Childress

I find it amazing the the NY Times would review CMBO. Not because of the game's ground breaking nature but due to that newspaper's, er, orientation at that time and which has moved increasingly in a that direction over that past 16 years. 2000: Annus Mirabilis.

Also, in the Demo I noticed that vehicles and infantry can pass through low hedges, albeit slowly. IIRC, this behavior was verboten in the other games.

Not considered 'small arms' but the game might reflect that Allied troops often ditched their PIATs and Bazookas for captured Panzerfausts. Apparently it was rather common.

That might change if BF invested in a slick, automated MP matchmaking service a la Battlefield Academy and some other gaming companies- no Dropbox, no intricate file exchanges, no hunting down and negotiating with opps. But that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

I'd go farther than that. A Meeting Engagement in the CM sense, precisely equal combat factors on both sides, NEVER happened in WW2. It's as mythical as the Unicorn. However, based on my PBEM experiences, those who favor MEs are the most competitive, skilled and ruthless players in the game. They tended to care little about Mods or historicity and often refused to countenance any other kind of battle for PBEMs- in other words, a breed apart.

Never encountered any inhibition in using mortars however dense the forest. Buildings, yes.

Yep, the one second from the left. The Germs could have laid down a decent smoke screen with all that puffing.

You're a generous man, George. A dozen or so years ago on a racing forum I pm'ed an Italian chap if he wanted my extra video card. Unable to afford one himself, he was stunned with gratitude. He said that's something only an American would do, not a 'European' kind of gesture. Take it for what it's worth. And, yes, I realize you're a Scot.

Very interesting. I read that when US troops surrendered- and they surrendered in quantity during the Bulge-the first thing the Germans did was to strip the POWs of their Lucky Strikes. Hitler was a smoking abolitionist, in some ways a proto-progressive on the subject (and others like disarming civilians), but gave up in the face of the Landsers' nicotine demands. Resolved: the great number of smokers among the troops, the more formidable the army.

Surprising that Hasso von Manteuffel's commentary was in German. He was said to have spoken perfect, idiomatic English and, in fact, gave lectures to American military colleges in that language after the war. And I find it striking that in the video US troopers (and Germans) were constantly lighting up cigarettes. WW2 was a nicotine fueled victory. Take that, smoking abolitionists.

With CM2 troops entering a room expand out to the walls. I seem to recall that in CM1 the player could re-position soldiers within in the room, for example moving back from the windows, useful for reducing visibility or laying a trap against entering enemies. Result: more micro management. Could be mistaken, tho'.

Harry, Wikipedia has a useful entry on the misery and frustration of fighting in the Hurtgen: The German defenders had prepared the area with blockhouses, minefields, barbed wire, and booby-traps, hidden by the snow. There were also numerous bunkers in the area, mostly belonging to the deep defenses of the Siegfried Line, which were also centers of resistance. The dense forest allowed infiltration and flanking attacks and it was sometimes difficult to establish a front line or to be confident that an area had been cleared of the enemy. The small numbers of routes and clearings had also allowed German machine-gun, mortar and artillery teams to pre-range their weapons and fire accurately. Apart from the bad and very cold weather, the dense forest and rough terrain also prevented proper use of the Allied air superiority, which presented great difficulties in spotting any targets. The American advantage in numbers (as high as 5:1), armor, mobility, and air support was greatly reduced by weather and terrain. In the forest, relatively small numbers of determined and prepared defenders could be highly effective. To exacerbate matters, as the American divisions took casualties, inexperienced recruits were brought up to the front as replacements.[6]:454, 468–69 The impenetrable forest also limited the use of tanks and hid anti-tank teams equipped withpanzerfausts. Improvised rocket launchers were made, using rocket tubes from aircraft and spare jeep trailers. Later in the battle, it proved necessary to blast tank routes through the forest. Transport was similarly limited by the lack of routes: at critical times, it proved difficult to reinforce or supply front-line units or to evacuate their wounded. The tall forest canopy also favored the defenders. Artillery fire was fused to detonate as tree bursts. While defenders were protected from shell fragments (and wooden splinters from the trees) by their dug-in defensive positions, attackers in the open were much more vulnerable.[notes 3] Conversely, U.S. mortar platoons needed clearings in which to work: these were few and dangerous, being pre-ranged by German troops, so mortar support was often unavailable to rifle platoons.

For the love of God, Bulletpoint, find a girlfriend. Of the shapely and imposing sort, you know, Junoesque. Similar to Kim Kardashian, but with a brain. And minus the bagage.

' Forest tiles (particular the heavy one) is good for blocking out vehicular movements at parts of a map, when needed, but beside that, I make my own forest and underbrush tile substitues (as you know). ' Reading accounts of the Hurtgen Forest campaign you encounter the frustration of mortar teams finding it difficult to find open spaces under the heavily wooded canopy from which to lob their shells. It seems that the CM engine cannot account for this limitation.

