DavidFields

Wonderful. Spectacular. Hard to believe how fast things are happening. And BFC continues to improve the game play with the updated engine. I will just make two observations, which are not criticisms: 1. CMFI seems to me, like CMBN to take its lineage from ASL, rather than SquadLeader/Panzerleader. I felt the opposite with CM1. CM2 is "SectionLeader" to me. I am still struggling to adjust to the small number of soldiers we are dealing with, each then more precious--and vulnerable to a fluke projectile, making play feel more random (more realistic, probably, but one likes to feel--even if reality is often otherwise--that your command choices are decisive) 2. The pic of the soldiers kneeling behind the wall......first, thank goodness we are getting out of the bocage....but, if walls are going to be more important, can those soldiers be non-prone behind the wall, with the wall being more realistic protection? The vulnerability of kneeling soldiers in the open still bothers me--or, the idea that when the metal is flying, that would be a common stance for a unit to take. But, really, what Battlefront has done is breathtaking. The launches of their products seem to be increasingly smooth, non-bugged, finished game experiences. As I sort of implied above, they have things looking so realistic, so not like the super-hero ethos of simulations in its genre, that I sometimes shudder when my guys get hit.

But let me take a different view on OMG. By this point in the war, anything that bled the Germans was going to be a step toward the end of the war. By that thinking, anything which kept the Allies moving forward, even if they were deluding themselves, helped, as long as they were killing some Germans and did not have catastrophic losses. Sort of like the situation with Grant near the end of the American Civil War. As long as there was fighting, and dying, in somewhat equal numbers, he was winning. And Grant did not even have something like Spain coming across in huge force from Mexico for the South to also fight against. Strategically then, OMG a win?

"The battle is the thing, not the end. Honestly, the end is a bit of a downer as it's all over now. The only answer to that being to start another. I enjoy watching my opponents moves and ability to implement their plan as much as my own. It is such a challenge to pull off a good attack that I really like seeing one develop. Points? meh. waste of time. Only good thing about the victory screen is it tallies up losses for you to apply to an OP layer in a campaign. __________________ It was that way in CMBN." I agree with this. Besides CM2, I play a lot of EU3, and similar simulations where one basically makes up for oneself what is a win. In CM2, I play the AI, and the score, or victory situation, I only take as advice, and score myself on what I did with what I had. BTW: historians correct me, but I think "Kill them all, and let God sort it out", was said, in Spanish, by Cortez when he was fighting the Aztecs and his men had a hard time discerning enemy from his Allied Aztec tribes. Of course, the young among you would probably search the quote by using Google, or asking Siri.

I like the reasoning here. Especially the idea that, with the current plans, the East Front is just too far away. Could it be North Africa? On the plus side, could they possibly port the maps, and the handling of things like sand, from CMSF? But, I think this is not the next step, because North Africa is years earlier, and a lot of extra units would have to be designed, for both sides. Italy? A little closer in time, but then you would have to do all the Italian units, and the rugged terrain maps. I also don't think there is an overwhelming fan base for that front. But, if you stuck with 1944, and made just enough Russian units, and placed the battles in areas with terrain similar to CW, you would then have a "beach head" of modules to expand, with interesting material. Into 1945--the Russians fighting for Berlin (which is more interesting than the Allied situation after the Bulge). Cool late war Russian AFVs. And, as I have voiced before, I think BFC will have an easier time doing late war WW2, which is closer to Modern Warfare, versus catching the feel of early war WW2. On the other hand...maybe it is "just" Flamethrower, or mine-sweeper, tanks. Would be great. But since they are drawing this out, I can still hope for the Ost. Of course, it could also be that they are introducing The Unbeatable Finns, West Front Fantasy Edition.

Eastern Front. I can dream, can't I?

I always thought of an IG as "gee, wish we had a MkIV around, but since we don't, we will us this". (MkIV is my favorite tank--so darned practically useful with a german company. Forget that tank-on-tank stuff, bring in the direct HE) Blasting a suppressed strongpoint--particularly one relatively resistent to mortar fire--would seem to be its best use. But I have no documentation for that.

[i sort of agree with you, JonS, but aren't you being a little harsh on Noob?]

Although I will not be buying "Touch", I am tremendously impressed with BFC. They have set a path to survive--superb.

Um....er...[cough]....yes...exactly. I am SURE (really) this was not because of my suggestion in a C and F thread. Did I mention that BFC is a great company, in part because they are always evolving? [Now...label them in some manner so that new players are drawn to them.......but......maybe you have already done that in some way. BTW, believe it or not, I will bet there is a significant number of players who start with the scenario at the top a list, and work their way down. Indeed, maybe you know that, because without the CW in front of it, wouldn't 18 Platoon go to the top of the list?]

