Gryphonne

Also, will we hear the "background talk" (such as "fire mission, over") in the respective languages? I thought this added greatly to the atmosphere in CMSF.

Steve, How are armor ratings displayed if i may ask? Are the armor ratings like the color coded bars that we've seen in CMBB and CMAK? Is it closer to CMSF? Or is it something entirely new? Gryph

Is it normal for these units to hover over the map?

Hmm, when you look at this video, isn't the "command" delay then already sort of "simulated" in you as the commander of those forces studying the situation and forming an appropriate response? I mean, you would look on your screen, see the enemy movement, and would weigh certain options against eachother; after a while you'd click your units to perform action x. This may or may not take as long as it takes these guys in the video to do the same thing. Hence, here is your "command delay"..? I'm not saying it's an all time solution to the "problem", but when you look at it from this point of view it's rather intruiging.

More importantly can you run over AT guns with tanks? :eek: I recall this being possible in CMBO?

I remember being a sad panda when they mentioned that they would not include this in CMBN. So to answer your question: "I don't think so"

Thanks for the reply there Steve Can't wait to see how this will work in game. One other quick question, will assigning a spotter also work on vehicle units such as mortar half-tracks or other on-map vehicle-based weapons capable of indirect fire in CMs scope?

HOLY COW that MG42 spews those tracers right after eachother! I'm judging that the effect of an MG42 on the enemy's morale is quite devastating? Oh yes, almost forgot in my excitement about the MG42. When you give indirect or direct fire orders to on map mortars, can you adjust the pattern as well (line, circle et cetera)? What other adjustments can you give to on map batteries?

I think the real beauty of a game only shows when you see the entire thing in action, and the various underlying items interacting with eachother. Low resolution (no offense) screenshots showing some stuff here and there isn't that impressive to people. Besides, it doesn't show off any new features (QB purchase screen, UI, et cetera). This is why people (myself included) will always keep whining. A picture speaks a thousand words sure, but a video speaks a thousand times a thousand; and experiencing the entire thing yourself.. well, you get the idea. People will continue whining until they get their grubby hands on the real thing. And even then there will be hardcore whiners (grogs) missing the Bren tripod or the FuG-16ZS on the FW-190F-8 and such As a comment to the AAR, i'm really enjoying it and really appreciate the time you guys invested into it. But as a tip of some sorts, I would have advised creating a slightly smaller, tenser scenario with less troops and going more into detail about the changes from CMSF to CMBN, trying to explain how the atmosphere differs So not so much an AAR in terms of combat, but more in terms of features perhaps. Of course, you guys are also bound by an NDA which makes it more difficult too.. Oh well, maybe i'm just rambling Regards, Gryph

Blast (more padding)

Thanks for the answers there Jon I'm quite curious to see how the sections look in detail. As far as your testing goes, I guess it sort of reveals the picture I was hoping to see I really wonder what the optimum engagement ranges are for certain squads as the German are almost surely going to be outgunned at medium range by the large number of US (semi) automatic weapons. Unless an LMG42 or two can balance it out a bit of course. Can you comment more specifically on the ammo displays? Gryph

JonS, some practical questions if you may answer these. What does the TO&E look like for individual German squads? How many StGs or G43 do these guys carry around? Is this random? In an era with mostly semi auto/bolt action rifles and the 1:1 modelling, do you notice a large benefit from having lots of automatic weapons? Also, since I _guess_ that some squads may either have a mix of Mp40s, Kar98s as well as StGs, how is ammo tracked for all these individual weapons? CMSF for example only has two ammo bars making it impossible to see a third type of ammo in the squad.. Thanks for you time

I hope the "underlying" grass texture is seperate so I can just make it black or somefink. I really miss the massive "clump" of terrain feel from CMx1 (just look at the map sideways); if you look at the map sideways in CMx2, at the edges you'll see that the world is paper thin. It looks rather silly imho; but I understand that it can't be changed.

I've asked this in the US thread too, if you are allowed to do so, could you post some screenshots with the unit info? Like, for example a screenshot of the Jagdpanzer with it's internal systems/protection and so on. Quite curious to see how this looks in comparison to CMSF. And even if it looks the same I'd still like to see it (I can't help it, but I love to drool over stats and icons).

