Vark

I think the subject of tanks crushing AT guns (which only have to have their trail legs or barrel damaged to KO them) also brings up another omission, the physical impact a tank has, often on poorly trained infantry. It's not for nothing infantry are called 'crunchies', by some tankers, the fear of being crushed is part of the impact of a tank, put a conscript infantry platoon, in the open and charge them with a company of tanks, do any run or suffer a morale penalty automatically?

If you have 'It Never Snows in September', it gives you a better idea about why that was. As a German said after being attacked by the Russians, 'it cost them a lot of men and tanks, but it drove us from our prepared positions in three hours'. Most Western forces could not be so cavalier in expending lives, so went for expending hours of preparation and relatively cautious attacks. Womble, thought your squad is split using assault but the interval, between both teams, is too long. Micro-managing both teams is the solution, albeit time-consuming.

I'm finding the, Spartan like morale a bit hard to take as well, especially when attacked from the flank, traditionally a big blow to morale. I've no problems with the abstraction of interiors, but using whole squads/teams to clear the 'rooms' whilst using an action point system, does not allow you to simulate correct tactics (one person/tactical pairs exposing themselves whilst being covered). I found the CM1 experience sometimes a better representation to be honest.

In reality, flame throwers were used in the fighting, both the man-portable and vehicle mounted varieties, before that, direct HE into each storey, from top to bottom. Urban fighting in CM2 is excessively bloody, as the commands available to attacking forces are too restrictive and the simulation of the interiors too abstracted. I find halting as soon as you enter a structure, at the first action point, helps, Chainsaws, storm in and grenade everything does work, but ends up in exhausting grenades which cannot be replaced. As for using the assault tactics, don't. The moving team are going fast and blunder into any ambush, the supporting team are often too far away. I normally go quick, up to buildings, area fire, quick inside and wait.

We also have a strange situation where buildings now attract too much fire, as they can be targeted effectively, whereas area fire is far less effective for the weapons who regularly used it. As has said before, CM is a squad based, squad led game, the platoons are just there to provided an accurate TO&E, not to represent the realities of command. If it were, your most important units would be the HQ runners and platoon company HQ units. CM1's platoon and company HQ's special abilities were a passing genuflection to C3, which CM2 has all but dropped but it failed to represent the strategic corporal concept, which C2 does so much better. At the heart of it, this is the games Achilles heel and it's a testament to the quality of the products design and the dedication of BF staff that it has not proved commercially fatal. The only alternative is miniature wargaming, with double blind systems, which require far more resources and crucially time to set up and play. AA, you forgot the, guides bringing forward the second company, at 23:00, mistake a key marker and it takes two hours to sort the confusion out, delaying the whole operation. Or regrouping the company after a successful night time assault takes 45 minutes, using flares and whistles.

It might be an idea, in a turn based game, to have units selected by a ranking order of visible contacts. If a unit has no spots it goes first, once movement and any firing is decided it cannot be changed, rather like the touching rule in chess. Units would also have to continue their current movement path unless their knowledge of the enemy changed.

I actually found those rules very helpful when plotting infantry moves. Down in the weeds, so to speak you were far more aware of terrain. The problem I'm finding with CM2 is the lack of fidelity when moving units using the action spot system, it's an approximation now, less of a skill. More like a conventional board game, with a set number of possibilities. Though terrain modelling in CM2 is more accurate.

1. CM does not model area fire effectively, linear concentrations by supporting SFMG's being an obvious example. 2. Units historically use ammunition in prodigious quantities, area firing any suspected enemy position. It's why most AFV's carried quantities of MG ammo measured in the thousands, in CM use of area fire is more discriminate, given the careful plotting required to effect a typical pattern. As for command delays, it certainly stopped the multi-waypoint, grand palooza, that you sometimes see in AAR's, being responded to with no time penalty. This allows far too much flexibility. Another bone of contention, and perhaps the most serious is the effects of being out of command. For a tactical wargame, the effects of command and control really need a make over. Theoretically, a Russian conscript unit can execute a complex series of movement orders, whilst being out of command control, in response to events beyond the knowledge of it's higher command elements.