I sort of agree that the scenario designer choses, and if he wants to make the time-frame tight, that is his choice. There were plenty of scenarios in C and F where a longer time-frame might not even have helped the attacker--just potentially meant the attacker had more troops/ammo chewed up. The point I will make, and this maybe goes to what Erwin has commented on, is BFC watching out for the "fun" factor a little more. Some CM1 scenarios were 20 turns....or even 15. With CM2, even with a fairly small scenario like "A Strange Awakening", I find the hour time limit, and the increased micromanagement, make it seem like it takes forever to finish a scenario. What this series cries out for, in my opinion, is a bunch of "micro" scenarios, which truely are only 20-30 minutes long--or even down to 15. Having made the design decision for splitting squads so minutely and so necessarily, the corresponding scenario force size should be much smaller--or at least, have those scenarios available. I think that would draw many more people to the series. Squad takes house, for example. I know...I have suggested this stuff before. Then you could argue "puzzle" versus "routine tactical" scenarios--some like one type more than another. But, though I fantisize about battalion level Ost Front battles, in reality I would probably never complete a scenario like that. Smaller, shorter, likely, in my opinion, more of a realizable pleasure. The only QBs I have enjoyed have been of the very tiny force size, random. Just fun to see what bizarre situations one could run into. Fun. Fun. I don't think that conflicts with sim. And yes, fun does mean different things to different people--playing a scenario WEGO with a 4 hour time limit would not be fun for m.

Nice Mexican restaurant you have in your town. And I have a patient in Wachusett Extended Care. I have only played against the AI. Not sure if I am ready to play PBEM--mostly I do this to relax. The reason for my original post is the scenario "A Strange Awakening" -----------------------doubt this is really a spoiler...but will alert anyway. As the Ami, one has a number of thin skinned AFVs, and I am having a lot of fun experimenting with them. Only about 1/2 way through, but so much nicer than fighting in bocage, and trying to survive in one big enemy kill zone. (C and F) Also, the patch seems to have made numerous improvements.

The infantry rides into the battle with the half-track and dismounts. Rats, then no one is operating the MG in the half-track. What do people do? Use the scout team to get back into the AFV and operate the MG? The AT team? Do stats for anyone on those teams matter, if in C2?

This would be my vote.

+1 OP. Finally cured my C and F funk. Spectacular.

Just started with CW. Seems to me, by feel, that a LOT of things were tweeked. Feels more realistic, and more like a WW2 simulation (not a CMSF adaption)

Nice about the mortar changes: both the more realistic dispersion, and perhaps them being less used as direct fire due to increased spotting. Will mean I will get CW sooner (I am sure I would eventually get it) Can anyone comment on how the change affects play? CW still has the linear fire plans? (I can imagine that BFC is hesitant to take out a feature...but, still) [Oh, and the de-bogging stuff is also wonderful, and critical]

Ok, let's make this clearer, or at least with a distinction: Seeing a unit fire on invisible soldiers?--all the time. But that is if I do not have the unit, which is out of C2, specifically picked. Units come in and out of spotting as I choose different units--using a high difficulty. Seeing a unit firing at invisible soldiers when I have that said unit specifically chosen?--not so sure I have seen that, or not much (perhaps there could be a delay)

Interesting. So, even conceptually, the WW2 battlefield was very different than modern warfare. Though this is a thread on the accuracy of 81mm mortars, my concern is more with the use of the 60mm mortar. My envisioning of a MG team or squad coming under 60mm fire is that they.....would move. Say, 50-100m away. For the mortar team, that would be mission accomplished. Indeed, to keep up the suppression, scattering fire was not a bad thing--it would keep the enemy guessing as to where it was safe to position. On the other hand, scattering mortar fire made the idea of the the target MG or squad "going to ground", in a foxhole/trench/under cover, a possible maneuver (which would still achieve the objective of suppression)--or even potentially staying in place and chancing to fire at the enemy and enemy spotter. This rock/paper/scissors calculation is how I see the small mortars tactically used in WW2, not the "precision HE ordinance delivery system" now sometimes seen with the mortars in CMBN (I can't even get myself to use the mortars in a direct fire mode, except in some emergency.) Can I point to a specific passage in a book with regard to this? No. You've got me there. But it is sort of like explaining that before cell phones, one had to precisely, in advance, decide where and when one was going to meet someone, and remember that data, and that watches in WW2 could be innacurate by minutes (or an hour) or not even worn by some soldiers. There seems to me a preciseness to the small mortar use that feels anachronistic. [edit: did 60mm mortar crews even usually have good maps? Or just hand-drawn maps, not to scale, with the spotter sticking his head up, 6 inches above the ground--in active combat, how long are you going to keep your head stuck out like that--estimating distance. And that team is going to try to get their rounds to land within 8 meters of some point?--much less some diagonal linear target. Maybe they can get the shells to go in the right direction. But range, accounting for different elevations and wind speeds, when your baseplate is likely not even sitting on something flat and stable? I am seeing an oval parallel to the axis to the target, with substantial scatter, even if "on target"--suppressive fire, with the threat, of course of killing things--that is why it is suppressive.]

