Loaf

This is a bit off-topic, but all the WWII guys are hanging out here these days: The current issue of PC Gamer magazine has a list of the 100 greatest PC games of all time, and CMBO is #35! Pretty cool to see this kind of mainstream recognition for a game with such (intentionally) limited appeal. Since I am a long-time lurker who breaks radio silence about once per decade, here's my personal status update: Breathlessly reading the CMBN forum every day and practically wetting myself with excitement. I'm like an 11-year-old girl the night before a Justin Bieber concert...

The Black Watch is a British regiment (there is a Canadian version too). These guys are a Stryker company called "Blackwatch" - no relation. Re heavy IEDs: I don't know about the current ones, but the first extra-large IEDs I remember reading about were made up of multiple artillery shells or multiple anti-tank mines I believe... So these figures we hear are likely estimates of the all-in weight of what is really a pile of assorted ordnance.

I miss this feature too... I kept it on all the time in CMx1.

Sfox28, while I am a fan of the Combat Mission series, my comments about the game are not based on a dislike for open-space combat. Combat Mission had plenty of maps much larger and more open than the ToW tutorial maps. In terms of my reaction to playing the training mission I describe above, the fact that the terrain is open actually has a lot to do with why I was taken aback. Charging prepared positions with limited cover or dead ground should be very challenging - should in fact be nearly impossible without overwhelming force or artillery support. The tutorial actually encourages you to drive your tanks right over the trenches - in the absence of supporting infantry this should be very dangerous for the tanks, unless the enemy panics. Who knows - maybe the tutorial is set up so you are facing green troops. Maybe I am over-reacting. That's kind of why I posted here... I have no interest in any "You're a complainer"/"You're a fanboy" nonsense. And yes, you're right - the graphics in ToW are very nice and the rendering of each individual soldier is far more immersive than the abstraction of Combat Mission.

I don't want to drag this forum off topic by talking about the wrong game, but now that it's out I am curious to know what you guys think of Theatre of War vs what you expect and/or want from Shock Force. I am one of those guys who is more interested in WWII than modern combat, and I wasn't as put off by the "no building entry" aspect of ToW as some were - I figure that most WWII battles did not involve buildings much anyhow. I anticipated that ToW would be my large-scale battle replacement for Combat Mission, and Shock Force (plus any future CMx2 variants) would be the small-scale, urban combat partner game. I understand the point the Battlefront guys make that if you are going to reduce the level of abstraction in a wargame you have to narrow its scope, and I have no problem with that. Anyhow, I was playing the ToW demo this evening and I dunno... I am not sure it has the Right Stuff. I know that the Battlefront guys overhauled it to make it more realistic, but to me it seems gamey. My complaints are pretty much the usual stuff - infantry seems useless, cover and concealment are lacking... Plus I just have trouble figuring out who has LOS to who, who is shooting at who, why is my tank driving all over the place... Etc. Maybe I haven't given it a fair chance yet, but right now I could see myself playing CMBB in preference to ToW. I was enthralled with CM from the first 5 minutes I played it! I must say that despite my WWII bias, right now I feel a lot more keen to play a REAL Battlefront game of any kind than I do to play ToW... So... What do you guys think? Is ToW good enough to be the next-generation "big battle" twin to CMx2, or will we still be playing CMBB and CMAK as a companion to CMx2 for years to come?