Interesting to play CMBB classic scenarios such as Jagermeister in the new game and see how they play out differently. Variable spotting will have a big impact, especially as T-34's have no rear facing periscopes, a paucity of RT equipment and must be buttoned to open fire. Then again a Soviet Pak front will not be eliminated by a barrage of shots within seconds and non-penetrating shots from ATR's can slowly wound even the big cats. The problem I see is the ability of the Soviets to be far too flexible, tactically. Gone are the crude but workable command delays, so what to stop a Soviet rifle company/ tank platoon reacting with unhistoric rapidity to a flanking attack?

Simple, execute the Kirk strategy and re-programme the scenario!

When I saw these last year, what surprised me was their speed on good x-country terrain.

Pretty amazing SA for a buttoned WWII tank. Why weren't the 251's reversing like hell out of there? I'm sure I saw a few engage with MG's, more sensible would be get out of LOS and drop tank hunter teams to stalk the uber-tank, surely?

Bug, or have the Allies been given magical capabilities? I'm thinking a rock to mud spell and some sort of temporal distortion.

I certainly think the number of posters on the forum has dropped, from the CMBB days, what that says is anyone's guess. I certainly think scenario design is far more involved than those days when I would happily plan and design a quick scenario, for my own use, but CM2 simply takes too long, too involved and is therefore, for me, less enjoyable.

This looks interesting, shame about the 89 timeline, less of a challenge by then. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a7a741603297 http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/08/wot-i-think-flashpoint-campaigns-red-storm/

D) Try and bail out, but, after a few futile attempts at opening the hatch lever, realise one of my hands is missing the other only has three fingers and one of my eyes refuses to function. E) Sit in a catatonic shock, drenched with the viscera from what used to be the gunner, whilst the loader tries to manhandle me out of the turret, fracturing my ankle and dislocating my shoulder in the process.

Your tank has been hit by an unidentified enemy weapon and starts to fill with smoke, there are injured crew who need assistance. Do you a) Pull the jack out of your headphones, and help drag the wounded gunner out of the tank, taking seconds. Then administer first aid and try to crawl back undetected or Grab the SMG and extra magazines, check your pistol, ignore the injured crewman, then bail out looking for the enemy to engage.

I take it the behaviour in SF is different, bailed crews fight ridiculously well. A veteran tanker does not fight like a veteran foot soldier. One simple mechanic would be to drop the morale and proficiency, the moment they bail and their proficiency the moment they dismount.

People before PC's Bil, always. Even if its a PC, playing CM!

There is also the problem that exquisite micro-managing and timing is needed, and it sometimes gets vey confusing where an interior building exits and entrances are. That and the fact grenades cannot be resupplied, makes MOUT even more a PITA than in real life. One mistake, in assigning a way point or mode and a team/squad can be destroyed, whereas in real life units have SOP's for assaulting buildings and room clearance.

I thinks SMG fire is far too effective, and will once again, in Bagration, lead to the Papasha death squads. IIRC, an SMG's main role is to give far more effective suppressive fire whilst moving, or at close range, snap targets.

Wonder if the German player will complain when a company of SU-152's, in the Bagration game, open up in direct fire? If I remember correctly, in Aachen they, the Germans, hid in the cellars and had to be rooted out by grenades and flamethrowers. Still finding urban combat is a pain due to micro-managing, it would be nice to have actions keyed to a different units waypoint. So the second squad only enters house B, when first squad reaches x, instead of trying to guestimate the time taken.

There's a reason the Germans methodically shelled each building, storey by storey, before their final push against the British in Arnhem.

Or, he's exploiting the fact that the game allows him to waste men and not really suffer. Bil is fighting a realistic, typically cautious battle, in keeping with his forces, Ken is trying to simulate a mini-Ragnarok, with PIAT shots no veteran would even contemplate, let alone execute. I always thought it was easier to defend in CM, because soldiers would only break if routed by gunfire, not a tank racing towards them, or if they discovered they had been outflanked. The CM1 games got slightly ludicrous as you sent soldiers racing ahead to try to gun down the fleeing enemy, if you were lucky, they might surrender to an AFV. A belligerent defender can extract a blood price that is usually ahistorical, and often unhinge a realistic assault.

One can only presume they are trying to model the blast venting out of the open topped vehicle. Still, with a fighting compartment crammed full of ammo and crew, perhaps a bit under-modelled. Vehicle crews still seem to be far too resilient to crew injuries, I suspect if a thinly armoured AA vehicle had lost its commander and radio, to a previously undetected weapon it would retire and play little further part in the combat. Heavier armoured vehicles have pulled out in similar situations.