snake_eye

****************SPOILERS**************** Hi Erwin, I have been pretty busy these late days. Sorry about the inconvenience. About the Marder immobilized. I had to look into the editor to have a recollection of why I had it immobilized. The main reason is that I found at the time that 3 Marders was a bit much as an asset. The second reason was that I wanted the mounted troopers to benefit of the panzerfausts carried by that Marder. They can be retrieved during the setup and distributed to the troopers. 2 Panzerfausts for one of the team and 3 for the other one. They have, that way an ample ammo load. Besides, the Fenneck is also carrying Panzerfausts. Naturally the 2 Plt HQ 4 men and the 2 men snipers team being without a Marder are at the time of the setup dismounted. The US forces Tiger’s 2 Plt doesn’t have Strykers available. That was also done to simulate what happens in RL when a force can not benefit of its normal vehicles strength due to mechanical break down, overhaul and or refitting. In what may concern your tactical choices, despite your losses in men and vehicles, I think that you made the right ones. However, you were maybe a bit aggressive and that might explain your losses. To be aggressive against known enemy forces whose location is clearly defined is a good choice. On the contrary if you don’t know what lies ahead, at the time of contact you will take the full brunt of the enemy fire. It is better to reconnoiter what lies ahead and to be cautious. That means, to have a small party leading and a stronger one overwatching and providing a fire support. At the same time you should have your flanks secured. In attacking Hill 54, you have to approach by the main road and establish a fire base at the bridge. No vehicles should go farther until the road sides have been cleared of a possible trigger man awaiting to blow an IED. You must check the left flank and keep at bay the Mujahideen’s force. The Marders can suppress the Hill 54 HMG to unable the ANA to approach its base prior to its assault. You must however suppress the oncoming fire from the right flank. That is not always that easy. Personally, I prefer to clear the RHS village and move to the edges of the plantations, in order to check the right flank. The ANA has to wait at the rear lower ground of Hill 54 during that clearing and eventually provide a fire base to help the elements attacking the village. Hill 54 HMG should have been silenced at that time either by snipers or rather by the MGS located on the right side of the airfield. Once the RHS village task is done and the right flank checked by suppressing fire, the ANA can start its assault on Hill 54, but it is wise to have at least one Marder moved forward and on the left of the road to check the hillocks on the left of it. When a clear picture is available, ANA elements with trucks can deploy and dismount in order to move tactically forward and provide an overwatch on these hillocks. So if the right flank is controlled and the same is done on the left one, the assault of Hill 54 can be attempted. From Hill 54 a new view of the battlefield will then be available and provide intelligence for the next step. Meanwhile the LHS village is just checked from the far left hillocks and no attempt are made for the time being to attack it, besides maintaining a constant overwatch on it. That way you can harass with mortars some enemy that might be seen. But have in mind that destroying village houses will get you penalized. Once you have a full control of the left flank and that you are able to prevent any troop move across your field of view, you can start your next tactical move. That is first, get up to Hassan hamlet, by pass it and run all the way down to the dam bridge and second to have sufficient troops coming in order to attack and clear the hamlet. It is possible to have a small force going up the mountain on the left and have it come abreast the cliff with the hamlet in full view down below. That way you might have an idea of what to do in order to clear it. To summarize it doesn’t matter of what you are doing, but you should be able any time to protect and check your flanks as you are doing it for your forward frontage. If you forget about that, most of your casualties will arise from these flanking shots. That is true for the troopers and also for the vehicles. From what you wrote up to now, the fight is not over, you might have up to now a total, minor and or tactical victory, but if you have too much casualties and vehicles destroyed it will be a bitter one at the end of the time limit and that even if you get a 1 to 4 casualties ratio. Remaining

Could it be possible to maintain, on tactical views, a similar direction? That is looking toward the enemy lines with eventually an arrow sighted on a know landmark (Villa Castalletti). That way we won’t make a wrong interpretation of the shot. That is relevant for other AAR.