2 questions: Are you allowed to post screenshots of the unit info (like the one for the knocked out MG42)?. I'm quite curious to see what equipment the soldiers carry and how that looks. Like, more interface stuff would be nice to get the feel of the game Can tanks drive over the wooden fences? I'm not even sure if tanks in CMSF can drive through the low walls.

Exactly my thoughts. I was quite happy with the news about the second programmer and even the time delay was ok for me because it meant they'd implement all those features from CM. Right now it seems it's just CMSF with a different skin. A year for just the qb, water and bridges seems a whlote lot

Makes me wonder what still made it in, with more than a year over schedule you'd expect them to throw in some easter eggs at least. Instead, everything seems cut because it takes too long to implement.

That is rather interesting, you have any references to these? would like to check them out I'm always amazed as well about the number of contradicting sources around when researching certain topics.. However, the real question us grogs should then ask is, why is the F-8 in when there are many other FW-190 jabo modifications around that probably really saw active frontline/ground support service

Well, the number of A-7/R6 seems to be very low (less than ten) and these are lost due to enemy action. The A-6 on the other hand are transferred to other units. Quote from another source: 23 June 1944 According to the War Diary III./SG 4 exchanged its Fw 190 A-6s for F-8 models on this date. At this period Clermont-Ferrand seems to have dealt with the repair and delivery of Fw 190s to SG 103 as well. and: At 11.35 hours, 16 Fw 190s (my guess F-8s)took off on SG 4's last mission in the French interior, one aircraft losing its SC 500 bomb in the process. Thirty-five minutes later they dive-bombed two small villages east and south east of Valence: Léoncel and Saou. The 15 bombs dropped were reported to be well on target, with the former village damaged and the latter destroyed. They saw no traffic on the roads during their mission and all returned safely to Clermont at 13.00 hours. Since Avord is not mentioned in the reports and because the 9. Staffel had no operational pilots a day earlier, it seems probable that this mission was flown only by 7. and 8./SG 4. In Saou the destruction included the vaulted nave of the 12th century parish church of Saint Mary. At 16.00 hrs. Geschwader Bongart gave orders to prepare for III./SG 4's transfer to the Eastern Front. For its part, III./SG 4, asked Luftgau Westfrankreich, to forward all mail for FPN L 40934 to the Luftgau Post Office in Koenigsberg, East Prussia. At 22.30 hrs., Ltn. Klepke at Avord reported to III./SG 4 that the airfield was serviceable. The same officer also filed a strength return for the 9. Staffel of 11 (7) aircraft and 11 pilots (none of them operational). source: http://www.ghostbombers.com/sf/sg4_6.html So, the squadron is transferred out of France to the East on the 30st of June, and sees extremely limited action if any with their F-8s. In any case, It would make me wonder why we have the F-8 then, whereas I think that jabo Bf-109s and A-5/A-6/A-8s are far more common and therefore more realistic to include.

2 words: wishful thinking

Most of them appear to have been shipped to the Eastern Front and they were produced in very limited numbers anyway. It would appear that the jabo field modifications A-5/U3 (F-2) and A-5/U17 (F-3) were as, or more, common than the dedicated F-2/F-3. The only Fs present in Normandy therefore seem to be the F-8s operated by III./SG4. Sadly, I have no information on the number of A-5s operating with the jabo field kits in Normandy.

The FW-190Fs were never distributed amongst Jagdgeschwaders as far as I know. However, III./Slachtgeschwader 4 was operational in Normandy and they appear to have received some FW-190F-8s. I don't know to what extent these have seen combat however; if they have, it must have been in extremely limited numbers. EDIT: Apparently according to this website: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/biiisg4.html, III./SG4 receives 49 FW-190F-8s in June 1944 and are stationed around Laval, approx 100km South from Caen But if the FW-190F-8 IS modelled, and it appears to be (judging from the TO&E), then my original question still remains, is the FuG-16ZS modelled too? The TO&E listing for CMBN only shows the A-8 and F-8 though, no FW-190A-5 or Bf-109 Jabo mods.

That is pretty impressive. By playable you mean no real stutters and generally smooth? If so it seems to run smoother than CMSF even despite it being unpolished.

I understand Thanks in any case, maybe Steve can answer?

What would you define as a standard map for CMBN though? In size that is. And how much of that is foliage do you estimate; in comparison to CMSF?