warrenpeace

Big hill. No cover except for a couple of mined gullys. One company with one section of 30 cal machine guns and 3 60 mM mortars. A fair amount of off map support with smoke, but the smoke isn't all the effective because of the wind. The worst part is that that the set up area is in view of the gunners on the hill.

Hi All: I just wonder what would happen if to the game if the accuracy numbers were reduced, but suppression effects were left intact. I'm not sure it would effect the battle outcomes, but you would have more guys left at the end (admittedly most would be broken or rattled, but isn't that how it should be?). One other thing is that I think grenades are a bit too lethal. I have seen as many as six guys taken out by a single one. Part of the issue here is that I don't think the shielding effect of bodies are included in the blast calculation, so the blast radius is just seen as an empty vacuum. Also, as John pointed out, the packing of men in units is also a problem.

Can someone help me with battle 3 in the V2 campaign? I haven't even got close.

Jason: Given your analysis, is it that CM's lethality is too great, or simply that players and AI are too aggressive. My hunch is that it is mostly the latter, but I do think the former might also be true as well. On a related question, do rattled troops fire less accurately than ok ones?

This site seems relevant to the discussion http://www.22ndinfantry.org/wwii.htm Also, for US army casualties broken down by month, theater, or division, this site is useful. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-1.html#page45 I'd still love to see a site where you can follow a regiment or lower and look at casualties per subunit per day.

While I enjoy CMBN and CMFI immensely, I feel like the casualty rates are significantly higher than in reality. I just finished playing a company sized CMFI attack battle in which I took the objective, won a total victory, but suffered 38% casualties (Too be fair, it was up a big hill with dug in defenders). 38% casualties in 2 hours seems like a lot. How often did such high rates happen in real life? I realize that this has been discussed before, and that one reason for this is that it was rare that both sides would continue fighting in the face of high rates. Usually one side or the other would either retreat or break off the attack. However, I also wonder if the weapons modeling might be a bit over accurate as well. I am interested is seeing what actual rates were in company and battalion size actions in Italy and France. Are there any good sources for this type of information?

Just tried this. No chance for me as the allies. Machine guns are too strong. Anyone win this with the new MG patch?

BTW this statement is entirely false. As someone who does Biomedical research for a living at a top cancer center, I can assure you that "advertising, bonuses and lobbying" are a very small part of the expense of bringing a drug to market. Most of the expense comes from the research and especially the clinical trials component necessary to get FDA approval. Advertising actually returns huge profits for the companies, by getting people to ask for drugs they don't really need (Think Viagra). Also, the pharmaceutical industry in the USA has traditionally had the greatest profit margin of any business. Drug costs in the USA are higher than the rest of the Western World because we lack a single payer system. With a single payer all of the negotiating power is with the buyer, not the seller.

Steve: I'm a bit surprised you did not answer my ratio question. Since the base game is required to play the module, the key statistic is what percentage of the buying universe (i.e. base game owners) by the module. If this percentage is low, it suggests that lowering the cost of the module may increase total revenue. If the percentage is relatively high, then this would not be a good idea. You have this information for all three shock force modules as well as CW mod. (Gustov line might be too new, I don't know how your sales decline over time, although that also would be an interesting question). With regards to MG, I will take a wait and see approach.

Steve: As someone interested in the micro-economic aspect of your business, I have a question. When it comes to modules, what percentage of the base engine owners actually buy them? Specifically, if you sold X units of CMBN, what fraction of X bought CW module (You should not count bundling, as the module is in a sense already discounted). If the fraction is very high , your pricing strategy is certainly the correct one. I guess my feeling is that if I did not already own the CW mod and the 2.0 patch, then MG would absolutely be worth $35.00 as I would be getting a bunch of new British forces including airborne, armor and infantry as well as some new SS units that I do not have. However, as someone who has CMBN 2.0 + the CW mod, I already have those units, so the new stuff seems a bit low. Perhaps it might be a good idea to offer the MG mod at a discount to CW mod owners. Warren

I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that the module goes through November. Steve flatly ruled this out. All of my comments were based on Steve's initial post which clearly lays out what will be in the Mod. My major point is that it does not seem that this Mod has as much "stuff" as the last two and that is why it should probably have a lower price point. Don't get me wrong, I hope you guys are right and there is improvements in the engine and additional months and terrain additions, but based on what Steve wrote, I think it is unlikely.

