Blazing 88's

Yes, it is a nice site.  I posted that link in this thread a few years ago as well:
Can't go wrong combining the threads...  Cheers!

http://www.fireandfury.com/extra/ordersofbattle.shtml#CW
This website has tons of information going from regiment all the way down to single units. I just found this and it's pretty nifty. I'm unsure if the information is correct, but this sure is pretty cool!

Sure no need to wait...  👌 😁
Afghani Hindu Kush

Sure no need to wait...  👌 😁
Afghani Hindu Kush

Sure no need to wait...  👌 😁
Afghani Hindu Kush

Sure no need to wait...  👌 😁
Afghani Hindu Kush

Sure no need to wait...  👌 😁
Afghani Hindu Kush

This is a view of new CMRT Module : hehe !
Enjoy !
JM
 

I'd really like that, as well. Kind of a "Conquest" mode, where you move around companies like Risk pieces on an over-map. I understand it's not within their scope of ambition.
However, I would like an optional Force Organization selection for campaigns, like Theatre of War. It would really improve replayability for campaigns.
 

I'll try to be as polite as possible. This is a post entitled "Afrika Korps vs Early War". If people want to hijack it that's up to them. 

YAWN!

IIRC there was an issue with long range firing in the CM1 games - like over 1000m became very inaccurate for the 88mm.  Making the 88mm Elite might have helped.  I just don't remember...
What I enjoyed about CMAK was that you could create 8kmx4Km maps and enjoy a near operational level experience with a lot of mobile warfare and long range duels.  
What puzzles me right now is why folks are so excited about CMSF2 but not about a DAK game.  I have read comments that the terrain is boring etc.  But guys... they are both set in essentially the same terrain.  Deserts can have amazing terrain - it's not all flat and featureless as CMSF demonstrated.   

Next game will be Eastern Front 1942/43, I think. Stalingrad to Kursk. That would be the smarter choice.

Many blue moons ago when the whole Upgrade system was announced I mentioned that long term it was going to turn into a bit of a logistical nightmare trying to balance multiple number of game 'families'. At the time there was only two families (I think), now we're heading for six.
Has this experience changed BF's thinking around release strategy? For instance bolting on on more modules to CMRT to push that front back to say Kursk, rather than releasing a whole new family for July 1943 - May 1944 eastern front? I'm no programmer so no idea if it would make a difference man hour wise but logistically/project management wise wouldn't there be some gains?

Personally, I agree with some of what Carl has to say, but his delivery and demeanor suck. The good points he might make get buried by his attitude and combative nature. He's rude and obnoxious when there is no need to be and this thread is a perfect example. There's a fairly defined demilitarized zone between rabid fanboy and bitter troll and an objective thoughtful person can usually navigate it without setting off the landmines. Unfortunately, Carl tends to break dance his way through...in clown shoes...on a pogo stick.
 
Mord.

There's pro/cons to the way foxholes and trenches are in game: and the pros outweigh the cons. Games like Shock Force, Afghanistan, Graviteam etc. have actual deformation of terrain when creating battle positions but that's (a) a mapmaker level prerogative and/or (b) impossible to hide in fog of war. I'd rather have slightly goofy looking mounds that do the job just as well and are not spotted and flattened with artillery turn 0.  

A twenty tile radius at one km sounds a bit much for me, but half that might be okay.
Actually, I feel like the anxiety over sound placement is a bit exaggerated. Sound placement was a regular phenomenon during battle; the bigger the bang, the more accurate the placement, other factors such as wind direction and volume being equal. Also, the more rounds fired from a given location, the more accurate the placement is apt to become. That's why in an ambush it was desirable to fire a few shots and then displace to a second location and then perhaps to a third.
Michael

Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers:

I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on company and below stuff - everyone already makes scenarios about the famous clashes, I want to make scenarios about the day to day stuff everyone forgets about. In this case, it's the taking of a step off position for a later attack. An action that would have barely warranted half a sentence in a larger narrative, is the perfect size for a Combat Mission scenario. Once I have my idea, I find a location in reality that would suit my situation - once again the details aren't super important. I rarely use overlays anymore, I just put Google Earth on my second monitor and let the in-game map become it's own place.

Once I have my map built, I integrate my situation into it. I almost always start with the enemy side (since I only do Human vs AI). In this scenario, as it is a German attack, I started with the Soviet defense. I look at the map, figure out the required amount of forces to achieve the enemy "mission" that fits the situation, and start building the enemies plan. I never build my maps around the unit or task - this almost always ends up feeling canned and puzzle-like. In real combat, you don't have the power to level hills and move forests (unless you have good engineer support). You take the forces you have and use the hills and forests to your best advantage to build your plan. The small copses of trees in the wheat field isn't there because it would make for a good MG position, it's there because I thought it looked good when I was making the map. Now I (and the player) have to build our plans around it. About the only concession I make in this regard is adding terrain later to block LOS to at least part of the player's setup area. No one likes getting shot on turn 1.