The R-35 was small and its interior cramped for its 2 crew members. They did not have any wire communication between them, so the commander being seated behind the driver was using his legs to signal him to halt, back up, turn and so on. As for the cupola on the turret I might be wrong but there was no modification made by the Germans on it, since it was only possible for the commander/gunner head to fit in it. The top of the turret was anyway too small to accommodate a modified cupola. However modifications with German style hatches were made on Somua S-35 and B1 bis. The tactical unit symbols on the tanks were represented by a combination of playing cards symbols and of colors. The color indicates the company. Blue: 1st company White and or Black: 2nd company Red: 3rd company The symbol specifies the platoon Ace of spade: 1st platoon Ace of heart: 2nd platoon Ace of tile: 3rd platoon Ace of clover: platoon of echelon The R39 is a variant of the Renault R35, but armed with the heavier 37mm SA38 L/33 gun, allowing it to operate in an anti-tank capacity. That one is on exhibit at the Saumur French tank museum

Hi Bilh Hardenberger, Glad to read again that promising AAR. It is overshadowed by the sad news. Owning two Labradors I understand what you are feeling. I always tried to get a new friend as soon as I could, the pup in its manners healed the pain.

Hi Erwin, I shall look at your recent AAR closely to give you my point of view. But first you have taken too many casualties already among troops as well as with the armored tracks and or wheeled. About the dam attack. It is mainly done to draw the attention over there and distract the player during the first 15 minutes or more. More SPOILERS to come, but not before you get into them. Have a nice play

Here after 4 pictures of the R 35 on exhibit in the Saumur French tanks museum. That one was armed with the 37mm SA18 gun. The crew of 2, was made of a driver and of a commander acting has a loader as well as a gunner. There are only two hatches. The driver’s one in front and the turret’s one, in the back of it. The commander usually, was seated on the open panel when travelling in a safe area. A mount was available for a MG anti aircraft use, of the 7.5 mm MAC31, right above the turret opening. The R-35 was mainly designed as an infantry support tank and not as a battle tank. More details in the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_R35

That is the commander of the R-35 tank sitting in the usual travelling posture with the rear hatch open, will post pictures soon.

Hi Erwin, It has been some time since we discussed about the scenario. BTW, you know that V2 was done following your remarks. I am glad to read that you are enjoying it. I have read the other post and BlackMoria answer. I was however unable to reply being far away from home and not having all the needed details in mind. I have the files right now if needed. About the ANA troops at the dam. They are not always able to prevent the technicals to cross the dam. Usually I let them fight and keep an eye on them from time to time. I play RT Iron. I also have a squad ready to leave the hill garrison toward the dam bridge in order to engage with RPG’s the remaining technicals not being destroyed by the HMG fire (from the garrison and the dam bunker). Good job for having spotted the artillery observer, taking the tower on hill 54 and clearing its farthest approaches. The approach from the airfield passing the bridge and along the destroyed tanks and armoured cars is not always easy. The LHS village can be left alone and just covered for a latter time attack. The RHS village has to be taken to secure an alternate passage toward the bridge and to cover the moves on the road. The attack has been almost always done with a Stryker at the least destroyed and some casualties. To have suppress fire and overwatch, I use Javelin’s being fired from the hill observatory near the control tower and a Stryker (better have the one with the grenade launcher gun than the 50’s). I usually have a FO being positioned there as well. A Stryker MSG give some supports firing on the hill 54 tower, after being shot at by a MG being over there and you can also turn it against the RHS, when needed. Anyway there are different tactical ways to get into the fight and many times the one chosen at the beginning turns out not to work so well and an alternate tactic has to be started right away. To that intent I always have two plans, one going one and the other one ready to be launched. The troops and carriers being at their attack positions, in order to be deployed immediately if needed. That way they might lower the pressure on the already engaged troops and anyway outflank the enemy. In any case what I do is not necessarily what should be done and the only way to do it. There are numerous ways to get into the fight and to the objectives with low and or high casualties. I firmly believe that once the fight start, you are more or less tied up with your first move and the subsequent actions deriving from it. That is why I am always cautious about my first move. It is the one that will give me a hint of what is facing me and allow me to modify to some extent my attacking tactic. That works however better against a human opponent than against the A.I I am not describing the use of the ANA recon and of the 2 Marder’s. They are however mainly used to open the road, give suppress fire on hill 54 and its surrounding, during the assault by the ANA. Eventually once hill 54 has been cleared if it is safe one of them can have an overwatch view on the RHS village and assist during its clearing by elements coming from the airfield. Remaining

