30ot6

Simple. Take a CM game where you command a company (optimum level for CM) or a battalion. If you make it real time, you have a company/battalion coomander issuing orders to individual squads and teams in real time... company/battalion commanders don't issue orders to squads. They issue orders to platoon/company commanders. By making the player micro manage in real time, you have divorced the game so far from reality that it shouldn't be called a wargame anymore. The only instance where I thing real time would work realistically is if the player commanded no more than one squad... and then only if real time kicked in at the point of contact. </font>

Real Time is so divorced from reality that it is completely laughable.</font>

Strongly disagree with you there. The animations in CMAK are almost certainly the worst of any game released in 2003. That's where the graphics need the most work, as well as the addition of shading. Your suggestion about rooms inside buildings is good, though, perhaps even an essential enhancement. Building warfare in CM right now is entirely unrealistic. WWB has had the best points so far, I would also recommend making it possible to import 3D objects. To my mind, however, the best thing Battlefront could do at this point is ditch the current system entirely and rethink everything taking into account all that has been learned from CM. Essentially CM right now is ASL on steroids. Player has a gods eye view and manually controls evey individual unit. While it was good way to start, the limitations of this system have been reached, and I think it should now be dumped entirely. To make CM truly realistic, some major changes need to be made. First, CMx2 would have to switch to a limited ground level commander view; best case would be having an on screen character in the form of the commander whose shoes you are filling. I prefer 3rd person views to 1st person because the peripheral vision you get in third person is actually more realistic than what you get in 1st person. Second, a much more realistic method of communication would have to be implemented, meaning runners and radios. For example, lets assume you're filling the role of a company commander. You want 1st platoon to move forward and scout a neck of trees. So you send give the command to your runner, who goes to your 1st platoon commander. He carries out the orders, and then sends a runner back to you, relaying situation and geography. I don't know if this is the way it actually worked in WWII, but you get the picture. Third, turn based isn't realistic. Real time is. Time to make the switch and throw the binds of table top wargaming forever. If these three changes were implemented, I think we would actually start getting close to resembling real combat. I don't want to get into the "realism isn't fun" debate. I don't care, the purist in me wants it as realistic as possible no matter the cost. It can be argued that CMBB was less fun than CMBO, but I'll play second generation CM over CMBO any day, because the improvements make it seriously more realistic. Why do some of us want things as realistic as possible, even at cost of sacrificing fun? I suppose its because we don't play wargames just to be entertained; we have a fascination with war. Maybe because we had a grandparent in the war, or because of a movie or a book we read, who knows. The bottom line is we are interested in it and want, in a very real sense, to experience it. We want to relive our grandfather's battles, to fight the depserate stands of Easy Comany at Bastogne, and get real idea of what it was like to be a soldier in World War II. I want to come as close the real experience as possible, no matter what, short of "having bullets come out of the screen," to borrow Dorosh's(or was it Emry's?) phrase. So I will always advocate more realism, and more realism, and more realism. Limited view, realistic communications and unlimited time given available to the commander for planning are the areas where, as I see it, CM falls flat on its face, and so I think in those areas the game should be fundamentally changed.

Is that the standard grass or a mod? And where'd you get that cool road?

