Tux

I'm on the third now which, iirc, runs us up to 0700 in the morning. I therefore assume that the next battle will be in full daylight (given the time of year).

Heh. Actually, having said what I said I now remember using an M8 to put rounds through the front turret of a friend's Pz IVH in a PBEM game and he is generally very good at using armour. I suppose, if the gun is a threat, then any vehicle mounting it is even more so in certain circumstances.

Seconded. Looking at that screenshot you were asking for something to plug your Tiger through the flank, nik. M8s are useful, but nowt more than a nuisance to competently-driven medium tanks or bigger.

Cheers for the responses guys. Yeah, the very occasional tank crew overcoming a two-man faust team with a grease gun and pistols vs. Kar 98ks at <30m range might be relatively realistic and a neat possibility within the game. It's just that it seems almost standard procedure and a platoon of infantry being needed to protect the faust team after each kill that gets me a bit. How about the Platoon leaders and gunners accounting for the huge majority of squad casualties suffered? Do others experience this? Is it because they spend less time in cover/ are more likely to be targeted/ etc.?

Hi guys. I've been playing for a few weeks now and really enjoying it. BF have done an outstanding job and I rarely like to criticise their efforts but there are just one or two issues I wanted to discuss. I know they might have come up before but I didn't think I saw a proper answer as to whether the issue would be investigated. I just played Barkmann's Corner for the first time. I had two AT teams and a Panzerschreck in the wooded area on my far right flank with the teams' two parent squads a few metres behind them. They carried out a perfect ambush on the first Sherman that rolled up, which fell to the first Faust fired its way. The crew were bailing when it brewed up, unfortunately for them. Next turn, two more Shermans were taken out by the AT guys, but this time all ten tank crewmen made it out ok and immediately started suppressing the buggery out of my men with their Colts. Next turn I moved up the two full squads to take out the crewmen, only to have the US tankers charge into the forest, killing 6 of my soldiers for no loss. One of my squads was rattled enough that they fled. I have now lost control of the forested area and taken 12 casualties, all caused by tankers' pistols. Now, my men were only 30m from the tanks when the crews bailed and weren't in command, so I can understand that the tankers' weapons could be quite effective, but this isn't the first time I've had a multi-unit AT ambush routed by the dead tanks' crews. I'd almost rather leave the buggers in the tanks where they aren't causing me any trouble! I can't help but feel that tankers shouldn't be in any fit state to overcome two infantry squads very often at all, and even less often when they've just left a knocked out vehicle. Secondly, I am now convinced that my MG42 gunners and Squad Leaders are far more likely to be hit than any other squad member. Is this a feature representing Allied soldiers picking their targets or something? Thirdly, if you have an SPG which has been immobilised, how can you tell where the limits of its horizontal gun traverse are? I'm trying to area fire with a crippled Stummel in a PBEM at the moment, but I have no way of knowing how far to the side is too far for the gun to traverse and if I target somewhere too far to the side the Stummel spends the minute doing nothing. I think that's it for now. Apart from the discussion points above this game is a work of art. I love it!

The way I read it was more that the haste (in a political sense) with which the British and French colonies were abandoned, which was forced upon them by the economic exhaustion both suffered due to WWII, was what lead to the unstable state of 'tribalism and chaos' in so many countries behind them. But yeah - any more useful tidbits regarding hedgerow warfare, anyone? Was the standard German tactical defence at a local level a static one (maybe due to a shortage of manpower)? Or, once they'd identified the particular field(s) through which the Americans had broken, was there an attempt to press forward on either side of it and interdict the advance from the hedgerows on the flanks? I'd have though that, in this way, you could quickly persuade the US forces to pull back again, or at least wait while the 'shoulders' of the breakthrough were widened to relieve the pressure on the point of the advance.

Ok, so with a thin water strip at one map edge we literally have everything required for a beach scenario except landing craft? I think we even have hedgehogs, etc.? Right, so surely that's the issue settled. Anyone who wants Omaha beach can have Omaha beach.

A quick question for someone in the know: Do 'rivers' in CM:BN maps have to have two shores, or can one shore coincide with the map edge? If the latter then we can quite easily have a perfectly workable Omaha shoreline depicted, no?

Yeah, as I understand it anything that substantially disrupts the delicate plasma penetrator from a shaped charge warhead before it hits your main armour is a major bonus. I have heard that sandbags made KE projectiles more likely to penetrate the plate beneath though; maybe because they make ricochets unlikely and are prone to simply normalise the projectile onto the plate?

On this map, at these ranges, nobody has any meaningful advantage in terms of armour quality. I expect every tank/ TD on the map should pretty reliably penetrate any other from any aspect with one shot. Do all of the Pz IVHs on the map have very fast turrets to match the Shermans'? That could be one source of an advantage for the US side if not.