Looking at the US 450m spread: Why? What caused this result? I had thought that this was just a CMSF porting into WW2 issue. But would even a modern pattern look like that? I didn't play CMSF, so now I have to make a conjecture: that mortars in Modern Warfare have a diminished role compared to WW2, and thus any issues with them were less noticeable? And the dispersion at 850m, about 1/2 mile for us internationally metric impaired Americans, seems too tight, and quanta-ish. In other words, the misses seem clustered in a ring in a circle about 16 meters out. Though the DR distribution seems less tight, it appears the US have only 1 shell falling in the center ring, while the DR has about 4. In other words, out of a 100 shells, it looks like the US has only one "kill" if there were a specific unit targeted. The second green ring has a lot more hits than the closer first brown one. Granting that BFC has smart people, is there some massaging of the impact distribution to get a more realistic result than one would have given a player's "bird's eye" advantage? If so, I still think the 450m results for the US still needs a rethink.

We shall see how the 2inch and 3 inch mortars work in the Commonwealth Module. If the 2 inch mortars are accurate killers, that, to me, would be a problem. JasonC seems to be absolutely correct, in my opinion, in his conceptual understanding of the mortar situation. My suspicion is there could be a similar conceptual quirk in the AFV hit data, were info may be used based on range data, whereas the acutal gunner may have a hard time estimating range, and may be trained to bracket. I remember playing CM1 paratroop scenarios, where we were advised to stay at level 1, on the ground, viewing for the entire scenario. This, of course, is the more realistic way to view the battlefield--making it, wickedly, hard to estimate range or understand the tactical situation. To me, this is less a criticism of CMBN than a "huh?, can we improve this?". It would seem fixable. [Writing the above before JasonC's last post: after seeing his latest post, should the mortar impact zones be more oval, like CM1?]

+1 JasonC remarks. This is not only an issue of what can be done with a mortar, but how they were used in reality.m Maybe putting a mortar shell in a pickle jar from a large distance is possible, but that, as I understand, is not how they were used. Granted, it is in part a philosophical issue. Should one be able to use mortars in a more, arguably, more effective way than they were used in WW2? But then, even with relative spotting, it is unclear to me that a routine sniper shot with a mortar is very realistic. [Again I lament that time is passing too far from WW2, and hence the "obvious" becomes increasingly obscure]

1. I am sympathetic to your concern. If we say PanzerBlitz, PanzerLeader, ASL, CC, and CM1 have mortars being one way, and you have data that makes them different in CM2, what are we complaining about? AH may have got it wrong in the 60's-70's, designed decades after WW2, and there could be an original error. But do you have all data for all relevant issues? Have WW2 vets worked the game and said if felt like reality? I still have this sense of Modern Warfare projected backwards (linear targeting for artillery probably the most obvious issue). But I may be incredibly wrong. If you told me that in CMBN a German company training mission (which we had in CM1) played out as it did in WW2, I would be more impressed. Put a scenario like that in. It will be good prep for JasonC looking at your East Front scenarios. Is it a problem if people post their concerns without looking at previous threads? If they did look at previous threads, and then left without saying anything, would that be better? I think not. I think BFC is getting free feed-back in a way many companies need to pay for. 2. Soldiers not moving most likely to be prone? Not my experience with the Hard Knocks series. There is still the issue of how blind they are when prone, and what ""micro" cover they might have which is not seen in CMBN.

Unlike CM1, which is why, I think, there is confusion.

I sort of agree with the OP, but not in tone. As a practical matter, I have gone to just lurking the forums, to see how this series develops. BFC may get my money for the new modules--really a tiny money commitment--and I am not interested in making threats. That these types of OP threads occur fairly regularly, often from seemingly dedicated, possibly decades long war game buff types, should not, I think, be ignored. The artillery and AFV accuracy thing is being made out to be "CMBN got it right, and everyone before them was wrong." I am flummoxed by this issue. The more subtle issue for me is how the "follow every projectile path"--probably the biggest specialty of BFC--interacts with the 1:1 infantry model. The infantry seems too vulnerable? For example, Moving and then stopping has your men kneeling, I believe, this seems to make your men vulnerable. But Moving and then Hiding at the end of each move, in addition to being tedious, seems to blind you. There should be a prone-but-looking--around stance? And maybe no computer can imitate the will to hide and live of a soldier in the battlefield--in every rut, behind every stone and tree. A potential solution for this would be to make the infantry harder to kill--essentially fake armor. While unrealistic, if it brought about a more realistic total simulation....not quite back to the "force field" protection of CM1, but similar. It will be interesting to see where this series goes. Will it look the same by the time it reaches the East Front? Or will there be changes such that CMBN will be seen in retrospect as a necessary intermediate. Thus far, the only indication I see is that they think they have it "right". Does anyone see any BFC doubts?

In my opinion, the HW Section Hqs, XO units, and essentially necessary splitting squads for 2 man scout teams, make moving (American companies, at least) a chore. It is sort of the infantry equivalent of the already tedius CM issue of moving a column of vehicles down a road. (Wouldn't a "Follow" command, where the tac-AI would adjust the speed of the vehicles and keep them on path, be great?) I am not sure what the solution is for the infantry unit clutter, but I find myself staring at my own units, flipping through and trying to organize them, takes a lot of time. Thanks, Paper Tiger, for trying to help--maybe I should have played your campaign before playing the other major Allied campaign.