I played as Allies versus the AI. Apparently a human opponent would have been a better choice, but it was an excellent fight nonetheless. I left the recon platoons in the default positions. First platoon was tasked with reconning the winery, and second platoon moving was to scout along the road to the bridge. First contact came at the intersection in front of the bridge, when 2nd platoon came under fire from what appeared to be about a company of Italian infantry. Expecting my poor Canadians to be slaughtered in the face of such odds, I was very surprised when they singelhandedly started supressing and routing the entire Italian force. All became clear when "Conscript" started showing up in the Italian's unit IDs. While this was happening, 1st platoon had moved into somed scattered trees to the east(the right, looking across the river from the allied side) of the winery, and was exchanging fire with a couple of infantry units. I advanced one squad, leaving the other three to supress the enemy, and then advanced another squad in the same manner. Once I had two sqauds in the scattered trees that are directly next to the wall on the ast side of the winery, I advanced the other two together, leaving the two sqauds that were already in front to supress any Italians that were feeling brave. I was now seeing about five or six Italian units around the winery, and though they had inflicted some casualties when they initially popped up, they were now acting like they had a special interest in examining the dirt. While 2nd platoon was still cleaning up the loose ends of the Italians in front of the bridge, A company started arriving. I had the regular infantry take over from 2nd platoon as soon as they arrived at the front, setting them to work routing the last bits of Italian resistance and then advancing them along the roads towards the riverbank. When my Shermans arrived, I moved them up the road to support the forward elements of A company. A "Gun?" was spotted across the river, upon which one of my Shermans opened fire. Apparently the gun was also shooting at my Sherman. They both fired at the same time and knocked each other out. The only other trouble I would have with AT weapons for the rest of the game was an enemy gun on their far left flank, which repeatedly tried to shoot my tanks with no success. I actually suspected it to be an infantry gun, and was surprised to find put later that it was in fact an anti tank asset. Somewhere around the time A company started pushing hard for the bridge itself, I moved 2nd recon platoon through the scattered trees that surround the intersection towards the winery, where 1st platoon was still spraying fire around at various Italian units. Upon 2nd platoons arrival at the edge of the trees, I ordered them to charge any remaining opposition in fron to them. They did, killing any remaining Italians in hand to hand combat or forcing them to surrender. A Company had now engaged some German units on the far side of the river, and with help from the tanks, was forcing them to retreat. I advanced all three platoons of A Co one by one across the river. They took heavy casualties(over fifty percent) but managed to secure the opposite bank. They engaged in firefights with Germans on the farm itelf. The AI was doing it's typical stupid advances at this point, moving squads out of cover for no apparent reason straight into enemy fire zones, where they get cut to pieces. I suppose this is a relic of Beyond Overlord days, when such tactics might have worked, but now is very serious flaw in the AI. Anyway, enough ranting... Now it was just a matter of forcing my way through any remaining enemy resistance and taking the hill. A Co was exhausted, so I moved B Co in to renew the attack. My tanks were now out of virtually out of HE, very hesitant to spend their last rounds, so it was mostly up to my infantry to finish out the assault. Resistance was by now quickly dying away as the remiaing German defenders were under very fire. Using available cover, I advanced B company up onto the farm, engaging remaining Germans in close range fire fights. One particuliar German Lieutenant gained my admiration, holding against intense gunfire and HE for 6 or 8 turns, until finally the men of B Co closed with his unit and finished them in hand to hand combat. They died heros... The AI surrendered on turn 46. There wasn't much remaining in the way of usable axis soldiers; the 81mm mortars(which the AI hardly used) were still in good shape up on the hilltop, but that was about it. I had suffered about 35-40 percent casualties, most of which were in A Co and the recon platoons; B Co was still in good shape. Overall, this was exactly the kind of scenario I go for. Great map, very intense infantry fighting, and a difficult advance in the fact of stiff opposition. Reminds me of several years ago, when I first downloaded the BO demo, and had loads of fun forcing my way through the German line in Valley of Defense. In fact, I think this would have been a good choice for the AK demo, but that's an irrelevant point. Anyway, great scenario.

1. M24 Chafee In my opinion, the only really cool looking American tank in the game. Fast, and the gun is virtually as good as a Shermans. 2. Jagdpanther The ubertank. Beast of war that can defy anything it's opponents throw at it. 3. M18 Hellcat Okay, a somewhat obvious choice, but anything that can go 55 mph on tracks deserves a lot of credit. The M4A3 Sherman HVSS "Easy Eight" is also pretty cool 'cause it has wide tracks. Makes all the difference.

Use Move to Contact if there is a chance your soldiers may come under fire en route. Personally, I think the whole command system needs reworking. We need a command for support weapons to move using cover while under fire. A command that orders soldiers to move without fatiguing themselves over fairly long distances while at the same time expecting to come under enemy fire would also be useful. Actually, I consider the whole idea of soldiers responding differently to enemy contact based upon the command you gave them somewhat flawed. I think it would have more to do with the situation a soldier believes himself to be in, not what situation you tell him he is in.

*in best Gollum voice* It hurts us! It hurts us! *shields eyes*

Tiger I? Pretty? It's a furniture van with caterpillar tracks. [/QB]</font>

What were halftracks good for then?

