Dietrich

Herr Feldmarschall, Anarchists with body armor and NVGs may not be the most realistic scenario per se, but what about the North Hollywood shootout? Criminals (and anarchists) sometimes have more than just pistols. And aren't there supposed to be heavily armed (and even armored) psychopaths scattered in small groups throughout the rural US (a la the gun-toting guy in Tremors, but not nice)?

My experience has been that it's generally wiser to keep your tank (whether M1 or T-xx) buttoned up. Being able to use any MG(s) mounted atop the turret is not worth the risk to the tank commander and/or the gunner. Besides, being unbuttoned is good only (in my opinion) for looks, since tanks typically have systems which enable the crew to see at least as good as with their own eyes. If you want your M1 to use just an MG or two, use "Target Light". Playing Syrians on defense in a QB against the AI, I had my three tanks (I forget what make they were, but they weren't T-90s) positioned behind buildings for flank shots at the three or four M1s. Even unbuttoned, my tanks all but once were unable to spot and get a bead on an M1 in the few moments the M1 was in LOS as it cruised down a cross-street.

Civil War 2009? Maybe bad-guy Blue Force represents home-grown anarchists with AR-15s and RPGs, whereas good-guy Blue Force represents National Guard (or even Army Reserve or some such) deployed to beat them down. *shrug* By the way, MikeyD, the Marines in your "Lone Star Shopping Plaza" scenario are dastardly opponents. Makes me (as the Army CO) all the more keen to bloody their noses. =P

You say that, but only because you -- unlike the Deltas and Rangers -- know that he was a lookout. 'The only rules of engagement are that there are no rules of engagement', hmm?

DeutschRitter, "Grunt" heißt Landser. ;-) Dietrich

Remember that there are three types of Unconventional forces. According to the manual, Unconventional Fighters and Combatants do not receive blending-in-with-the-local-populace stealth because they are not dressed strictly as civilians and are visibly armed. Unconventional Specialists (Spies, IED triggermen, and, IIRC, transports), though, do blend in, because they are dressed normally and are not visibly armed. Think of, in Black Hawk Down, the kid with the mobile phone who warned the militia of the approaching US forces (one of whom, ironically, waved at the kid), compared with the AK-wielding militia later in the movie.

One way to implement this would be to have a mortar crew — two or three men including the corporal or sergeant commanding — in two teams: the men handling the mortar directly; the crew chief. Set the mortar in an out-of-LOS position, then use the "Split Teams" command to 'detach' the crew chief and move him to a good observation position. I suppose that in CM:SF this would make the most sense with 60mm mortars (and the like), since, if I recall correctly, 60mm mortars are attached to companies (or is it platoons?) in groups of three. In CM:WW2, this would apply to 50mm, 2in, 60mm, and even 3in and 81mm mortars. (By the time of the Battle of Normandy, many German units used 120mm mortars for battalion-level fire support and detached individual 81mm mortars to companies.)

My purpose in starting this thread was not simply to recount what sorts of communications were used in WW2 and by which nations, but rather to discuss how these comms might be simulated in CM:WW2. In other words, would it be reasonable to have out-of-direct-contact units send signals via flares, even if firing of said flares is left up to the TacAI? How might on-map communication from, say, platoon HQ to company HQ via field telephone or radio be handled? In short, how will the CMx2 simulation of communication (which I think adds a definite, if hard-to-define, realness to the tactical simulation as a whole) be employed in CM:WW2? In North Africa, for one, the Germans used colored flares (white, orange, violet, green, perhaps one or two others) in pair combinations to convey a number of messages more particular than those which would be conveyed by single flares. Another mode of signalling used in WW2 was the signal whistle, typically at platoon and squad level; short and long blasts in various combinations somewhat like Morse code conveyed orders like "form up on leader", "alarm", "advance", etc. (According to my research, the British, Americans, and Germans used signal whistles, though I know most about German signal-whistle use.)

Will on-map mortars in CMx2 (whether in a future CM:SF patch or module or in CM:WW2) be useable as mortars have pretty much always been, without the need for LOS to the target (though with some sort of accuracy penalty, I suppose)? From what I understand, that's much of the value of a mortar: you can bombard a target or an area which you perhaps can't reach with line-of-sight weapons or can't even directly see.

The Germans in Normandy found that Allied (especially American) artillery fire was so sudden and accurate that they called it Feuerzauber (magic fire).

