sburke

LOL chalk it up to pre release jitters, like dating someone for weeks on end and never getting past first base when everything you see tells you this will be the best sex of your life... in game terms.. really... no really. At least you get to go back to your PC and play another round. We all can only look at the centerfolds and drool. Hell we don't even have movie clips. :-P We're jealous- you get to play AND win, so not fair!!!

sounds like your average business manager or perhaps a Transocean executive getting a safety award the same year they turned the gulf into a replica of Charlie Sheen's bath water after his oil massage scrub down.

I'll stick with the Sharks. Baseball is too early in the season and too slow to keep my mind off how close we are to a release date. I really hope they surprise us with a few days earlier rather than a few days later. ...or how about now? Now? now maybe?

Back to the original question - I think my answer was covered by George MC in the thread on Bocage Tactics- There is a risk of friendly casualties. I wasn't asking regarding the use of heavy bombers in Goodwood and St Lo, only P51 and P47 aircraft support are included for CAS. I suppose you could use Naval Artillery to simulate a larger air strike if you wanted to try and build a St Lo campaign, but from what I have read the German front line units facing the Americans in Cobra were not particularly impacted by the airstrikes. They were dug in and outside the main bombing zone. It was the reinforcing units in reserve that took the brunt. Personally I am not real curious about trying to include that. What I would like is the opportunity to shoot down my own planes if the sissy pilots shoot at my ground forces. :-D AND I want the points for it. BTW is there a graphic for my troops to flip off the pilots in these incidents? Guess we will find out when we get our greedy little paws on the game. Will be curious if there are any options to purchase more skilled pilots with less risk of friendly fire, but as that would have been completely out of the scope of what a Company or Battalion level commander could expect, it is likely too unrealistic to bother considering. So now what can we debate to kill time till the release date?

reading the forum constantly going back and looking at the media files reading books on the subject --> just finished After D Day by Carafano --> now reading No Better place to die, yes I really hope we see a campaign developed for the La Fiere bridge --> Eyeing my copy of Dying for St Lo as my next read --> wondering how many books I have left to kill time...

Considering it is implying that Fortitude did not work and it was the German generals who somehow convinced Hitler not to release the troops guarding the Pas De Calais - I'll bite. Can we get any sources? I don't recall Hitler often taking his Generals suggestions over his own opinion.

I would actually take quite a bit of this with a grain of salt. Relations between the 29th ID and 2nd AD were so bad during the breakout that Maurice Rose was actually removed from command (temporarily). There is also some line amongst the 2nd AD to the effect, yeah we fought the 29th ID at Tilly sur Vire and found them to be pretty good fighters.

Haven't seen this applied yet in the AARs and perhaps it is still under development, but am wondering how air support functions in CMBN. In CMSF it is pretty precise, but I can recall games in CMAK where my air support would commit some friendly fire. Frustrating but at the same time pretty cool. Is that going to be a possibility in CMBN?

If we have female soldiers, do they get PMS? Does this make them tougher in combat- sort of a berserker mode?

Possibly by threatening occupation of the VL, drawing the Pz force forward into some kind of crossfire from the M10s. That implies some level of intelligence of what they may have been facing. Getting the infantry into position with some eyes on the field though still back away from the woods edge would at least seem to have allowed Capt to get first glimpse of the enemy while still potentially having his armor hidden. Kind of the interesting thing about the battle was the complete disparity in the force purchases. What we never really got a good look at is the terrain back on the Capt's side. Were there good hull down or reverse slope positions further back to hide movement of his armor? If not the map may have decided a good portion of how this battle was going to go already. It might only have been worse if he hadn't jumped out immediately. At least he was able to get 1st platoon in a somewhat closer fight and do some damage.

So is it just me or does anticipation of CMBN seem to be bringing us out of the woodwork? I would be curious if the site can generate stats on posters to show if there is an increase in activity by members who have been around awhile but not posting. Yeah I am in Telecom and am always getting asked what inane data I can report on so someone can post it in a powerpoint - God's gift to those unable to actually read a document and form an understanding.... see the pretty pictures? I guess BFC may have a better idea based on sales of pre orders.

LOL I had one post since 2006 prior to the announcement of CMBN. I have all the CMSF modules and though I think it is interesting, I much prefer a WW 2 simulator. I loved CMBO and did all the mods to CMAK to make it look like Normandy, but once I saw CMSF the 3 stooges look was just never the same. I have to admit all the discussions of penetration characteristics is a bit intimidating, but am really glad it is happening.

Actually reading an account of the Cobra offensive now - After D Day- great read. Just finished and one of the last chapters talks about the 2nd Armored. You have CCA running into a counter attack by the 2nd and 116th Pz and CCB facing a nighttime engagement with the 6FJR remnants backed up by 2nd SS pz tanks. Total mayhem. It is hard to believe this situation wouldn't have come up or something similar. BTW, 2nd Armor beat them all in a swirling no front, no flank, no rear battle similar in a way to the later fight by 4th Armored at Arracourt. The US army when well led was an extremely impressive combined arms fighting force. But back to your question, yeah it did look realistic, that was what was so darned cool about it. Our hero pops up, gets a shot off downing one of his attackers and takes off. That shot of the Panzer trooper in the distance watching as he shows all Americans are Jesse Owens in the right conditions is too funny.

Not enough to become a Monday morning Quarterback :-P Thanks for the AAR though, I believe the comments made during the AAR about recon and possibly making better use of the time allotted would have significantly altered the way the game played out for both sides. Found it very interesting how you both maneuvered and how battlefield intelligence or lack thereof affected your decisions. Some good lessons there on game play as well as how to make good use of terrain. Just sad to see it end. It was really helping kill time while waiting for the release. For what it's worth I would agree about the victory points. Honestly between two adults debating the pros and cons of the battle afterwards kind of makes worrying about what the victory screen says irrelevant. Much more interesting to talk about the OK corral shootout between the two tank teams in the woods LOL BTW where was tube guy? I am betting he drew up the map to lead the infantry units to the battle. Again thanks a lot, this was priceless

The only significant incident I have heard of was Tucker's forces from the 504th Para Reg in the attack on Cheneux supposedly distributed some panzerfausts. Whether they were used at all and with any effectiveness, I have not seen any record. None of the histories I have even mention it. I think in fact the only place I heard it was an ASL scenario.

push the cats out of the room, tell the wife I won't be home for dinner (even though I am in the next room) close the door and start a campaign. (and oh yeah send a thank you note to BFC with a dozen roses and maybe a keg of beer). dang this is gonna be a long month.

Agreed this would put a whole other dynamic on the battlefield and one I would be interested in except for one item. The realism factor of having soldiers react to the overall state of the battlefield implies they know the overall state of the battlefield. Say for example you have a 2 company assault on an objective and the two companies are out of direct contact. How do you decide when to allow for the impact on casualties to the two units. Do the pixeltruppen borg units sense their fellow pixeltruppen falling off the Net? So on the one hand, yeah I think this would be a really interesting addition to battlefield behavior and C&C, I am just not sure how you could really pull it off without it becoming just as artificial in the opposite direction. I think the only real way you can do this is pretty much include what BFC has- a force level VP item that requires the player to pay more attention to force protection. Just the humble opinion of someone who does not write code and isn't a math whiz.

Thanks, much appreciated impressions as well as the AAR. Now I have to find some other way to kill time for the next few weeks...sigh

Can I have some of whatever it is you are snorting? It sure sounds like it is killer stuff, man I could have used some in my days of catching Dead shows. Standard hallucinogens wouldn't have me believing that line. oh wait, that was a joke right? Sorry just not used to humor that dry.

true and after the experience of the short drops most ground commanders would not be too thrilled with a repeat, however to break the semi stalemate in Normandy I doubt any commander was so vain as to not prefer to bomb the hell out of the Axis defenders with whatever they had available than risk the lives of their men. On a side note there is also interesting material on how the unit commanders at regiment and below responded to the short drops. For those convinced that the US commanders lacked initiative, flexibility or authority compared to German commanders, it does present a differing opinion of US leadership after 2 months of "unlearning" what they had been taught in training. The only dissension though that I know of on this issue actually came from the strategic air arm as they felt it was am improper use of their forces. Bradley seems to have actually (at least according to Carafano) disliked the strategic bombing campaign. "Killer Harris (Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris) was called the greatest friend Russia had, destroyed the fabric of Europe's middle class". He and the other theater commanders seemed to feel the Air force was a perfectly fine asset as "super heavy artillery".

Very interesting perspective. Am curious as a play tester with the new model for spotting and 1:1 infantry, how have you found the game to play out in straight infantry vs infantry fighting in the bocage with limited visibility and fields of fire? Have you found it better depicts actual combat and scouting abilities and therefore your ability to react to the enemy significantly differently? I know that in and of itself is probably a "duh of course" question but am interested if you have any game play experiences to relate that would expand on that. Heck maybe another AAR, yes we are a greedy lot. Reading about the Normandy campaign only seems to make the wait worse.

I don't think anyone had a view they would rollover Axis forces easily. Considering the Mediterranean campaign, even Montgomery had to have learned something. Okay well maybe not Montgomery... Churchill for one was strenuously against Normandy and would have preferred a second front to be opened elsewhere with less risk. However once the meat grinder in Normandy started escalating casualty figures yes there was a lot of political pressure. Great Britain was scraping the bottom of the manpower pool and the US was already dealing with heavy losses in the Pacific War. At the same time though the Landings themselves went far better than predicted and the meat grinder worked both ways. Once the German defense in Normandy collapsed, the US army showed what it could do with some maneuver room. When you think about it, Germany conquered France in 6 weeks in 1940 and all hailed the blitzkrieg war. The Allies in 1944 were able to make an amphibious landing in France against an entrenched enemy with years to prepare, fight through heavy defensive terrain and drive Germany from France in about 12 weeks (excluding some portion of the border). An extremely impressive performance no matter how you look at it. By September the Allied line was a lot further forward than predicted hence creating an unexpected logistical problem. I think here you see the beginnings of a bit of over confidence more than what preceded Normandy when the idea that the war would be over by Christmas began to proliferate. As to political humiliation, not so sure there is anything to that. Am reading After D Day right now by Carafano. Very interesting, has some great descriptions of the breakout battles as well as a thorough review of the US army strengths and weaknesses. One may agree or disagree with what the author presents, but an interesting book nevertheless and one way to kill time till CMBN is out..... He goes into quite a bit of detail of the Cobra planning and comments Leigh Mallory being a former infantryman was all in favor of using the airforce in any way at all that could assist the ground troops. Other air commanders weren't so kind. The only comments regarding the feeling of the ground commanders comes up in their distrust of the use of bombers once they experienced the short drops. Even that though probably dissipated once they realized how well it disrupted the German ability to counter attack during the first critical days of Cobra.

no just had to run for towels to clean up the mess... no, not that! from drooling.

There is unquestionably some truth to this. However you are talking about a US army that was rushing divisions through training and then throwing them right into combat. Even Meindl the II Para Corp commander conceded the Americans "got better" as the summer progressed. To make a statement on German unit capability versus US unit capability, you have to also include what period you are covering as both sides capability changed over time. As regards the statement from Panzer Lehr, you could apply the same to their actions. Hedgerow country made it really difficult to maintain an offensive. Everything became so compartmentalized that unit cohesion was difficult in the extreme to manage. There are plenty of examples of German counterattacks toward the beachheads being diverted when German units flanks were exposed. A lot of IFs for the German army, but the reality is that despite throwing in the cream of the Wehrmacht, they were never able to seriously threaten the allied landings. Those pointing out the Axis would have achieved more without US air and artillery firepower never say well the Germans without the MG 42 and just using Pz IVs versus the US without .... you fight with what you have and your doctrine stresses. To the question originally posited I would have to agree that factoring in German experience when facing those units that actually deserve it would make sense. But the same would apply to US units. The 90th ID for example IIRC went through quite a bit of transformation during the Normandy campaign. This may be something for scenario creators to factor in when designing for specific units or battles. The units involved would vary in their combat capability depending on the timing of the scenario and the specific unit. The 90th for example might be consider green or inexperienced in June, but regular at least by late July. A German unit that might be considered experienced in June would likely be regarded as fatigued and well understrength by late July. I think we all get caught up too much in looking at a fixed point in time when the reality was all sides involved were in a state of flux. Part of what will make scenario design interesting is there are so many possibilities depending on what units are being included, when and where.

It sounds like you need to go back and spend a bit more time studying the fighting in the Ardennes. The reality was that for several days many small US units stood, fought and if necessary died totally disrupting the German schedule and allowing the US army to take advantage of it's superior mobility. During this period these men had no air support and artillery was not something that could be relied on as in many cases it was having to displace. Suggest you read a detailed account of the Battle of St Vith. It doesn't get the recognition that Bastogne does but was of at least equal importance. Also try reading detailed accounts of the battles along Skyline drive. To say that "they got totally crushed" is a disservice to the sacrifice of these brave men It also ignores the cost to the German units to overcome their positions and the impact they had on the overall battle..