Typhoons should be fun to play with but it would be inaccurate to include Mossies as ground attack aircraft over Normandy. The Commonwealth forces should be provided with Typhoons and Spitfires only. Nothing else would be accurate except, perhaps, a few Mustangs. In later periods of the war Tempests could be added to the Commonwealth's arsenal with zero effort since they would be identical to Typhoons in terms of their effects on the battlefield. Tempests weren't used as ground attack aircraft over Normandy as far I remember though. Either way I think the only difference we can expect to see between different aircraft is that strafing runs by German and Commonwealth aircraft will be noticeably more destructive than those by US aircraft due to the use of 20mm (and possibly 30mm, depending on which Fw190A-8 BF chose) cannon. Otherwise the ordnance loadouts for all the included aircraft are more or less comparable, except for the Spitfire, which carried such a laughably light ordnance load that it was only ever used for ground attack because their were sod-all airborne targets for it to hunt. Now, if BF got round to depicting different (accurate) silhouettes for each aircraft as it zoomed over the battlefield, that would be cool. If they went the extra mile and included accurate sounds for each aircraft type... well, suffice it to say... bloody brilliant stuff, Steve!

You are making sense, Aslakh, I just didn't understand the first time. Perhaps you're right. I just think that air power would be great to simulate in CM but, if it is simulated, it must be unpredictable in every way, otherwise it won't be realistic and will ruin immersion rather than enhance it. Perhaps Yankeedog has the best idea - players could buy CAS strikes as just another form of off-map artillery, but one which must be used during the setup phase on a pre-registered target. The time of the strike should be random and no indication given to the user as to when it would arrive. Better?

I'm not sure I understand you mate, sorry. What 'random machinery' would be eliminated? If you buy 6 Panthers, lose four to pre-battle attrition and two to additional attrition as a result of an off-map Allied CAS strike hitting their fuel supply, you end up with zero Panthers. Welcome to warfare! The fun in CM games is in making do with what you have, whatever that ends up being. I think my idea adds yet another frustrating but engrossing level to the unpredictability that should permeate every level of a game aiming to accurately portray Normandy 1944.

Yeah, I meant heavy as in a large number of light AA units. I realise that the only real place for heavy AA in CM is as an AT unit, ironically. The WWII Air War is actually kind of my speciality, as opposed to the ground war. I find both fascinating though and would love to see the effects of CAS accurately modelled in a game such as CM. I realise there are other threads but I always find that, once they have run their course, there's no harm in opening a new one in order to run a fresh idea through the mill. Otherwise it would just be a forgotten footnote to a hundred other technically related comments. P.S. I would consider 75mm as 'heavy' as well, although 'medium' might be a more suitable description. As far as I'm concerned, light AA only counts rifle calibre up to 37mm autocannon. 40mm Bofors would be medium, for example.

I was thinking today about how air support should/ could be modelled in CM:N. I had the following idea: Now, we all know that air support was extremely difficult to coordinate properly in WWII and was rarely, if ever, able to inflict significant material damage to troops and vehicles involved in frontline combat. The vast majority of the damage done was to supply trains and military columns behind the lines, which translated into fewer/ less effective forces at the front. In CM:N, then, how about if Air Support is a purchasable option with three possible outcomes: Most likely, it would translate into an off-map, pre-battle strike by aircraft which would translate into the battle as increased pre-battle attrition to the target team. For example, force casualties may be set at 10%, then the Allied player buys Air Support, which translates into an additional 0% (unlikely), 3-7% (likely) or 10% (unlikely) casualties, condition deterioration or ammunition shortage for the Germans before the units arrive on map. Secondly, the Air Support Could arrive on map in the form of one or sometimes two aircraft in a similar way to the CMx1 series, causing serious morale deterioration to targetted soft troops or inexperienced AFV crews, but little material damage (apart from the odd 500lb landscape remodelling effort ). Thirdly, Air Support could appear as a reduced pre-battle attrition effect on the enemy and a drastically reduced-duration appearance on-map at an earlier (on average) stage of the battle. This third option is there mainly in order to avoid players 'knowing' what support will turn up in-game by the effects seen on pre-battle attrition. Players could choose to purchase any of these three options, in preference to the default random assignment, but that would only marginally increase the odds of the preferred option occurring. Off the top of my head I'm thinking odds could be 70% pure off-map attrition effect, 20% on-map arrival and 10% a bit of both. Everything in this idea is biased towards 'CAS' being unpredictable in every way, but potentially very damaging to the enemy. What do people think? At the same time, buying AA assets could have a small adverse effect on the effectiveness of Air Support by slightly reducing the damage taken in pre-battle strikes and/ or by deterring on-map aircraft from making as many attack runs as they usually would (heavy AAA presence may even completely deter CAS pilots from making any more than one, hurried attack). P.S. Obviously BF have already decided how to model Air Support in CM:N but, since I don't know their preferred system and thought this sounded like a good idea, I thought I'd stick it out there for light-hearted discussion, at least.

T-34/85s will reliably kill Jagdtigers from the flanks at range. Late-war T-34/76s will also kill them from the flanks below 100m or so, or from longer range using tungsten ammo. If you kept your Jagdtigers facing the T-34s at range then the T-34s didn't kill them and you are mistaken. Simple as that.

