Lethaface

Like the standard version too!

The word for this concept is efficiency and this concept is the real killer in our world

Regarding the lack of long bursts and 'swinging': you could have a point there but all MG's in game 'suffer' from this, so I don't see how the mg42 suffers more from this than other MG's? Results should be the same, relatively.

Dont forget to swing the taser for extra effect In all seriousness Kauz, I understand your theory of correlation. If shooting at a random number of persons, grouped in a random position, in random terrain, with similar accuracy per shot, a gun spraying more bullets will have a higher chance getting more hits on target (in absolute numbers) in a specific time window than a gun spraying less bullets. So far so good. However, like in RL the problems start when people try to apply theories in practice. I bet that if CMRT offered a test laboratory with hit counters on circular practice targets you would arrive at a conclusion supporting the theory. But now you want to measure said effect in battlefield circumstances, with thousands of other variables at work, targets to be able to die only once, limited iterations and you jump to the conclusion that the game is wrong because it doesn't prove your theory? That, my friend, is 'putting the cart before the horse'. (I just found out it is not only a saying in Dutch ) Anyhow in my experience while playing the game the MG42 is a much more potent weapon when compared to a Maxim. RoF is only a small part of why that is so. Others have already described other advantages of the MG42 and quantity is one of them.

I always assumed it's simply 7.92mm AP.

Great atmosphere! I would like to hear it on the field

Enjoyed CMSF from the get-go since I'm into modern. Tried CMx1 when it was too old or I was too young Even if it was buggy it was till a gem compared to 'similar' games I played before. Realistic spotting and every little detail modeled. Got a lot better over the course of time, all 3 modules provided rich new content. The blunt firepower of the marines, esprit de corps of the British troops with their silly TO&E that somehow works like a charm and last but not least the NATO module! PaperTiger's RED campaigns were like a module too. Also I was 7 years younger... Good times!

Ah then all is not forsaken, I'm not alone in thinking about how the nice 1700 country estate my office is in would be a perfect CMBN:MG map Perhaps I shouldn't mention the visions that come after hour long sessions of CM before hitting the sack

I'm not going into the reasons why he is frustrated, that is his personal domain. However he, as others have pointed out, personally attacks certain posters. Even if the whole world would have agreed on his 'views' and he read all the books that exist that's still not justified. That was the reason I fell over his posts. The narcistic, arrogant nature of his posts don´t help either. Dogmatism and pigheadedness are very different. However these too shouldn´t be goals in and of itself; not in a CM forum and especially not in a scientific debate I think a good punishment could be that he is refrained from posting on the forum until he has created and posted a fully autentic historic scenario for CMRT, which we can then all criticize and attack as being unplayable boring. That way we all win.

This is not something Mark can change I guess, but I agree on the functionality issue regarding 1 broken reserve crew man denying victory to the battalion outside the shed he is hiding. However, I'm not stricken by it often as the 'Surrender' event usually kicks in in those type of battles.

Now to be honest and frank, JasonC, your uncalled for personal attack on the man (scenario designer) was the whole reason we felt it was necessary to react. The bell of the person that knows the most in the world rung all to clearly and the masses reacted to it. I mean it when I say that I hope you find more scenario's to your liking (even if I would dislike them). Also, your knowledge of the subject is not disputed and considered valuable to many people on the forum over the years. But, please stop attacking people that make scenario's you don't like. Now put down that 8th Bagration book and read a book about form, tone and temper in writing. Even though in some ways I enjoy these type of threads, I enjoy productive ones even more!

Heh, it seems that it is you that should reread #88 and #110.

The CM:BN original campaigns and scenario's are still well playable with 2.12. However most battles feature Bocage, if you don't like puzzling out bocage terrain I would advise against CM:BN. When upgraded with CW and MG modules CM:BN is also vastly varied and feature a host of battles (apart from many downloadable scenarios and campaigns). CMFI/GL is indeed updated to the latest version. There is a great variety in campaigns and the terrain is very different from CMBN. Actually I really like the game and played a lot of the different campaigns. After MG attention for CMFI seems to have faded a little, personally I preferred CMFI/GL over CMBN/CW before MG came out. If budget is of concern the CMFI/GL combo is perhaps the best buy option when you look at content per $. I had no prior interest or knowledge regarding the war in Italy but this hasn't stopped me from liking it! CMFI/FL is currently the only CMx2 game featuring a timespan of more than a year, so all seasons are represented and a wide variety of TO&E because of the changes in the 1943-1944 period. CM:RT is newer so less content available for now, although still plenty for hundreds of hours. At $55,- you have the latest version of the engine so this is the cheapest option for getting 3.0 features. The soviets make for some interesting changes on the tactical level, if compared to the allies vs germans. However you won't be able to appreciate such a difference if you buy only one . So my advice would be to buy CMRT now and save up for future 3.0 bundles of CM:BN/CW/MG and or CM:FI/GL.

I know for a fact that you don't know what I think is fun about CMRT. I don't know if I am a typical wargamer, but I don't really care. You represent just yourself, so stop the lame we'ing like you are indeed of inbred royal origin Nothing wrong with your likings and interests. But they are yours. Even if others share your interests and liking, it is not common form to speak out your opinion using we'. Congratulations! I watched some Russian documentary on History Channel I recorded previously but got bored with it and fell asleep while watching. Still to BF.C my $55,- was just as good as yours. Where in the briefing it is said you will face a historical accurate representation of such a pursuit? The designer probably tried to lure 'the wargamer' into believing he is playing such a pursuit and them gobsmack the sh1t out of the stupid wargamer forgetting he is playing the game, not historical reality. Also I bet the designer hates wargamers and reads propaganda before going to bed. Now who needs a shrink here? Reading your posts I'm under the impression you actually do HEAR that bell ringing for real. Now would you excuse me, got some other strawhominem work to do .