For the time being the DL isn't available, will it be before August and or after, I have no clues. That is why I ordered the DL & Mail. I shall be able to DL it as soon as it will be on the website. Hope they will offer a better protection for the Cd's invoice.

That would be great. This is also a fantastic tool given to us, specially the map overlay : Editor Improvements: - Auto-Assemble linear terrain tool. Roads, walls, fences, and hedges can now be automatically drawn across the map instead of placing them one tile at a time. The old manual selection interface still exists to allow tweaking specific Action Spots. - BMP map overlay. Instead of having to create game maps by freehand you can now trace over a real world map within the Editor. Four different levels of transparency make the process easier by adjusting for different needs as work progresses.

just a remark, since I received my last invoices with damages on the metallic box for CBMN and on the CD casing for NATO (The CD’s were fortunately not damaged), I had stopped ordering the CD’s and relying on the downloading for CW. Since that is not at the time possible. The only way to have it being to order a download and the mail invoice could Battlefront look at the packaging a bit closer. A non padded envelope is not sufficient to avoid damages to the content. At 75 bucks for Europe an effort could be done. For the rest I can’t wait till August to try CMFI. Good work BF!

I have just ordered CMFI since it appears offering new ways for a designer. The new way of designing roads and to order different LOS at different waypoints are welcome features. There might be others. The new armored cars, tanks and troops being seen in that Italian ETO are also a gold mine for someone whishing to depict some actions having taken place there I have however a question. Will it be possible to use the R-35 (or other new stuff) in CBMN, since it looks like that CMFI is a stand alone? The R-35 has been missing in CBMN as well as in CW. It was too bad not to have it to depict the first few days of action after the 6th June. Another remark, since I received my last invoices with damages on the metallic box for CBMN and on the CD casing for NATO (The CD’s were fortunately not damaged), I had stopped ordering the CD’s and relying on the downloading for CW. Since that is not at the time possible. The only way to have it being to order a download and the mail invoice could Battlefront look at the packaging a bit closer. A non padded envelope is not sufficient to avoid damages to the content. At 75 bucks for Europe an effort could be done. For the rest I can’t wait till August to try CMFI. Good work BF!

Seems perfect in the game, but not in a real action. As a matter of fact during the hot season infantrymen were often flushed out of a wheat field by setting it in flame with MG tracer’s rounds. That was not done always intentionally, since the smoke besides flushing the enemy out hide it pretty well.

LLF is right. When an airbase and its runways facilities are available near the front line and if they are more or less in view of the enemy, the planes are flown away. It is the same for all the technical staff for the planes and their materials. As for the choppers they might get in and out briefly, to move in or out troops and or casualties, but they don’t stay any longer. That is why an airbase is present in some of my CMSF scenarios like “A Helluva Road Opening V1 ad V2” and the “ A Counter Attack at El Derjine”. The main fact being that planes and or choppers not damaged and or wrecked were not absolutely necessary to depict the airbase. One other fact is that for a designer it is interesting to have an airbase, since it procures flat areas (providing some tactical worries) and that it might seems coherent to have one to explain some of the briefing objectives. What I wish I could find in later BFC developments for CMSF, B-N or new ones, would be industrials and good railways tracks and facilities to be able to do make a scenario into these areas. LLF surely has the same idea.

The SS-Sturmbannführer KRAFFT commanding the SS PZG Ausbildungs & Ersatz Battalion 16 said in his AAR that the choice of the DZ was well sited for a direct thrust toward Arnhem. Is he right ?