I am a long-time player of the CM series, and I have been trying out the ToW demo... I just completed the "combat tactics" training scenario. The first time I played Combat Mission, I tried rushing the enemy with tanks, and of course got whacked immediately. Naturally I had to learn about line of sight, hull down positions for tanks, how to use infantry with armour, etc. Never got too good at it mind you, but I have fun trying. Tonight when I started the ToW combat tactics tutorial, my tanks started towards the enemy trenches as soon as I un-paused the game. I ordered them to halt, but they kept moving anyhow. I helplessly watched them charge the enemy, waiting for them to go up in flames, but they did not. Meanwhile, my infantry started taking casualties, so I left them prone at the back of the map and waited. One tank was knocked out within grenade-range of the enemy trench, the others routed the enemy. Now it's time for the next trench-line... I left my infantry prone with no orders (they got shot up a bit anyway) and ordered my tanks to drive right over the enemy trench-line. My tanks knocked out the enemy AT guns before I even noticed them and once again routed the enemy, this time with no casualties. The infantry did not move at all. Third trench line - same story. My infantry kept their noses in the dirt, my armour wiped out enemy armour and AT guns with no prompting from me. One tank lost some crewman and my infantry took some casualties; the enemy were routed. Attacking in this fashion would have been suicidal in CM. It does not appear that the player needs to learn anything about tactics to win this scenario... In fact applying any kind of realistic tactics would seem to be counter-productive. Even if things do get more challenging, I find the game a bit confusing. I can't tell who has line of sight to what, or tell what units are being engaged. I must say I feel a bit discouraged, although the game looks spectacular... Somebody tell me why I should keep playing!

Regarding the guy on the lower right sitting on his rifle who looks like he's about to slide under the track: Notice that despite his precarious perch he is not holding onto the Stug at all... I think he has hooked his rifle sling over some protrusion on the hull and is holding the rifle to keep from sliding off the vehicle.

Very interesting overview from von Lucke... I didn't know any of that. Remarkable how little attention the Allied vs. Vichy actions receive... I think everybody concerned found them depressing and embarrassing and there was little interest in including these events in the mainstream narrative of the war. You can read quite a lot of WWII history and be left with a simple view of post-Dunkirk French combatants as either partisans or Free French. I wonder how the Vichy French generals who fought in North Africa were viewed in France after the war - especially when De Gaulle came to power?

I don't know much about the French forces in North Africa, but if I were to guess I would assume they would be lightly-armed troops intended more as a colonial police force than one intended to fight against a European opponent. Meanwhile, the French had plenty of need for heavy armour at home due to fears of a German attack. Is this correct? Or was the pre-war French army in Africa supposed to be able to resist attack by a European colonial rival (the Italians, for instance)?

Hmmm... I have nver heard anybody claim that a lot of SS recruits were criminals when they joined... I think you are more likely to hear the statement that since the SS committed crimes therefore its members became criminals by association AFTER joining. Corvidae, I think you are perhaps tackling the wrong side of the issue. If I were going to discuss whether or not SS members were criminals I would look at the distinction between the Waffen SS combat formations and the units that handled concentration/extermination camps. Furthermore one would need to address the reputation that the Waffen SS units had for committing atrocities while in combat... However, I think your point about the likely motives of the young men joining up sounds plausible... Probably many men joined who were not really fanatical Nazis, just as many Germans joined the Nazi party to advance their careers, gain social status etc. Having said that, I am no fan of the SS myself... A nasty bunch of people regardless of their motivation!

I have read about US counter-battery radar picking up incoming mortar shells and calculating the impact point and the firer's location while the first rounds were in flight! You won't live long firing any sort of artillery against US forces nowadays I suspect... Iraqi insurgents fire mortars from built-up civilian areas because they know the US will not use counter-battery fire against them. They try to fire a few rounds and get out of Dodge before US ground forces or helicopters can get to them...

I can't remember the exact deatils off the top of my head, but I remember reeading about an incident exactly like this in Korea shortly after the start of the Chinese offensive... US Shermans with no infantry support were fighting Chinese infantry who were not equipped with anti-tank weapons... The Chinese would climb on the tanks to try and disable them, and the buttoned tanks would spray MG fire from their co-axial guns at other tanks to keep the infantry away... Obviously not a scenario that is likely to occur nowadays due to the prevalence of RPGs...

