vincere

I'm sure you can cite many examples of high density combat/ battles during Bagration and the war that supports the 'maps are more historical if kept small argument'. However, even a cursory review of even the major headline grabbing operations reveals that this would be cherry picking. I really doubt that you, JonS, MikeyD, Michael Emrys, and many other CM regulars wouldn't be aware that these super high densities are concentrations for significant breakthrough attacks. Or Urban/hardpoint combat. The breakthroughs grab the headlines, but the follow up combat was diverse and over a longer duration. During which example of whole divisions if not whole Corps* slipping through the 'lines' were not uncommon. Not to mention all the peripheral engagements, and several large scale break-in and out attempts. *Of course the divisions slipping through west were not so whole any longer. My point is that using a large map with some room for tactical manoeuvre while obviously not the accurate portrayal of every combat- it's equally accurate, if not even more common to reject any claims it be anachronistic. And more to the point, for some of us more fun.

Been a while since I looked seriously at force to space ratios and densities but not everywhere was so densely packed. I do not dispute the specific examples. Yes there were many operations where forces concentrated for attack and the density was quite extreme, on paper and on the ground. However, 1. the front lines were not all joined up from Leningrad to the Caucasus. There were thin areas, and gaps. In some areas the only road or rail decided the place of battle. 2. I'm sure you know full well that the when a regiment etc is attacking then not every swinging dick is at the pointy end all at the same time. 3. East front, and Patton's charge for a while, there were plenty of open flanks and space for meeting engagements after break through. Agreed about Battalion level- it's the max I'd take CM, perhaps reinforced with flavour. That said, for me I think the best use of the larger maps could well be the chunking and creativity adaption to make some kind area that an operation could possibly swing back and forth over.

Feed in reserves, and ammo- Sounds like a damn fine operation campaign to me. :-)

Yes, but the right game set up could see recon units employed in their role of force recon rather than local action recon. I see and take your point though. That said some larger maps would break down into smaller sub actions, like the 12k AAR, with flanks supporting neighbours; reserves having more prominence; and mobility really showing it's worth. But infantry being my favourite arm, I hear you.

Are you just as competitive in pbem?:-) Seriously, thanks will check the vids. I recommend Soviet Storm, thoroughly enjoyed that series.

I did think that a little lateral spacing with some half tracks using the field would have helped, but just know that path finding gremlin can strike even with the best intended spacing and pausing. Great insight. Wow, 40k counterattack. Would be good to see how that and a 2v2 plays out. By the way, should have said thanks to all four, so thank you for sharing your fantastic map.

Finished four and left in suspense for part 5. Ah mann, Dutch Grenadier severely punished by the path finding traffic jams! I would have been screaming expletives at the replay at the last ones. :-D

Sounds good to me. I guess smoke for covering flanks will be more viable too.

Exactly, the larger maps and wider scope really adds more dimensions to the tactics. Check the 12,000 point AAR in the main forum for a glimpse of a larger than average map and forces.

This is an awesome AAR. Thanks for publishing this to all three of you. I've watched three this morning and going back to part 4 now. Maybe we'll see more biggies with engine 3. semi Spoiler: Couple of observations: 1. Dutchy really pushed aggressive on his left and centre left and was punished. Looks like it's paying off a little now though, especially with the long range tank duels. 2. Really interested to see how and where the US side commits his large infantry reserves. 3. Sounded to me like you have a little bias to Dutchy, is that because you usually play with the grey pixels, or am I just projecting my bias? :-) Finally, great map. Really opens the combat and tactics up more with longer ranges, tactical manoeuvre.

Ha, I know the feeling. Good goal average this year, but context... Thanks chipping in supportive shared experiences fellas. I'd play CM 10x more, if it had a fraction of tactical goodness, but the 'operational' context to give me "This battle matters" immersion.

The larger maps, coupled with ammo dumps and resupply creating the possibility of 'operations' has fired up my interest in this one. Yes CM is tactical, and probably the best at that. But for me CM battles mostly run like this. Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact. Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes) stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences. Operation style maps (or the dream of an op level) would be a huge 'force multiplier' for my gaming experience. Battles then have real meaning. I just don't get that with scripted campaigns.

That's great news!! Thanks for posting here.

You know this game is different scale and lacking realism level of Cm, but their dynamic campaign has a lot of potential not a million miles from how many would love CM to be. http://www.wargame-ab.com/?rub=campaign Abstract a tone of stuff at the Operation/theatre level. Have one or so maps to represent a province. Have CM Battlegroups fight it out. Yes we know not to scale- it's a freaken representation in a game. Voila the best damned game of the decade. I used to think it's a million mile away, but for some theatres you could get away with less maps than the game has anyway. Then expand the theatre size with the dlc. Just a dream ... :-D Edited: Granted easier said than coded. But seems to me that some projects over complicate things that could be abstracted for less resource input- especially in the first version.

+1 for larger maps for manoeuvre warfare. Air modelled. Really, one day they should tackle the issue and model aircraft. As fare as I know CM is the only tactical game that 'gets away' with pin-prick invisible aircraft. This setting would be an obvious one to take a step forward. +1 for casevac. Way back Steve said they may look at adding to the casualty system. Campaign. Yeah that old nugget. So they think ops were not the way to go forward. Ukraine is small enough to represent in a Dynamic campaign with risk style map. Strategic options in the map like Wargame Airland Battle- Now that would be a campaign!!

EF has a lot of appeal. CMBB was released in 2002? There are a lot more Russians on line playing wargames now. Would be interesting to see how the new game sales compare to Normandy.

The vote losing bit. Unless something like a dirty bomb was detonated in Europe and the US and traced back to Iran. Please not psliding into politics of the past, just hypothetical. It's an interesting idea. Can CMSF's content represent with the Iranian OOB well enough.

Yeah, I think you're right, the PzKpfw IVs. I'll double check my source later today though. Yep, not that logical to keep these running, then again logic doesn't always rule. But agreed, very unlikely.

Syria did field Panthers way back agains Israel. Doubt any ar still running, but who knows one may show up in a vid.

+1 And bravo! for excellent use of that small team.

Yeah I forgot your on RT. Sounds like a good reasoning. Good luck, I read several people had problems with this one.

The current outlook- the only thing that's going to best CM at tactical scale is CM. The one thing that has made me look twice at this and the Matrix version of CMBB is at least some attempt at non-linear campaigns.

Not at all, the tension is just building nice. It's also great to see how other play. For example, the placement of your Panzerschreck team behind the wall with 3dr platoon, quite aggressive positioning, if you don't mind armchair comments

1. Hand to Hand. I watch for this in the threads and nothing much has been said for a while. The last I saw pre release was that some form of abstract Hand to Hand was supposed to be in, but I've never seen it, nor seen it in an AAR or talked about here. So what does happen now? For me squads die from fire or break. BFC did say, before release, that Hand to Hand is something that they will look at in a future release. They anticipate it being significant work to get the look right in a 1: representation. 2. That sounds like it may be a scenario designer decision. Surrenders are obviously in, but some designer give reinforcements that don't arrive so as to delay the surender. If you triggered mines in your post battle sweep then that mey have been what tey were after; if not then I dont know what happened.

Carefull of ordering area fire to kill wounded or surrendered pivel troops, the Geneva convention may have something to say: http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny?tag=callofduty&autoplay