bulge' screenshots and AAR's that are showing up. I guarantee you have never experienced the Bulge (or Crete, Greece, Holland) like this before. Just a note, I'm not an employee of Panther Games, nor do I forsee any financial gain whatsoever from my efforts. Just like developing CM scenarios for HSG a few years back, it's simply a labor of Love.