While you are thinking over about the rocking motion simulation in the game made or not by tanks while firing their main gun, you could as well get into the effect of the gun blast on nearby infantrymen. That was a real problem and it is still today for the unlucky infantryman being too close. Besides drum blast, he could suffer severe injuries. However, if these are real facts, I don’t think that rendering them, is going to change anything in the very good simulation that B-N is. The only sure thing is that you won’t play the game while writing about these considerations. That is your choice, not mine at least for such details. I am not saying that what is written is not interesting, but will it make such a huge difference if the game has them ? Just to explain more my thoughts. I have the DCS A-1O warthog simulation. When putting the setting on real simulation instead of game, I fly easily, take off and land as well, but I am unable to apply easily, the real procedures in order to use its weapons loads, as suited. It is too complex (that is, in a laptop environment) Since I don’t care to be an Air Guard pilot (the simulation was done initially for them) and that I am not passing a qualification exam, I let aside the game for better days. BTW, when I had some years back, opportunities to fly a jetliner in a top notch simulator, with a friend of mine as an instructor, I found that it was easier than on the laptop. A simulator can not be compare with a PC simulation. So that means that if it is too complex, in a PC environment, the multiplicity of all that should be taken in account may at one moment jeopardize the wanted result. More, B-N is an excellent simulation, but it is not a hundred percent, real life transposition of all that can be found humanly and technically for the materials being displayed. I think that getting around ninety percent, if that is the average that can be defined is in its way pretty good and above many simulations I have played in the last years :cool:

I should have mentioned that it was done on the Iron setting with the 1.10 patch on a Laptop : Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7250 -2.00GHz 32 bits RAM 4 Go Graphic card NVDIA Geforce 8600M GS

Thank you to Carl Render for revealing what could be a problem and AKD for the file test. Testing : The FO gets the Fast order with a straight line drawn all the way down toward the fortifications Its move forward is seen from the fortifications side The distances are the ones shown on the fire blue line. They go from the FO team to the fortification being seen. Low visibility Setup phase no fortifications viewed At 390m Sandbags 2 positions seen on the right Then within 5 to 10 seconds a Foxhole in the middle of the left side At 140m a trench is seen straight forward Then within 5 to 10 seconds a second one appears on its right At 80m up to the 40m mark. It remains as follow: 3 sandbags positions on the right, 2 trenches on the center, 2 foxholes on the middle left High Visibility Setup phase no fortifications viewed At 517m Sandbags 1 position seen on the right At 439m Sandbags a second position revealed on the right At 402m Sandbags a third position revealed on the right At 334m Sandbags a fourth position revealed on the right At 263m a trench is seen dead center At 254m Trench a second one is seen on the right side of the center one At about that time a fifth sandbags position is revealed At 218m Trench a third one is seen on the left side of the center one Still no foxholes seen They are finally seen (4 positions on the left) when the tired FO team is halted at the trenches. The FO team saw them earlier at the 80m to 40m ranges. Is that inability to see them earlier has something to do with their tired state ? Anyway foxholes are more difficult to see than sandbags piled up and trenches should be less noticeable than them unless sandbags are used to make a strong parapet. Hope that testing might help you

To Gen von television Thanks for your report. Having doubts I just made some testing. Airburts do exist in B-N. You will refer to the pictures I shall post soon. To Womble Thanks for your very detailed and accurate report. Effectively, I have heard of proximity fuses used, if I don’t do any mistake for the first time in the battles fought around the Saar river crossing and the Siegfried line breakthrough The testing was made using my impending campaign map and against the St Marcel village that you will have to take in order to secure and get through the bridge leading to the main town, which is your objective. That test was necessary to see if airburst were present like I have seen them earlier. Gen Von Television and Womble are right when they say that it could have been an explosion seen in trees and or on top of a landscape feature like a house roof. Two tests were made using the facility given during the setup phase. Besides that I had a TRP icon right in the middle of the street of the St Marcel village. I used the 105mm howitzer,3 guns, heavy long. For one it was set to general with a 92 meters area and the other ton personnel with a 93 meters area. The results are convincing. 1 WIA and 2 slight casualties (coloured in yellow) for the General set up shelling with no airburst being seen. 6 WIA, 3 slight casualties, a house being destroyed down to its basement and 6 airbursts being seen on 4 shots being taken (2 airbursts seen on 2 of the pictures and only 1 airburst on the other 2 pictures). I don’t know how the airbursts are being exactly rendered as far as their lethality is concerned, but they are present in the game when you are using the Personnel setting.