Looking for combat reports on the 505th's drop in Sicily. I can find various stuff desribing what happened in general, but no detailed maps or pictures. For instance, I know that I-3/505 landed on it's drop zone and took its objective, which was some pillboxes at a road junction(Got that from http://www.505rct.org/sicily.asp). Sounds like it could be a decent scenario, but one would need a lot more information before making an accurate scenario out of it.

In DoD, the FG42 is almost the exact equivelant of the BAR.

You are all wonderful. I'll see what the libraries around here have first, and then go on from there. MrSpkr, I'll contact you if I find anything. Also, I'd love to playtest your scenarios when they are ready. I've made one Sicily scenario so far. It's fictional, based on the action immediately ensuing after the 505th's drop. The idea is that an ad hoc group of paratroopers dropped off target band together and move to attack a seemingly logical nearby objective. Very general, but accounts of the campaign indicate there was a lot of this going on, leaving quite a bit of room for creativity. The biggest problem is putting together a force that feels truely random; I wish that I could buy single squads and set casualties manually. 30ot6(aka Gardyne)

I'm interested in trying to help you out, but I could definitely use some source material. I have a good idea of what went on in Crete and the general flow of the campaign, but I have no low level accounts of action, especially when limited to engagements concerning Australians. Also, are should these scenarios be ideally suited for one player? You seem to imply so, but I would like to be very clear on that point.

Maybe it's just me, but tanks always seem so meek and unimpressive in museums. They don't seem like the same hulking, menacing beasts you see in real combat pictures, with soldiers running around and all that. Don't take me wrong, cool pictures, Doc. Just a thought I had, that's all.

I've recently developed an interest in this particuliar theater of operations, and think it should offer many opportunities for scenarios. Searching around on the web, I can't find anything more than general descriptions of what happened, no detailed accounts. So I'm thinking I need to get some books, but outside of one, have no clue what's good. Also want advice on the one I mentioned. It is Drop Zone Sicily: Allied Airborne Strike, July 1943 by William Breuer. It it any good?

How weird. Whenever my tanks see a Tiger, they die. Usually one shot.

Now I'm actually bummed I can't get cmmmods.com to work.

Nice Andrew! But...I'm wondering...would you consider doing some face mods? I want my desert tank commanders to have goggles. Would be cool.

I spend three hours on a thirty minute battle anyway. If a more realistic communication and command system was implemented making it possible to play in real time, I wouldn't mind that at all. So instead of playing 30 minutes of game time in 3 hours, you get to play 3 hours of game time. I.e., real time. What I'm trying to say is that long game times aren't an issue. We already have those, even though the battles are short in length. For example: when I had the CMBB demo, I would spend 6 hours playing Yelnia Stare, and that's just a 25 minute scenario. [ February 02, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: 30ot6 ]

:mad: :mad: :mad: What's this???! Peng Challengers in the Thread of Angry Faces and Hot, Angry TNT????! :mad: Fie on you, Wafflers! Where is your proper sense of rivalry and hatred(grargrrh)? Do you not know that it is your bound duty to hate all things Peng(grarrghh)??? I have lost faith in mankind...he cannot love, he cannot hate; the world has become filled with crude humor and mediocrity(grrargh). Woe on you, Wafflers(aargrgrag)! This opportunity for redemption I show to you: leave your petty CM squabbles, and embark upon this noble path(rrargh): permanent feuding with all Pengers! To the death! No quarter given! Pour upon them endless streams of hot, angry TNT! Only by this can you redeem yourselves, and be free from the swarming masses of mediocrity and wretchedness! True love or true hate; that is your destiny(ggrrag). I have chosen love; but yours must be the path of hate(arararararg). To war! Do not falter, for this is your hope! Death to the Peng Challengers(gragh)! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Thats about what I do as well. Never found a specific formation to be very helpful... </font>

For a vee, I use the three squads to form the triangle, two to the front, one in the rear. Platoon HQ is in the center of the triangle with heavy weapons.

Looking for opinions here. What formations do you use for your platoons and why? I tend to use a vee when moving in open ground/brush/scattered trees. Line when in woods or house to house fighting; in my experience it works better to have all your firepower forward in close quarters combat.

Only the one with the anti-tank gun shows combat, looks to me like Italians shooting a 37mm gun, but I'm no grog. File sizes are under a meg, too, well worth checking out. http://www.deutsches-afrikakorps.de/html/vid/vidges.htm