Yes... A recoilless rifle is just an artillery piece hat vents some of the gases from the round's detonation out the breech. This reduces muzzle velocity, but the compensating gas venting reduces recoil and allows you to ditch the heavy and buly recoil-absorbing mechanism. That is why you can fire one from a tripod...

I agree that IEDs and suicide bombers would not play much of a role in combat scenarios where the objective is to destroy enemy formations and/or capture ground. In terms of peacekeeping/anti-insurgent scenarios: Is this the kind of thing that would interest tactical wargamers, let alone be suitable for a turn-based game? My guess is no on both counts. Mines/IED's WOULD play a role in attacks on prepared positions, as others have pointed out on this thread... This aspect of things would have the added benefit of being transferable to the WWII expansion. Loaf

Thaks for the info... An SOP feature would definately be interesting. Here's a question: I have searched the forums but I have not seen anything that looks like offical information about CM2. All I see is people like me making proposals... Has Battlefront ever released any information regarding their intentions for the new game? Loaf

Hi everybody, Not sure if this has been suggested by somebody before - I have never seen it discussed... Whenever I play CMBB or CMAK I tend to use the "Advance to Contact" command for armoured vehicles a lot to make sure they wind up in hull-down positions when they first encounter an enemy unit. I have always wished that the "Shoot n' Scoot" command had an alternative "Advance to Contact, Shoot then Scoot" variant. It is annoying to have to manually pick the shooting point, particularly for a group of tanks - and I find I often get it wrong and either lose the tank or waste a turn where the tank does not fire. Similarly, it would be cool if there were an "Advance to Contact, then Scoot" command for vehicles. You could send a fast armoured car towards enemy positions knowing that it would immediately reverse out of danger upon encountering enemy resistance, which would make reconnaissance a lot less dangerous... What do you all think of these suggestions? Cheers, Loaf

I'm far form the most knowledgable guy on this board, but my impression is that Hitler's influence consisted largely of A)Forbidding tactical withdrawals to more suitable defensive positions; and B)Ordering ill-advised counterattacks. To my knowledge the only actual defensive strategy that Hitler invented was his ill-advised "fortress" notion (i.e. turning cities into defensive islands behind enemy lines rather than retreating). This was ineffectual and German commanders hated it... IMO perhaps the biggest impact of Hitler's meddling on the war's outcome was his decision to reserve control of the Panzer divisions being held to counter the D-Day landings to himself. The delays that this imposed meant that the Germans missed their best chance to attack the Allied lodgement in Normandy when they could conceivably have broken through to the sea and put the whole landing in jeopardy. I'm sure there are lots of other good examples, but I think the Normandy one is significant because this was the only point in the German's defensive campaign where a decisive victory could have caused a really serious setback to the Allies... If D-Day had ended in disaster it would have been a real blow to the western Allies and it would have allowed the Germans to move a lot of their western units to the Eastern front. Overall, though, I don't think the German approach to defensive warfare would have changed much without Hitler. German commanders followed established doctrines as best they could in between getting over-ruled by Hitler - so if he had left them alone they would not have used totally different strategies, just used their existing systems more intelligently.

Regarding the issue of whether FOW effects spotting or just identification: As I recall there is an original game mission called "A Warm Place to Sleep" where you are advised to select "Extreme FOW" to simulate a blizzard. When I played it on that setting tanks would suddenly appear out of nowhere at extremely close range... Therefore this would seem to indicate that spotting IS in fact affected by FOW.

I have not noticed the HQ bonus against armour, but I have noticed that HQ infantry units are much less likely to panic or route. When playing against the AI I sometimes make a bet with myself that a particularly stubborn enemy infanty unit that holds its position against overwhelming odds will turn out to be an HQ unit when I examine the map at the end of the game... I am correct more often than not.