When did the Allies actually use tank riders, outside of pre-engagement taxiing? They were well stocked with half tracks. Archival footage does show their use during and before the Bulge due to increasing fuel constraints. American soldiers didn't ride tanks into battle as a matter of practice like the Germans did, but there are a number of photos that show GIs sitting on the engine deck of a Sherman here or there, most famously during Operation Cobra breakout from Normandy and crossing the Siegfried Line.

'Turd forests.' LOL. Men! Put on your galoshes!

'Would´ve revolved around the actions of the 60th Infantry Regiment, (9th Inf. Div.), between 22nd to 25th of september 1944, as described in this AAR: ' 'Would've'? Do it, RH. Lots of CMers will dig it. Just that infantry slogs under forest canopies are not my cup of tea (as indicated*). Go full Monty and make a Hurtgen Forest campaign once the Bulge game is released.

'Glad, I didn´t kept working on my Todtenbruch scenario, which makes about 95% heavy forest and pure infantry! ' No, go for it! Les gouts and les couleurs ne se discutent pas.

Not mentioning any names and I salute the designers. But... 1- Heavily wooded infantry battles, as in 70%+ of the map. (personal preference) 2- The units are not faced correctly, for example facing the rear as in the one I d'loaded yesterday. 3- Formation elements like infantry squads that are dispersed over the setup zone for no tactical reason and have to be re-grouped into platoons. 4- The entire force is graded as Crack or Elite. With rare exceptions, these battles get deleted immediately. 5- Reinforcements not mentioned in the Briefing. Anyone else with pet peeves?

A rather dire prognosis, ME. Care to elaborate?

Or that any government attempt to modify the behavior of its citizens in the interest of 'health', however well intentioned, is rooted in a fascistic impulse. The counter-argument is that the authorities have a legitimate interest if one's behavior negatively affects others. E.g., 'second hand smoke'.

Robert N. Proctor's 2000 book, The Nazi War on Cancer, stirred controversy in academic circles by taking a look at the healthy side of the Nazi empire. He gives readers a thoroughly researched account of German medical science, posing uncomfortable questions about the ultimate worth of good research carried out under the auspices of evil. Mostly ignored at first Proctor's oeuvre is now attracting more attention than ever, notably among health activists and interventionist policy wonks. Or is this merely a case of a broken clock being right twice a day? His previous book dealt with Nazi medical horrors. (he deplored them) It received 3.5 stars on Amazon.http://www.amazon.com/The-Nazi-Cancer-Robert-Proctor/dp/0691070512 From his publisher, Princeton University Press: Collaboration in the Holocaust. Murderous and torturous medical experiments. The "euthanasia" of hundreds of thousands of people with mental or physical disabilities. Widespread sterilization of "the unfit." Nazi doctors committed these and countless other atrocities as part of Hitler's warped quest to create a German master race. Robert Proctor recently made the explosive discovery, however, that Nazi Germany was also decades ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as progressive and socially responsible. Most startling, Nazi scientists were the first to definitively link lung cancer and cigarette smoking. Proctor explores the controversial and troubling questions that such findings raise: Were the Nazis more complex morally than we thought? Can good science come from an evil regime? What might this reveal about health activism in our own society? Proctor argues that we must view Hitler's Germany more subtly than we have in the past. But he also concludes that the Nazis' forward-looking health activism ultimately came from the same twisted root as their medical crimes: the ideal of a sanitary racial utopia reserved exclusively for pure and healthy Germans. Author of an earlier groundbreaking work on Nazi medical horrors, Proctor began this book after discovering documents showing that the Nazis conducted the most aggressive anti-smoking campaign in modern history. Further research revealed that Hitler's government passed a wide range of public health measures, including restrictions on asbestos, radiation, pesticides, and food dyes. Nazi health officials introduced strict occupational health and safety standards, and promoted such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. These policies went hand in hand with health propaganda that, for example, idealized the Führer's body and his nonsmoking, vegetarian lifestyle. Proctor shows that cancer also became an important social metaphor, as the Nazis portrayed Jews and other "enemies of the Volk" as tumors that must be eliminated from the German body politic. This is a disturbing and profoundly important book. It is only by appreciating the connections between the "normal" and the "monstrous" aspects of Nazi science and policy, Proctor reveals, that we can fully understand not just the horror of fascism, but also its deep and seductive appeal even to otherwise right-thinking Germans.

And here I was thinking you were going to bring up Bletchley Park. Or this:

Yeah! We're all nerds here. And don't confuse nerds with geeks. Nerds love to use to use jargon or unfamiliar terminology in their dialogue, whereas geeks will use obscure references rarely. Geeks don't populate IT departments.

Never getting past battle#2, I find it amazing that players can actually win this campaign. Or that BF decided to include it in version 1, one suspects that it turned off a considerable number of new CMers. And what was a laborious grind turned into Sisyphean futility once MGs got a testosterone injection in the patch. Hats off!