For the Soviet side here, I decided a platoon with attached HMGs would be the best force to serve as the blocking/delaying position that fits the scenario. I built the defense to accomplish the mission I gave it, as if the scenario was designed to be played by the Soviet side. I utilized the terrain as best I could to create 3 mutually supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire. If one position was taken, the other two would be able to lay fire down on the one just overrun. I envisioned that most players would choose to attack the position "head on" in some fashion, either taking the town first then the position on the Soviet right, or the outpost position on the Soviet left, attacking over the open ground. Any Germans attacking would have a hard time indeed, and need to coordinate their fire support well to accomplish it. However, the one course of action I did not take into account for my defense was what Combatintman did right here in this very thread! Only one of the Soviet HMGs was looking into the open wheat field that he advanced so boldly through. Surely no player would push his infantry through such a large open field to be slaughtered! What spelt the Soviet doom was that I did not do a proper line of sight analysis - if I had, I would have realized that the critical HMG defending the entire left flank could not see the whole wheat field, and that so called open field had undulations in the terrain (again, something I built into the map BEFORE I started building the defense) that would have allowed a whole company to advance sight unseen deep into the Soviet rear. As such, I did not plan for the eventuality that the Germans would bypass my carefully developed, mutually supporting positions with barely a shot fired. Truly an example of the enemy "having a vote", and my future scenarios won't be so assuming. Next time I will be more complete in my planning. Blame Combatintman for the lesson learned and any increased difficulty.

A quick note on doctrine, because I saw it brought up - I am not a student of any WW2 military doctrine, so I built my defense based on what made sense to me and what I have seen work, not anything historical. I do use the built in TOEs to help pick my forces though.

To touch on the German side of this scenario, for my missions I try to pick a force that when handled properly, will defeat the enemy even if the player suffers some setbacks. In other words, you don't have to be perfect. I feel that most people play scenarios to win, and if they feel that did everything almost right but still lost, then I have failed to provide satisfying entertainment (some would disagree on this, but it's just how I feel).  Usually the degree of victory and casualties taken is the distinguisher between an ok plan and a great plan for my scenarios. A 2 to 1 advantage with supporting arms will generally provide a respectable challenge against the AI while still being able to be won by most. The ratio here is more 3 to 1, as open fields and long sight lines requires more firepower and bodies to absorb casualties. I try to not to force a plan on the player, instead giving them a properly balanced force to execute a variety of actions. I also believe in simple briefings that provides truthful information the player can use to plan, while not giving away the whole show. Everything I wrote was truthful, but it's up to the player to fill in the gaps. Combatintman took the info given, executed a solid plan here and was able to wipe the Soviets off the board with very minimal casualties.

So the 2 cents that was asked for is more like 20 cents, but I thought it would be beneficial to explain my overall theory on scenario design and not just this one specifically. I like to create simple, straightforward scenarios with a realistic enemy on beautiful maps, and hopefully I've succeed with this one in that regard. Combatintman definitely executed a great plan that exploited the weak point in my plan. Great thread and thanks for picking my scenario to do it with!

Well aside from the obvious silliness of two ways to play the game I don't think we realize what a truly realistic spotting system would be like. Have you seen any in combat footage (real not actors or reenactors)? I don't watch a lot but the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all* . I don't think the game would actually be playable.

No. Well not in a straight forward way. CM1 games were designed to simulate reasonable outcomes. The spotting and much of the firing was abstracted quite a bit as was the concealment and protection. The new CM2 games are designed to be closer to a 1 to 1 simulation where the outcomes depend on the context of the individual soldiers, tanks and bullets etc.
To nit the graphics into CM1 or the modelling in to CM2 would be a rewrite. And while I don't speak for Steve I do agree with him. CM2 is superior in every conceivable way over CM1 including anything you don't like
Oh and one more thing: accept how it is.

"Movement is easier to spot - this perturbs me greatly" and "talking out my behind on muzzle flashes"
Yawn. This is a heady mix of salt, hot takes, and stuff that's demonstrably incorrect. For example: if you think "moving objects being easier to spot" is somehow flawed or that "units that have a general idea of the location of an enemy spot faster and with greater ease" is also flawed, then there's really no cure for the hypertension this game has caused you. 

They are. Play a night battle in CM and it will become apparent very quickly.

At the moment I'm reading Panzerkrieg volume 1 German Armoured Operations at Stalingrad by Jason D. Mark, published by Leaping Horseman Books. As all books by this publisher it is very, very good. This volume concentrates on the Panzerabteilungen 103, 129 and 160 during the 1942 summer campaign and the following struggle for Stalingrad. Lots of excellent new pictures and lots of thorough, well researched info. Highly recommended. Volume 2 is in the works and will concentrate on the 16. PzD.
I really hope we will get a Stalingrad module for CM one day. It is such a fascinating period of the war.

Remember, your men's lives are pathetic. They know this; you know this. Their one hope? That you can give their poor existence some sort of meaning. They desire glory. They know their time is short. A glorious death is the best they could have. They only hope that they can somehow add to your reputation. They will be grateful if you allow them to die so that you can enhance your reputation.
I'd have you ask my men, but, well, there aren't too many left at the moment.

Or, you can do what the guys above me have suggested.