Childress

Which eliminates historical scenarios. Or limits them to no replays. That's not what CM is about. Unknown or partially known terrain factors is only suitable for QBs drawn on the fly. Also a battle conducted in an urban zone, a well mapped out city like Arnhem or Berlin, does not much suffer from the mystery factor. Unless, perhaps, it's bombed to cinders prior to entry by the enemy. Terrain FOW will never happen.

Controversial assertion. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1478104&highlight=LINE+ABREAST#post1478104T Would the addition of realistic formations be worth the effort to implement them? The money line from Steve: Absolutely not. The small degree of beneficial change (i.e. a realistic use of formational doctrine) is way out of proportion to the costs of having them. He did consider adding your skirmish line in future versions. But photographic evidence is meager even for this formation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr1bdanv9tw The Tank School of the United States Marines! Bad boy! See how Freshmen Rookies Fresh out of Bootcamp get their training to know and fight into an M1A1 Abrams tank! Trough Basic Training, Homework and later on The Target range.

It's not clear... or documented. Simulating it the game wouldn't appear a problem. Just data entry- if they're willing to forgo graphical adjustments.

Agreed. Penalties were even more draconian during the Napoleonic era. One wrinkle that BF may consider introducing is panicked abandonment by crew members, notably those with low morale and dodgy motivation. Unless that exists already. Re: spotting. Does German flashless powder modify the concealment factors of AT guns?

Like a force an entire force composed of AA vehicles....

Maybe. Also the outnumbered side fights to the death like Custer at Little Big Horn. Wir kapitulieren! We need more surrenderin'. But I don't think the interiors require more detailing. Abstraction is fine- and elegantly handled, imho. This isn't an FPS. And you don't want to wait two years for the next engine upgrade.

Never. With two replays. Maybe something to do with Fast mode?

I'm familiar with Jon's scenario. The Stug passed under the bridge with no problem on Fast and gunned down a slew of fleeing paras. Graphically it does appear like a tight fit.

C'mon. Let me win this argument. The girlfriend's standing right behind me.

I don't know. But I doubt it's something Battlefront would get wrong. Perhaps the guns spend too much time turning and too little time acquiring. That may be for ease of programming and constitutes mere chrome. Acquisition and rotation could well be occurring simultaneously, hence the perceived slowness. Fewer lines of code for the same result. It's the end product that counts: the interval in seconds from sighting to firing. That's what needs to be tested, not traverse speed.

Disagree with all your points, or at least the 'severely' qualifier. The mobility issue might apply to early war AT guns ( ) but not to the increasingly massive pieces common after '44. Dismounting and remounting might be cool but would encourage gamey abuse. And crews did not abandon their guns lightly. Guns that haven't moved since start up are considered 'concealed'. To get the most out of AT guns you need to use them at least in pairs on a deep map. Finally if one considers that BF likely designed sighting, turning and acquiring as a unitary process the fire delivery time is probably right on. Or close to it.

Yours is a common complaint. But swiveling the gun in the direction of the threat is only part of the process. The crew needs to 'acquire' the target and will spend x number of seconds doing so. That likely accounts for the delay even if not graphically depicted. This isn't the OK Corral. So.... keeping moving, nothing to see here.

Wiki: The use of tank desant was only prescribed within the first kilometer of the forward edge of the combat area for only the simplest of tactical mission objectives, since the circumstances would be difficult for the troops engaged. Riding on tanks during actual combat is very dangerous. Tank riders are very vulnerable to machine gun and high explosive fire, and the high silhouette of most tanks would draw enemy fire. Smoke and covering fire may be used to reduce the hazards. Tank riding is mostly used when troops need to move faster than is possible on foot and there is a shortage of motor transport or armoured personnel carriers. Usually, the infantry and their heavy weapons were assigned to specific tanks well before the execution of the mission. This allowed the infantry to become familiar with the tanks and train with the tank crews. Support platforms for the heavy weapons were sometimes attached to the tanks to allow firing on the move. Ropes were attached to provide hand-holds for the infantry. The number of infantry assigned to a tank depended on the class of the tank; the usual numbers were: Heavy tank, 10-12 soldiers Medium tank, 8-10 soldiers Light tank, 5-6 soldiers Tank desant would be used in such a way as to ensure surprise, approaching during a snow storm or mist or employing either smoke grenades or a smoke screen prepared by sappers or laid down by artillery. Simulating this tactic for the Soviets seems to suggest that squads be splittable if smaller tanks can only accommodate 5-6 men. Maybe BF fudges this. The article also specifies that they riders would dismount not at but within the kilometer radius, as Jason points out. Tank desant was best employed by nations with a lot of manpower to spend. One assumes that the game will allot a certain number of infantry slots for each AFV. The first slots filled should offer the best cover. Obviously a fully manned squad would find achieving maximum protection problematical. Will riders dismount under fire? Not if the vehicles are on on Fast but only on Hunt? This is gonna be challenging.

Points gleaned on tank riders: The tank desant doctrine was primarily employed by the Russians who, it's alleged, lacked sufficient personnel carriers or failed to master the intricacies of tank–infantry co-operation. Some Soviet historians, like Zaloga, judged the tactic wasteful; costly in men and the suppressive fire laid down by the riders ineffectual. German troops rarely (41-42) and Allied troops apparently never resorted to the desant doctrine. Tanks functioned as pre-engagement taxis only. One notices that the troops in the video are sitting upright as in church pews, in reality they tended to shelter as best they could behind the turret unless a matter of simple transport. how to take screenshots The tankodesantniki normally rode into battle under smoke screens and typically jumped off a kilometer from the enemy line. Or earlier if under heavy MG or mortar fire- unlike the video. Red Army doctrine stipulated cavalry support, notably in the early years of the war.

Surely you're not suggesting there's a cross-dressing impulse in evidence here?

Good luck! This could prove exceedingly complex.

You're on to something there, Atheist. Provocative concept! How about a graphic of a trooper, scared ****less, cowering in a foxhole and heaving his guts out? Or simply hung over on pilfered Bordeaux?

Speaking of the HW (big fun), are we going to be able to break Soviet squads into teams? Just Guard units? Or will they resemble the Italians with their inflexible structure?

Battlefront has shown high standards. If they released an grand/tactical, operational sim it would be of a quality commensurate with the Combat Mission series. They'd be satisfied with nothing less. The only war games in that genre that currently offer the same kind of fidelity, realism and attention to detail are the Command Ops series* from Panther Games. They own that niche. And the real time format renders it unsuitable as strategy level companion to CM. *Their demos left me with a feeling of detachment.

That's an impressive list. How about categorizing tank crews according to their mount, e.g MK IVs or Tigers, and permitting them to jump into any available un-crewed vehicle for which they're qualified? Like Wittmann at Villers Bocage. Surely not a coding mountain to climb.

When using mortars the player needs to take wind strength and direction into account? News to me. The spotter makes those adjustments, no?

My gripe with this scenario was that the German attack is funneled into kill zones by the the solid wall of gap-less Low Bocage protecting the town. It struck me as artificial so I posted about it. Two years ago. So, motivated by this thread, I fired it up again. Now... the LB tiles show gaps. Hmmm... So thumbs up on its present state.

The main issue, aside from the absence of CM1's Combined Arms option, is, imo, the wonky force selection. At first the AI was overly fond of buying wall to wall anti-tank guns. Now, since AA guns and vehicles were introduced, you get a heavy allotment of these units. You can buy the AI's force- which kind of defeats the purpose.

Is there is a higher criterium? If there is I want to know it.