After several hard weeks of fighting since release of CMRT I managed to win that scenario about 2 weeks ago. Even though I reloaded a couple of times -I used this mission to become familiar with Soviet infantry and to train my assaults on fortified positions- in the end I still suffered 45 KIA, 64 WIA and 2 KO'ed SU-76's. Without reloading that could have easily been +100 casualties and another 4/5 SU-76's. Anyway, I had frequent targeting problems because of the reverse slope defenses. However I don't recall my men not firing when able to more than normal. Actually I thought it's good SMG's are not firing at long distances. That being said, I used a lot of suppression fires against trenches with spotting contacts only. When my advancing engineers and trailing rifle infantry came under fire / spotted enemy trenches I usually tried to hide / seek cover and put the trenches under fire from as far away as possible with SU-76's and or HMG's. They have better chances against MG-42's and are easier to move out when under artillery fire So, I didn't face the same problems you faced but that might be because of the approach I chose for this mission. FWIW, my lessons regarding attacking strengthened infantry strongpoints in defensive terrain (or how to approach battles like the first mission in the soviet campaign): Engineers are pointman on hunt and hide orders. Trailing not far behind are larger groups of infantry, also on hide orders because I don't want them to duel with MG's over mid/long range. Mixed in are snipers that do take potshots when possible. When strongpoints are identified they are put under suppression from every HMG, assault gun and mortar that can target the strongpoint (maneuver if necessary and possible). When the enemy is suppressed and dangerous heavy weapons or bunkers are destroyed infantry move in. I found out that the 'move' command works quite well for assaults with the larger and SMG heavy soviet Rifle squads (marching fire). They close in until 1 or 2 action square's away from the trench and if possible a flame thrower then comes up to burn up the trench.

My 2 cts: Hello, I'm lethaface, I play CM and have uber german armor fetish Who here doesn't? Because of the game I have developed several other fetishes. Anyway I'm glad Benpark chose to make a scenario that he thought would be great, to hell with what the general consensus or historical consistent bla bla should be. Fictional scenario's are often very much fun because creativity is used to create a FUN scenario instead of to reproduce a historic scenario. At least, that is my experience and how I view things. Regarding briefings: I more or less agree with JonS. As long as the briefing tells me (correctly) which side I'm fighting for, what units I have under my command, what reinforcements are expected, a global estimate of the enemy forces and most importantly: an objective; that is more than enough. I don't see anything wrong with the briefing for this battle. This is CM. Fact is between your forces and the other end of the map are enemy forces present, probably in somewhat similar strength. You won't face an enemy division pak front with a half squad of troops, nor will you get 10 IS-2 to take on 3 Heavy Armored Cars. At least until a historical extremist is going to make such a scenario, 'Based on a true story'. My experience in life is that everything with the label 'based on a true story' is not suited for real men Given it's a game the enemy will probably have chances to retain at least a draw. So, if you have 14 T-34's it would be normal to expect something which can put those T-34's in problem. I think you have an outstanding force mix and a great looking scenario that i'm currently playing H2H as the russkies. If the briefing tells me to move at maximum speed, I'm moving at maximum speed. The maximum speed attainable when moving into enemy lines that is. This is not C&C, so that means scouting / probing probable enemy positions, etc etc. Of course all done in the way true Hussars would have done it. Concluding: I don't understand the negativity for a scenario being unhistorical, there are plenty of historical scenario's for the like minded. Also the briefing being vague about what's coming is GOOD. How boring would life be without surprises? The good thing about CMx2 is that you can reload the game if you don't like the outcome of a particular surprise, whereas in RL you have to suck it up. Thanks Benpark!

Have been using it some more lately (indeed) , done.

19. Weapons do get taken after applying buddy aid, although not in every case. I thought that you got a lot of answers already.

iF THEY ONLY HAD IMPLEMENTED LEAN SIX SIGMA DONE BY A BACKBELT CM WOULD HAVE RULED!!! I guess we all agree on CMx2 being the best games spotting wise. But why is criticism not allowed?

Asses are like opinions so by nature they come together as one package. Isn't this the Anonymous Apologetic Asses forum?

Well obviously any tank division Syria moves out in the open will be obliterated pretty quickly, same like other large troop movements. But in prepared terrain with light infantry/asymmetric tactics Hezbollah managed to thwart of Israel in 2006 inspite of 0 air defence. Obviously the conventional war can be won but at what costs? I think way higher than Iraq.

Without context it is hard to say what happened before and after the fight. Apart from the movie I think 'we could stop the fighting in a matter of weeks' is a little naive. 'You guys' (or should I say we?) could stop 'it' permanently it in a few hours , but going in conventionally there will be A LOT of fighting going on for years, like you said yourself. Asymmetrical warfare is still war for those living in the warzone. Any intervention should be on behalf of the people, right? ;D When viewed purely militarily I guess that given the two year experience 'bonus' the remaining soldiers of the Syrian army and other belligerents are not all that amateurish. Just look at CMSF (or 2006) to see what small groups of Syrian special forces or properly armed and trained insurgents (Hezbollah) can do to western armies. IMO it's not only 10 years of snipers and IEDs whats stopping any ground intervention. Do you think intervening in Syria will be like Thunder Run 2?

This is not CMRT, but it is TOW (Theater of War)

Mac, "it just works" !