RogCBrand

I heard they were going to get Gilbert Gottfried to do new voices for all sides, but after the Aflac fiasco that fell through...

For a Battlefront Advertising coup, perhaps Lady Gaga could go to her next event in a "dress" made of CMBN covers!

Nice! I think for those of us that love World War 2 history, doing something like that would be a lot of fun, and discovering items from the war would give you a feeling of some connection to those events!

I had pre-ordered CMBO and played solitaire until seeing CMMC and was going to join, but the detail involved scared me away! But I ended up at We Band of Brothers, and I think that was a better fit for me- something like CMMC takes a lot of commitment!

COMMISSAR: "Ivan, you are the only survivor in your regiment, you have had a foot blown off, you are blinded in one eye and your rifle was blown out of your hands when it was hit by an 88 shell? Here's a broken bayonet. Make a lone human wave assault on that German fortification!"

One example I'd have is Joan of Arc. Her real asset was inspiring the troops to fight hard. General McLellan, in the American Civil War did very poorly, yet retained a great deal of respect and love from his men- and though he failed on the battlefield, he still managed to create a well organized Army that Grant would later inherit. I know that I'll work harder for a boss that I like, even if he's a bit incompetent and I have to make up for that, than for a competent boss who treats me like dirt, and I've often read quotes of soldiers that felt something similar about their officers. As I said, it's even better to have the best of both brilliance and being loved by the men, as you can then put them to best use, keep casualties as low as possible while also getting the very best out of them. But, if you're not the most competent general, then it will make a difference if your men love you or hate you. I think the Italians in World War 2 are a great example. They surrendered to the British in droves because they were poorly led, but also poorly treated. If a general makes some bad decisions, the day can still be saved by his subordinate- and history is full of officers promoted, not because they made the right choices but because those below them performed above and beyond. But if the leader is loathed by his men and things start to go south, then they don't have as much incentive to bother putting up much of a fight, and so you can see mass surrenders. No where do I say being a not so great general, but being loved by your men is going to assure victory in battle, nor that it's one of the most important aspects of how a fighting force acts, but in some cases I believe it can have an effect.

I was thinking of many accounts I've read in military history- American Civil War, World War 2, etc., where a general wasn't very skilled, yet his men loved him and fought hard for him- having men who are willing to give extra can make up for some lack of leadership. That's not an ideal situation and in many cases I'm sure it wouldn't be enough, but in some it just might be. Morale is always a factor in any battle.

That would be a very good Friday!

You're a mean one Mr. Grinch!

I remember a couple of old games that used voice control and it did seem really neat at the time. But I found, even being alone, I felt kind of embarrassed to be shouting out stuff while sitting in front of my computer.

I think you may be right. There's that issue of the balance of realism and playability. There's a part of me that would like a game that is as realistic as possible, but another part of me knows that too real can be little fun to play. I don't envy game designers having to find that balance that will make the most people happy, when there'll always be many who want it shifted one way or the other.

There are often times that I'd think the vast internet would contain information for anything we could want, but I've found that isn't always the case. I'd have to think that at some point in the last 65 years, someone would have studied issues like this, but if those studies are piled away in some dusty vault, we're out of luck. Anyway, I'm hoping you find your answers- information like that can really help make gaming more realistic- it's always good to have as many facts as you can find!

I'd think that a lot would have to do with the situation for each side during any particular time- if things are going well and you have lots of reserves, you might be more likely to pull them out of action with relatively lower losses, but if things are desperate, they may be forced to remain even with horrendous losses. Hopefully someone has information on the casualties of units at various times and you could get a feel for what the situation was like when they were pulled out, but it does sound like something that could be very complicated, with no simple answer like "at 25% casualties a unit would be pulled out".

And even if a General isn't a brilliant tactician, if he is greatly loved by his men and seen as a brave soldier that they'd be willing to follow anywhere, doesn't that help make his men fight harder? Of course, the best thing would be for a brilliant and brave commander, who can inspire his men, plan the best way to make use of them, etc. But being an inspiration to the men under you has to count for a lot!

That sounds very likely! They fit the description of a "jeep like vehicle".

On page 8 he refers to a Steiner as being a "jeep like" vehicle. I wonder if maybe "Steiner" was just a nickname for a type of vehicle? Men often referred to various equipment by names that weren't official.

From reading it, I assumed it was a particular model of staff car?

My great-great grandfather's brother, Millard Barkley, was killed less than a week before the end of the war. His buddy, Otis Barry, reported that Millard said that he "wasn't going to lay in the mud anymore" and stood up, immediately being shot dead. It makes me wonder about how many soldiers, in how many wars, just get sick of lying in the mud, etc., and not thinking straight- or just not caring any more, stand up...

Kind of reminds me of that part in "Kelly's Heroes"- Look, Captain! You can't let them do this! I must get my men near some broads before they start freaking-out. I'm aware that, that situation might be developing. But replace "broads" with "CMBN"

Oh yeah! I've thought that would be really nice!!! I'd think that in the end, it would have to be simpler- a lot fewer weapons to deal with, no worries about thickness, quality, slope, etc. of armor. But, I'm sure that they've got decades worth of World War 2 to deal with, so they'd probably never really have the chance to deal with something like that- but maybe!

Yeah! I bet in a couple years there'll be an absolutely massive reenactment at Gettysburg!!! I'll be wanting to head out there to see that!

150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.

LOL!!! That reminds me a bit of the Fast Reaction Unit my brother and a friend came up with at their base in Iraq a few years back-

The Space Lobster's "Scalding Drawn Butter Throwers" were a fearsome weapon!

I was thinking the same thing. It's been a while since I read about them, but didn't the observer use a phone on the back of the tank to tell the commander that a target was such-and-such degrees off of the turret facing?