Considering the campaign scenario, final testing I am working on, I am a bit disappointed by the effect of the artillery of the US attacking units. Understand me, to be disappointed does not mean that the game is unrealistic. The game is highly realistic. At least as far as a game, like that one can be. I have to let you know that I plot the artillery during the setup phase to get rid of the difficulty in designing the fire zone. At least for that call. The target is a group of houses standing at the bottom of a ridge and near a bridge that is giving an access into the town that has to be taken. In order to have my assault platoon, a squad of engineers (needed to blow the houses walls) and an M8 howitzer (for close support) closing in near the houses, I need to shell the area heavily. Considering that I have 105 mm howitzer with smoke shells and 114 mm T27 xylophone rockets (without smoke), I plot first the HE T27 for a heavy barrage and next the 105mm with smoke shells. That way, in theory, the houses and their Germans occupants should be pretty much splattered. Well, as it turns out, the T27 are widely dispersed, they make a splendid 4th of July firework and then the smoke start to hide the ground. Its about time, for the assault to get on its way. Every thing works like in a drill. The troops reach the houses, the M8 comes along unchallenged by distant AT gun. Great, the final assault can begin. The engineers blow a wall, the assault team follows them in. A quick fight and the occupants are overcome. You think that the same will happen for the other houses. Hell, no the Germans are still there and in the near foxholes they seem unscathed and they let you know they are. That is why I wrote that in the game the T27 114mm Xylophone rockets are not causing that many casualties. Naturally, for troops caught in the open, that will be another story. In that particular scenario, my biggest help was the smoke and only it. Without the smoke my casualties will have run high and the houses would not have been reached at all. That is what happened in my previous testing not using it. About the Moaning minnies they are dreadful. Inaccurate, certainly, but they produce a saturation pattern on their objective at random. I used 215mm (better than the 114mm T27) Nebelwerfer 42’s in “Die Amis Kommen”. They even managed to bring down a vital bridge for the US forces assaulting the town. I really needed that asset to bring to a halt the US Forces in that specific area. It works if you do it right, since they take around 20 minutes to be delivered. Almost a last chance weapon, but what a blowing power! I feel the same that MickeyD. If in a scenario the forces are shattered by a huge artillery preparation and there is nothing left, besides walking down unchallenged to the objectives there is no pleasure and or accomplishment satisfaction left for the player A last thought, players should have in mind that troops well hunkered down in foxholes and or in houses are less exposed than in an open ground. They can support a lot of HE pounding. I don’t know if airburst which are lethal, are well rendered in BF CMSF and Normandy games. The US shells with their proximity fuses were the most feared by the Germans. Technically speaking, the Germans never got to do the same. But since the foxholes are not covered in the game one can assume that it is not done. I have seen however shells exploding over the troops. Does any one has an idea about that?

About the TRP's used by the A.I. I have done so in a coming scenario. The A.I FO is doing a splendid job, shelling the registered targets areas. The first time during the test, I was surprised. I am not anymore. The A.I, even takes its time to shell the area when it seems best. For the rest, the smoke is the best asset for assaulting without getting that many casualties. Not so easy to handle, but believe me it works. that way, I have been able to get to the objective. The high explosives shelling gave small results compare to the smoke. The rockets where worst, they are amazing to see exploding, but they fall every where and no where.

You are right, I made a mistake writing about the necessity of having them within the setup area. We know that TRP’s can be moved during the setup phase. The problem is to see them sufficiently on the map in order to do so. That is why I suggest to have high visibility Icons or to gather all of them in one area where they can be spotted easily. It will then be the player choice to move them where ever he wants.