Regarding the reliability of WWII air support: My grandfather was involved in a well-known friendly-fire incident during the Normandy campaign. He served in the Canadian Army with the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, which was a heavy machine-gun and mortar regiment. My grandfather's platoon was attached to the Queen's Own Rifles (Toronto) as fire support. Anyway, during Operation Tractable RAF bombers saw yellow smoke that the ground troops had been told to use to identify themselves to friendly aircraft - unfortunately the bomber crews mistook the smoke for target markers dropped by their Pathfinder units and let fly with over 3000 tons of bombs... About 165 Canadian and Free Polish troops were killed. Admittedly this incident involved strategic bombers that were not used to the tactical air support role... A lot worse to have a whole formation of bombers mess up than a lone aircraft! Anyway, it has got to be pretty hard to tell one tank from the other from the air I would imagine...

I agree... although I was thinking of comparisons between regular infantry formations with some training as opposed to conscript-type forces. However I still think that the WWII German army stood up very well to a long period of defensive warfare against overwhelming odds. Also, it took all of the Allied armies a long time to gain enough painfully aquired combat efficiency to match the level the Germans were at when the war started. I think this is due to the German tradition of careful and realistic training of their soldiers -after all, the Prussians invented the idea of formal academic training for officers. By contrast, I have read bitter accounts of how useless much of the training undergone by Allied soldiers turned out to be in combat (this was a primary concern of S.L.A. Marshall's book mentioned by me in a post earlier in this thread). For an interesting read on the topic, try "Soldat" by Siegfried Knappe - he started in the pre-war German army shovelling out the stables in an artillery unit and finished the war as a staff officer. There are excellent descriptions of the extensive classroom training Knappe receives as he rises though the ranks... Good depictions of the Eastern front too.

Although it can be frustrating to watch panicked troops doing stupid things, I think that the limits on the player's ability to control troop behavior is one of the best things about Combat Mission. If you don't take care not to put your men in impossible situations you will lose control over them and destroy their combat effectiveness. It would be easy to change the game to prevent this, but unrealistic - soldiers are not robots! There are lots of historical examples of panic and irrational behaviour in combat. Two good WWII examples are the collapse of green US troops at Kasserine and The Battle of the Bulge - I mention these because they are very well-documented. By the same token, inexperienced US troops under a good commander (MacArthur) carried out a succesful fighting retreat under hopeless circumstances in Bataan. The Germans, meanwhile, had highly professional officers and NCO's and rarely seem to have suffered large-scale unit collapse. I think that the clear superiority of German infantry in CMBB is likely historically accurate...

Very interesting responses to my question... Of course, a brilliant player like me will probably never need to withdraw... Heh heh... It never occured to me to "Advance" or "Assault" to the rear... Duh! I didn't know about the general morale impact of fire from the rear - but I recall one of my first big successes against "General AI" was in A Deadly Affair, when I managed to get my Mk II panzers in behind the village while the rest of my force assaulted from the front... I took a chance and rolled my tanks right through the village where they could be subject to close-range infantry attack, but as soon as the partisans started taking fire from the rear the TacAI surrendered. I think that this is probably quite realistic. I also think the difficulties of withdrawal are realistic. S.L.A. Marshall's famous book "Men Against Fire" describes several incidents he witnessed with the US Army in WWII where sudden unexplained movement to the rear by small groups of soldiers triggered panic-stricken routes and the near-collapse of the line. In one incident a small artillery spotting team suffered a radio failure in the heat of action and dashed away from the enemy to a command post with a field telephone... The other men in the front lines saw them running at top speed for the rear and assumed that something awful was happening and started running too - next thing you know the whole unit was in flight, leaving a gaping hole in the line!

I was wondering what the difference is between using the "withdraw" command and just ordering a unit to run away from the enemy... The manual says that there is no command delay. Is this the only difference? Does telling your men to run rather than withdraw reduce the chance of panic? It occured to me that the game might model the men retreating in an orderly fashion, perhaps leapfrogging with one part of a squad covering the other (like "Assault," but backwards). When I have tried using the command the withdrawing units never seem to fire at the enemy, however...