What about instances where a soldier encounters an enemy soldier at point-blank range (or as near to it as makes no odds), as in urban combat? Would he 'run into' the armed enemy soldier but then consider not shooting/bayonetting him, even if he would only do so to save his own skin? Would his innate thou-shalt-not-kill defense mechanism really hold him back from killing an enemy soldier, even though he might get gutted by a bayonet or bludgeoned with an entrenching tool as a result? Is not close-quarter battle an "extreme duress" situation? In MOUT, would not a soldier rather toss a grenade into a room which might (at best) be empty or might (at worst) contain cowering civilians, rather than risk getting shot dead by a lurking enemy? Is it only at bayonet range that the kill-or-be-killed rationale comes into play? What about instances, such as in the case of the Germans on the Eastern Front, where the defenders are vastly outnumbered by enemy troops who they figure will kill them to a man if they are not halted and driven back by fire? Truth be told, these questions, as well as their answers, raise yet more, but I felt they needed to be asked nonetheless. My research into the nature of combat leads me to believe that (in the case of video/computer games, most notably first-person shooters like Call of Duty) no matter how 'accurate' it is, no matter how realistic the modeling of weapons or ballistics, no matter how vividly gore is depicted, no game will represent combat -- modern or otherwise -- to a reasonably realistic degree. This is not only a matter of the limitations of computing technology but of creating an experience which is not stressful and terrifying but entertaining and compelling. For example, in Call of Duty 4 (as in practically every first-person shooter I've ever played), you can spot any enemy shooting at you within fractions of a second after hearing the shots, target him, and score a headshot. All that I've read about combat indicates that, as often as not, you don't know where the fire is coming from, and even when you determine where the fire is coming from, you may not be able to spot whoever is doing the actual shooting. And in video games, you never take prisoners; when you hit an enemy, either he goes down more or less instantly or goes down but then struggles to get back up and keep shooting at you -- no enemy gets a serious wound and then lies down as if to say "I think I'll just sit this one out." Also, there are never any wounded, whether enemies or friendlies.

I don't recall ever having read of specific instances where American or Commonwealth troops used flares for signalling -- which, of course, isn't to say it never happened. A fairly familiar device to British soldiers was the eponymous Very pistol (it seems a trifle odd to me that even in US Army documents you will find a flare pistol called a "Very pistol"), though the most common use of it I have come across was in air-to-ground signalling by RAF personnel (such as for indicating "squadron scramble" or "landing ground not clear"). A fair question, Canada Guy. I would have asked that myself, but I figured the discussion would be sufficiently complex even if focused just on the American and German forces in Normandy in June-July 1944, which is (according to the rumor mill) what the WW2 CMx2 game will encompass.

Mr. Emrys, With hindsight I concede that I was exaggerating, though unintentionally. The points you made give clearer insight into the reality of WW2-era communications at company-level (company HQ, platoon HQs, and squads). In CMx2-WW2 (CM:Normandy), if two squads are within visual or voice range, one can pass on info about enemy forces which the other may not be able to see at the moment (though the second unit may still not be able to spot the indicated enemy unit). If a squad is out of visual and voice range of friendly units, conceivably it could fire off a flare* (which would probably be left to the TacAI), which would accordingly alert friendly units within visual range of that flare (perhaps the entire map). It's reasonable to figure that BFC may well not go for allowing the player to detach a single man or a pair of men from a unit to act as runner(s) to convey info to a nearby unit. Would this sending of runners be handled automatically, or would it likely just be simulated? Considering the one-to-one depiction of on-map troops, I think it would be reasonable to actually show runners being sent from a squad to the parent HQ or from an HQ to another unit. Perhaps there could be a "send runner" command with any friendly unit as its 'target', whereupon a man or two would detach from the parent squad or HQ, hustle to the indicated friendly unit, and convey the needed info. If it were simply simulated, how would the player know if a given squad was operating sans one of its men, which would mean that much less firepower? (Obviously a squad leader wouldn't send his BAR man or MG-Schütze back to platoon HQ.) And then there's the matter of field telephones. Field telephones needed intact wires to be of any use. Sometimes these wires were severed, either by artillery strikes or by intentional cutting. How could communication via field telephone be handled in CMx2-WW2? What problems could arise with trying to simulate this means of C2? * In German practice, the color of a flare conveyed a message, such as white for "friendly troops here", purple for "enemy tanks", green for "adjust fire mission", etc. I know less about American or British practice, so I can't rightly comment thereupon.

How will the simulating of command and control (C2) be handled in the upcoming WW2 CMx2-engine title? In CM:SF, the technological disparity in communication capabilities between the US force and the Syrians has a definite impact on tactics. In the the US force, virtually every unit has a radio, if not also an RPDA or a FBCB2 module; whereas the Syrians have few radios and no back-up system. In Normandy in June 1944, there also was a disparity in communication capabilities between the opposing forces. US Army infantry formations had radios from platoon level on up, whereas German Army (Heer) infantry formations had radios only down to platoon level, C2 between platoons and their parent companies being maintained by field telephone, runner, and other means. My playing of CM:SF has been mostly Blue Force, so I don't have a clear sense of how radio-less inter-unit communication is simulated in CMx2. (Perhaps someone else can furnish insight about this.) In CMx2-WW2, even playing as the Americans, with their more plentiful radios, will at times involve a squad being out of contact with platoon HQ yet needing the communicate with it. In the German Army, for one, squad leaders were issued flare pistols so they could send signals to nearby friendly units even if they were out of contact. Would it be reasonable to simulate signaling by flares or even smoke? What about detaching one or two men from a squad to act as runners to platoon or company HQ? (Or sending men from company or platoon HQ to squads (since squads were not issued radios)? For a force in defensive positions (which the Germans typically would be in CM:Normandy), what about simulation of inter-unit communication via field telephone? There are other questions which could be asked, but this should suffice to get the discussion rolling.