Difficult to make a comparison between the WWII, real time mortar and artillery call fire mission and the way it is handle in the game. There are so many to say and we can find very good arguments, since the LOS limitation is not what we did entirely expect. I have found in many battles including in my own scenarios design, that it takes time to plot a fire mission and that we have to wait precious minutes before it is delivered. More than often the results are not up the expectancy that we have put on it. To start another fire mission if the ammo level authorizes it, takes again a lot of time. During that time, the troops are staying put. That delay, has us player being obliged to do weird thing near the end of the time limit in order to try to gain the objectives. More than often, that results in higher casualties than if we had assaulted right away the objectives, since we can not move using every conceivable ground cover available, by lack of time. Someone wrote rightfully that if you send a shell on a pre registered location, you don’t need to have a LOS. The same applies during the setup phase, if you have artillery and mortars assets available, from the beginning. However, the mortars must be deployed and should have a command link (verbal and or radio). Once you get into the battle, you can only call a fire mission with an officer (battalion, Company and or platoon officer) or with the FO. At that time you need either, to have a good LOS and or a pre registered icon near the area you wish to shell. More, the observer must have a command link with the mortars and or the artillery. Otherwise its call will be denied. That is why, as a scenario designer, I have in mind two things First the pre registered icons are not always well seen on the map. As a matter of fact, many times I saw them too late and the battle being engaged, I can not move them anymore to a spot of my choice. Sometimes I only see them, while scrolling the battle ground at the end of the game, since they were hidden by trees, foliages and or among houses, barely noticeable. If someone could provide us with a high visibility pre registered Icon mod that would be great. I also think that it could be wise to gather together all the icons in plain view on the map (have a word on the briefing about it) and allow the player to put them where they feel it will be best. But, for doing so the designer has to draw a set up area allowing for that. That might not be always possible or wanted depending on the scenario design. Second, while the LOS obligation is not the most annoying thing for me while playing, the fact that to call a shot, I have to bring an officer and or an FO in a suitable observatory area certainly is. It takes time to move them around cautiously, only to find that they get shot at, rather quickly once they are in the desired position and or that they can not see entirely the intended fire zone. What is also frustrating is the fact, that in a platoon, only the officer is able to call a fire mission. If he is shot, there is no way to call a fire mission. The player has to keep in mind, that for a mortar fire mission, the officer gets not a so long delay. But, if he is calling artillery, usually he gets a longer delay than the FO. That is correct for me. To summarize, I don’t seen any game default in the way the use of the mortars, artillery and even ground attack fighters assets are being handled and reproduced. They somehow take in account the numerous difficulties that someone could have found in a WWII battle configuration. I really think that the player is wrongly thinking that these assets are unbeatable and that they are the answer to annihilate the enemy once for all and get a major victory. The truth is that I have found the mortars and or artillery assets suitable to prevent reinforcement to come forward, to break an assault (if within the time limit and the advance path ) and to saturate an area. However, when at the setup I designate an area, where I think that there is a concentration of troops, I have found that the result was surprising. Troops in foxholes managed to survive, rather well. The same applies with troops hidden in houses. Besides one or two eventually collapsing many troops are still there, when my assault came. When attempting to double that fire concentration, once the battle is played, I have found that the time it takes to get a suitable FO in place (if not already there) and the time it takes to deliver the shells are very often resulting in a non feasibility in the desired employment of the artillery. For these reasons, having found that it takes time to use artillery and being not entirely satisfied by the lethality results, I use smoke, if available and if I have only one artillery battery. If I have two or more of them, I deliver, using two batteries, high explosives shells at first and second smoke within a slight delay. Doing so, the defender are staying low and or just recovering, while my troops are hidden by smoke during most of the approach of their assault. I just have to be careful with the wind drift and think of it before plotting the fire mission. However, the fire mission and the assault have to be synchronized in order to work best. The mortars, when they are within the platoon are working better. Smoke can also be used to good effect if available besides explosives rounds. This is what I think, but you might and surely have better views than mine. Knowing them could be a real asset, while making a scenario in which artillery has a part to play in the battle to be fought.