Hi Steve: First, I want to say that I have been playing your games for a long time, and have paid for CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMBN, Commonwealth Mod, CMBN 2.0, and most recently just bought the CMFI+Gustov line bundle. I think you guys do a great job overall. However, I have to agree that the Market Garden Mod sounds a bit "light" compared to the other Mods. Commonwealth had a ton of new units on both sides. Gustov line had lots of units and also featured winter landscapes. I think the problem is that there really aren't a whole lot of new units for people that already own the CM mod. (I for one just can't get too excited about Naval forces), and it only covers one month (September, so no really new weather. Therefore most of the mod's value is going to be based on new terrain elements (sounds like mostly bridges and windmills), and scenarios. I will wait to see what people say, but based on the description of the module, I think it should be priced a bit lower ($19.99 to be precise). My guess is you will sell 2x the number, so you won't make anymore money, but you customer base will be happier . Just my 2 cents as a long time customer.

I'm not sure that I agree that pricing is a huge issue. (Although I am a bit skeptical that the MG module is worth $35. Seems more like a $19.99 to me ). However, I do think that Battlefront might consider marketing their games a bit more widely. I'd love to see if a 30 second ad on the Military History Channel wouldn't up sales by a significant amount.

Figured it out. I was playing as the germans in playtester mode and peaking at the UK set up. However, after I hit the turn button, only then did the AT guns redeploy. Live and learn.

Yes. Is this a problem?

I have been experimenting with the editor. I'd like to make alternative deployment locations for my AT guns. I have assigned them to an AI group and in AI mode have painted squares on the map. I have made this alternate plan the only one being used. Yet when I test the scenario the guns are always at the orignal deployment locations. What am I doing wrong? Warren

I'd like to see: 1) A follow the road movement command. (Very annoying to have to make way points all the time when road zigs and zags). 2) If this is not possible, a "follow the leader" command. Useful to convoy exiting scenarios. 3) Allow retargeting same spot with additional artillery strike without new spotting. (Very annoying when your barrage fails to take out anti-tank gun and you have to wait to "respot". Mechanically, it might be possible to allow targeted locations to act as TRPs for future strikes.) 4) Re-examine frequency of main gun hits. Seems my big cats are always being neutered early in the battle. 5) A select all infantry command. Useful for setting short target arcs for ambush scenarios where it is ok for tanks to open up at long range. 6) At end of battle, I'd like to be able to download the stats, not just look at units. Kind of like Japanizers tool, but built into the game. Also, it would be nice to know how many guys were killed by off-map artillery. BTW, I'm a long time CM fan. Just started replaying again with 2.01 and Commenwealth mod. Getting my butt kicked on Kampf group Engel.

I'm running Windows 7. That must be the problem.

That helped,but now i'm having a problem with line 1395: it isn't defined: "SIDES: at line 1395: FUKIAAR("SIDES: "+sides+": FORCE_X: "force_x+", FORCE: "+force+")//;sleep(1*weight_time*onetenth)

Can't seem to get the recorder to work. It says "line 22 syntax error". Any ideas?

I too can confirm this "bug". Steve, please chime in if this is a "bug" or intended.

In Doubler's book "Closing with the Enemy" he states: "In Normandy , aerial FOs conducted the majority of observed target fire missions with universally excellent results" This does not seem to be represented in the game.

I've read Death-Traps by Cooper and I've also talked with several veterans who served in Europe in armored units (My Mom once dated a guy who lost his hand when his Sherman was hit by an AP round that "bounced around a lot inside"). While I agree that the Sherman was ok against PzIV, it was clearly inferior against the PzV and VI, which it came up against about half the time. According to my source in June 1944 the combined number of PzV and PzVI on the western front was 630 vs. 667 for Pz IV. However, the reason the Sherman was weaker in terms of crew survival was its propensity to catch on fire and blow up (well modeled in the game BTW). There is no denying Cooper's thesis that the Army's decision to delay the M26 and simply focus on increased Sherman production probably cost more tankers their lives as measured in deaths/hour-combat. More debatable (although I tend to think Cooper is still right here) is whether the shifting to the M26 earlier would have also ended the war quicker and with fewer overall tank casualties. This is a classic quality vs. quantity argument and is essentially impossible to know. However, I can tell you that all of the Armored division Veterans I have talked to (Four that I can think of offhand) clearly felt there Sherman's were inferior to German tanks.

In the game I was playing I had eliminated all the units firing at my guys and then had a unit stumble into the mine field. As soon as it did it, the guys started running around like a chicken with their heads cut off. This was not rationale behavior given the circumstances. On the other hand, had the unit been under fire, then it might not be so stupid, although you probably would try and run out the way you came.

Running around after hitting a minefield makes absolutely no sense and needs to be changed. The proper thing to do is go low and "be pinned" or perhaps crawl backwards slowly. I know something about this as my step-father was seriously wounded in the Huertgan Forest in a Minefield. He was blown into a mine after another soldier stepped on one. He then crawled back to the first soldier and gave him first aid despite his own leg being severely mangled. The horrific part was that he was stuck in the minefield another 6 hours until nightfall because they were under german artillery fire. Won a bronze star for his action.