During said peak fighting, how many casualties did the Marines estimate they inflicted on the insurgents? In other words, what was the kill-to-loss ratio?

Cowbell, schmowbell. =P Good to hear. =)

The only exceptions I can recall were the M3 Grant/Lee tank (with its 75mm sponson gun, 37mm turret gun, coax MG and cupola MG) and the couple of tank types used by the French which had multiple turrets. For CMx2 WW2, though, these tanks would be non-entities since they were used either much earlier in the war and/or on separate fronts. Thus these exceptions actually 'prove the rule' regarding the points you made, Steve.

Thomm -- Thanks for the explanation. In a bit of experimenting with the editor, I've gotten a handle on designating certain parts of a formation as reinforcements. As much as I dig accuracy and realism (to the extent that it's simulate-able), I dig that this design allows you to have part of a formation be on map and another part of that formation show up later in the battle as if the larger formation (i.e, a battalion) is operating throughout off-map areas; rather more so than in CMx1, it gives you a sense of being part of a significant force even when you're only commanding a platoon or so. George -- Thanks for the reply. If I were actually as tactically wise as I like(d) to think I am, I would have discerned that with two enemy patrols moving along my flanks (even if they didn't actually know I was there), it would be only a matter of time before my men got surrounded. Indeed, I did enjoy the scenario, and I'll be playing it again to brush up on my squad-level combat recon tactics; I dig squad-level scenarios where you can have the camera at pixeltruppen-eye level and have a sense of what each of your men is doing. And I'll gladly be poring over your CM:SF scenario design manual! =)

How do you designate the HQ team (etc.) as reinforcements when said HQ team is in the same formation which you want to use just one part of, like a single platoon? I have so far done only minimal experimentation with the editor, so perhaps its possible to move part of a formation from being an on-map unit to being a reinforcement unit.

If you cite a specific battle and the types of units involved, we can probably offer some suggestions.

In addition to company- and battalion-level battles, I dig platoon- and even squad-level scenarios (like George McEwan's "USMC To Ambush Or Not To Ambush"). I understand the theory of CM:SF's 'formation purchase' in the Scenario Editor -- you select the formation you want then delete any sub-formations or particular units you don't want. However, certain units, such as the battalion Headquarters Team (I believe it's called), can't be deleted. This would seem to obviate creating scenarios with just a single squad. Am I missing something, or is there some detail I'm unaware of that will clear this up? Second, is the colored-bar ammo supply indicator proportional? When I detach a fire team to fetch more ammo from a nearby Stryker or Humvee, that fire team's ammo supply is shown as full, but when I get more ammo then return the fire team to its squad, the squad's indicated ammo seems not to increase noticeably. Speaking of "To Ambush Or Not To Ambush", the first time I played that scenario my Marines suffered a few casualties skirmishing with the Uncons in the woods opposite them and in the creek bed, and when I decided to disengage and head back toward town, they ran into half a dozen more Uncons and got shot up even more. In CMx1 you could end this sort of fight-it-out-or-disengage-by-fire-then-head-back-to-base scenario by sending your troops off map, but since that particular option isn't (yet) possible in CM:SF, how are you supposed to 'win' this sort of scenario? By sending your troops to the friendly map edge then clicking "Cease Fire"? I think that would be a plausible simulation for slipping away through the underbrush to safe territory . . . but what really are the options?

As in loading certain mods or groups of mods for playing a certain scenario? I find modding CM:SF easier and more intuitive than any previous CM game, but a mod manager will certainly be appreciated! =)

If a unit's weapon is deployed or if the unit has been ordered to deploy said weapon at the end of their current move order, the "Deploy Weapon" button will look like it's pushed in, just as the "Open Up" button looks pushed in when a vehicle is opened up. Also, the status window (the list of men in a squad in the lower left corner above the UI panel) indicates when the soldier manning the weapon is deploying it or packing it up.

John, Thank you for the reply. Both in reference to myself and in reference to my friend, I was using "devil's advocate" (note the lower-case "d") in a figurative sense. ("Devil", by the way, derives from the ancient Hebrew word which be translated "opposer" or "resister".) I bow to your superior knowledge and understanding of post-WW2 military technology. I admit, it's only about WW2 weaponry and tactics and such that I know more than a mere smidgen. Lee's words about B-52 suggested saturation-type bombing, and in the context of an ambush in a village, it seemed to me a fantasist comment and thus one which I felt compelled to contest. Sincerely and respectfully, Dietrich March

Reminds me of a certain one of the many you've-got-to-be-kidding-me tactical bungles in the end battle of Saving Private Ryan: the Germans hadn't demonlished the belfry (such an obvious sniping/spotting post) earlier and didn't demolish it before or during the attack even though the Airborne said they had been pounding them with 88s. lol Also, in that scene I counted three MG-42s and one MG-34. Why did none of them ever fire? Perhaps because that would mean that the Rangers and Airborne would really be outgunned? That's why they're so obvious. =P I learned the hard way that the armor of Strykers and BMPs protects the men inside from small-arms fire and more or less nothing else.