Absolutely the Russians have a large advantage: Either the StuG is keyholed and the Russians hit German infantry from positions out of the StuG's LOS, or the StuG has a wide field of view and is engaged from three separate angles by the SUs and then finally by the T-34, once the StuG is committed to engaging one of the thinner targets. There are also, of course, a great number of other factors that will affect the situation (as you mention) but it still sounds like a fascinating challenge to me. The StuG is a powerful weapon that can kill any of the opposition from range. One of the opposition can do likewise - where's the problem?

Blackvoid, your StuG (assuming it is a G model or later) outmatches the SU-76s and is at a slight disadvantage in a duel with a T-34/85. Use your StuG and support weapons as overwatch over one covered route of advance, up which you push your (presumably superior) infantry. Any SUs that try and intervene against your infantry are killed by the StuG. If the T-34 appears it will probably concede first shot to your StuG, which has a good chance of killing it, and anyway the T-34 is by no means certain of winning any resultant duel. If terrain doesn't allow you to cover your advance then there is nothing you can do about it, even with a whole platoon of StuGs - the Russians will land HE amongst your men before your StuGs can eliminate the threat. Whether terrain is favourable or not, one StuG Ausf.G versus three SU76s and a T-34/85 is an interesting and challenging matchup.

Does the 17 pdr's AP projectile not have a higher muzzle velocity, lesser drag and therefore a significantly flatter trajectory at range than the Kwk 36 L/56's? That would, all else being equal, make it significantly quicker and easier for a 17 pdr gunner to hit targets (especially Tiger-sized ones) at longer battle ranges because small errors in range judgement wouldn't matter so much.

Slightly OT but, to explain a curiosity someone brought up, the British Army fought against the Crown in the 1640s (in the form of the New Model Army, of course). I think that screwed their chances of receiving the 'Royal' prefix and it's never been altered since.

Area Fire next to them with a spare crew member or something. Shouldn't be powerful enough to make them crawl away but should kill/ injure them before the crew's pistol ammo runs out. I imagine that will accomplish your aims, although it might take a few minutes.

SMG troops. Alternatively I'd have given my right arm (or a platoon of Shermans) for a heavy FO. Think of the havoc I could have caused with a few flights of 122mm or 152mm HE. Failing that an OT-34 or two may have been fun as well... Any better ideas?

I know what you mean - I certainly felt in this game as though I had to play every move very cautiously so as not to suffer a hammer blow to any of my units. I think that was partly due to the bad weather, which meant that any blow I did receive could potentially be dealt by an unobserved unit at point-blank range. I think in the end though that my heavy over-reliance on general-purpose armour cost me a great deal on a wet, muddy, foggy, hilly, built-up and extensively forested map. Combine that with my selection of an infantry type particularly ill-suited to combat at ~100m range and it always was going to feel like an uphill struggle. In contrast Mylgas had very wisely selected an excellent infantry-type for everything except an extended rifle-battle. Two Tigers in support should have ensured that my AFVs suffered heavily for trying to support my men's advance but I get the feeling they were heavily hampered by the ground conditions. That said, I am still fairly proud to have avoided losing a single AFV whilst at the same time killing one of two Tigers. If I were to recommend for Mylgas to improve anything about his gameplay it would be his use and management of armoured units. In our first game he sold a succession of potent AFVs short by mis-managing them and allowing me to take unnopposed flank shots at them. In this game his two Tigers were almost entirely unable to impact on a 1000pt game despite being within 3-400m of the action for the majority of the battle - something has to be going wrong there. Any ideas anybody?

Turn 30 Within 5 seconds of the restart my heart is in my mouth as three, yes, three Panzerschrecks open fire simultaneously. Each rocket round misses, but the next 30 seconds becomes a frantic death-race between Panzerschreck teams frantically reloading and loosing 88mm HC rounds at my tanks and the crews of the latter equally frantically spraying MG and HE rounds towards every likely-looking sound contact: By outrageous good luck not a single Schreck round of the 8-9 fired finds its target, and two of the guilty teams are completely wiped out by return fire by the end of the minute. As the minute ends I am stunned to find the endgame screen! I had completely forgotten (for the second time during this game...) that we had a 'solid' 30 minute time limit on this game! No wonder Mylgas launched such a furious, yet risky assault on my armour in the last minute! So there it is. I'm a little disappointed actually. What this result screen says to me is that I was far, far too cautious. I bloodied Mylgas' nose in terms of casualties, but by letting him control the flag without a fight I handed him a way out of defeat. What do you all think? And you, Mylgas? A quick look at the map shows what my forces were up against: A reinforced Grenadier company which is more than capable of holding ground once allowed into defensible positions. The three platoons of men Mylgas had are circled in red above. The nearest is only 50m or so from my point forces and was completely undetected. All of a sudden I'm glad I didn't push any further forwards! As it turns out the 'flanking force' on my far right was only Mylgas' heavy weapons platoon. He must have been planning to set it up on the hilltop. Overall a great game to play though - sorry I couldn't bring you guys another swashbuckling victory!

Turn 29 Another quiet minute. I think Mylgas must think himself safe, points-wise. I am currently hoping that my units are close enough to the flag to dispute control of it. The only item of note to occur was the setting-ablaze of Mylgas' flanking units' rubble-cover: