Field Marshal Blücher

Excellent to hear, this is exactly what I was going for. Very glad you enjoyed it!

C Company, 1/508 PIR. Although be aware that the campaign is historically plausible but not historically accurate. SPOILERS (that you may wish to read, Clavicula_Nox) In other words, be aware that knowing what actually happened to C/1/508 PIR will not help you at all in the campaign. I did pick C/1/508 PIR for a reason, which we can discuss later, or if you don't mind a substantial amount of the campaign being spoiled. END SPOILERS

All my own maps, faithfully recreated from Google Earth. (In case you're wondering how I finished this so quickly, I started the campaign when the game was in early Alpha and there were almost no working scenarios to play! ) Glad to see some excitement for this--hopefully it lives up to everyone's expectations!

I thought not! Coming soon to a Repository near you, I present: Devils' Descent, a campaign designed to immerse you as completely as possible into the role of an airborne company commander on D-Day. The campaign is based around an extensive narrative with characters based on real-life individuals to give them distinctive and believable personalities. Furthermore, you are given several choices throughout the campaign that can substantially alter the course of the action. There are two important notes that you should be aware of: First, some of the characters in the narrative are based on people who swear like sailors. This campaign has some seriously M-rated language in it. If that bothers you, I suggest you avoid reading the narrative (which is easy, since it's all contained in the Designer's Notes). Second, those of you who are aware of my CMSF work know that I imposed punitive casualty limits in my CMSF campaigns. I've gone the other way around here. You're an airborne company on D-Day; you're expected to take heavy casualties, so there is no penalty in any mission for taking heavy casualties. However, somewhat compensating for that is that there is NO replenishment. If, in your judgment, you took excessive casualties, you may wish to replay a mission in order to make later missions possible. Or not, it's up to you! Please enjoy, and leave feedback in this thread or on the Repository! -FMB

Fitness is not equal to fatigue, but it's very, very closely related. Basically, fitness is the general level of conditioning of the troops. So "Fit" troops will tire more slowly, whereas "Unfit" troops will become exhausted very quickly if they have to do any strenuous movement. Fatigue is accounted for separately, but is very closely related to fitness. There are several fatigue states, but they cannot be set in the editor. The states are "Rested," "Ready," "Tiring," "Tired," and "Exhausted." EDIT: OK, three answers that all said different things! YAY!

God yes. AI-controlled artillery can be absolutely BRUTAL. Don't worry about the AI artillery's effectiveness. Well, worry about it, but in the "Oh God where did my platoon go" sense.

Sorry, my post was a little unclear. I meant that I didn't mean to sound rude with what I was about to post. Also, I misunderstood your original question. So, my apologies!

Uh, don't meant to sound rude here, but what more do you want? You know there's going to be a Mac version coming out "not too long after the PC version." Search this page for the word "Mac" and I think it's the first one that comes up . . .

This is, for me, the most important issue. I'm honestly (pleasantly) surprised that we have the Priest and the sIG.

If you have the latest patch, yes. Sadly, not yet. I think most of us would like to see this functionality put into the game, though!

Don't worry, your squads will be able to share ammunition if they're close together.

While this link is awesome and useful, and everyone should look it over at least a couple of times, it's not really answering the OP's question. He doesn't want to know what types of battalions there are, he wants to know what the composition of individual battalion types are. To his question, I will respond: As historically accurate as they can be. Without going into NDA-violating details, I read a lot of what went into the battalion TO&E, and I can say for sure that the guys upstairs are doing everything they can to make the battalion structures as accurate as possible.

Maybe our mods will be compatible. We'll have to wait until after release, though!

My own, it's not public yet.

No. This page has the list of all of the units that are included in the base release. Basically, BFC acknowledges that FJ and SS did fight the Americans, but less often than the Brits did and it was just too much work to fit them AND the Wehrmacht into the base release. FJ and SS will be included in the first expansion module. The soldiers themselves don't. The scenario designer allocates foxholes to whatever side he deems appropriate. The CMBN campaigns will be different. They consist of a series of self-contained missions. If you wanted to, you could probably set up a campaign that works as you describe, but the stock campaigns don't really work like that, if I understand you correctly. Yes. Not necessarily, and in most cases no. What happens after a battle in a campaign is set up by the campaign designer. You can make your own scenarios and campaigns. Furthermore, you can mod textures and sounds, but you can't mod anything that affects gameplay. For example, you can make a Sherman pink and sound like a mockingbird, but you can't give it the 120mm gun of a modern Abrams tank. Clear?

Yes, until they're spotted. Basically, the old type from CMSF cut into the ground, so you could just go around looking for depressions that shouldn't be there.

The only reason BFC doesn't want trenches to deform terrain is that it breaks FOW. You could "scout" your opponent's trench lines by just looking to see where the terrain was deformed.

It's possible that the Airborne deliberately decided against the BAR in favor of the M1919A6. I have no historical evidence to back this up, but I've already made a CM:BN campaign (to be put on the Repository when the game launches) about 1/508 PIR on D-Day, so I've played a LOT with Airborne forces and as a commander I much prefer the M1919A6 to the BAR. Don't know how much fun it would be to carry, though!

Don't worry about it. Not sure how much I can say here (don't know how much my NDA applies to maps ), but I don't think you'll be disappointed.

l33tsp34k (gotta correct the guy who originally posted it ) is something like, well, "l33tsp34k." It's when people use numbers and other symbols that kinda-sorta look like the letters they're replacing. So, "leetspeak" becomes "l33tsp34k" or in an extreme case something like "13375p34k." I'm honestly not sure why people do this. It takes more time than just typing the word out.

Agreed. I'm not sure where that perception comes from. I'm mostly a modern warfare guy, but even before I started testing CM:BN I had a pretty good understanding of what would penetrate what. I was wrong in a few cases, but they weren't too significant and I don't think they would have put me at any substantial disadvantage in a PBEM.

Nope, no blood.

Not quite true. The way it works in CM:A is that the scen designer assigns a "Destroy" objective for the other side. If the units don't exit, the opponent gets points for destroying them.

Wait, whose side are you on? Based on the Eighth AF's track record at CAS, Bil probably wished Warren had called the flyboys in.

Me too. The Free French regulars were way more likely to get involved in the type of battle that CMBN simulates than the resistance was.