Dr.Fusselpulli

Did someone just say Fulda Gap? 🤩

And we'll no longer have to delete fifty lines of TO&E from a battalion to get a specific team or vehicle! Woo hoo!
 
Mord.

FULDA GAP!!!!

Thank you for taking the time to create and post the video.  Very nice job, I enjoyed it.  +1
I was also impressed with how you handled yourself in the CM conversation on the Grogheads forum.  Very diplomatic and cool under fire. 
Keep up the good work!  I hope someday you have the opportunity to make a video of CM Fulda Gap!!       

I'm working on the translation. Give me a couple of days.
 
Some quick basics: 
The new assault platoon (of a Grenadier-company) described in the paper consists of: 
2 assault squads (7 men each, armed with assault-rifles 44 (Sturmgewehre 44*), plenty of ammo, grenades)  1 fire squad (2 light MGs) - to provide covering fire during the final assault platoon HQ squad/team + 3 grenade launchers (I suppose these are very light ones; they're taken from the squads, concentrated on the platoon-level) the grenade launchers are supposed to follow the assault squads, not stay back with the fire squad (!) (The snipers formerly employed on the squad-level (?) are to be ceded to/used on the company-level.) It seems as if it was not mobilized/mechnized? The paper only mentions horse-carts and that the soldiers might ride on tanks/trucks when forming part of an advance guard.
It was to be used particularly for assault and recon missions (special emphasis also on clearing trenches, but here the paper just cites other manuals), for combat in rough/difficult terrain, in fog, during night, as a mobile reserve for counter attacks and the protection of open flanks, for the pursuit of the enemy and as an advance guard, as a rear guard during retreat movements, and also as a ski-unit in some circumstances. 
What I found very interesting is that the paper puts great emphasis on the fact that the squads are supposed not to fire during the approach phase (only during the final assault, over very short distances, "fire-ambush"). As much as possible, the squads were to advance to the assault-FUP undetected by the enemy, moving in very open order, relying on the support of heavy weapons / other units. The squads were not supposed to provide their own covering fire ("sich vorschießen") in this phase. I found the advance by "Vortröpfeln" or "Sickern" (lit. trickling) especially interesting: If the squads found themselves forced to cross open terrain that was observed by the enemy, the men were supposed to cross individually or in pairs, with very large and irregular time intervalls (0.5- 5 minutes). The paper emphasises that it's not about time, but about approaching as undetected by the enemy as possible, and suffering as few casualties as possible. So really, the assault platoon was supposed to deliver shock - getting into very close range to the enemy undetectedly at full strength, then using this hidden concentration of force to surprise the enemy with an ambush-like assault, including loud cheers. Such an assault - sudden opening of fire, high volume of fire with assault-rifles, cheers, a fast sprint - was supposed to break the defender's morale.
 
--
* So we're safe to assume that this document is post 1943?

CptMiller, thanks for your efforts in making the video and communicating with the forum members. I am sure you are a busy guy and your time is limited.  As many have noted, folks are not happy with the lack of communication from BFC.
With that said, as a longtime supporter of BFC and especially CM:Shock Force 1, I want to share my thoughts.
This video is a good example of why BFC needs a Public Relations (PR)/Community Manager. This person needs to be artistic, creative, talented with photo and video editing software, and good with social media.  BFC has turned over AAR's and video creation to Beta Testers/Volunteers rather than people with the talents to do them effectively for presentation to the general public.
I know that Moon and then ChrisND tried to fill the PR role to some extent in the past. This video and the two AAR's that were attempted previously all are generally fails, in my opinion, at presenting the game in a good light.  (Bil's contributions to the AAR's was quite good, however, due to his background and photoshop skills).
Regarding this video here are my Pro's and Con's:
Pro's
- At least a video and communication with the forum community was attempted
- The colored setup areas, and green objective areas were not shown
- The time of day and lighting were ok
- The updated vehicle, equipment, and uniform models look good

Con's
- Video starts off showing zig-zag roads which still look horrible.
- The whole defensive setup of the Red team was ridiculous.  After the 1991 and 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S., are any countries still setting up static tank and trench defenses when attacked?
- This was a turkey shoot, or like shooting fish in a barrel, or whatever analogy you want to use; not very compelling or interesting.
- The same recycled sounds that were present in the 2007 CM:SF 1 release are still present.
- The same dated soldier animations that look like they are moving under water or stuck in quicksand are present.  Isn't it time for the animations to be updated?
- The trenches and foxholes are so clunky and such an eyesore.  I know it is for fog of war, however, the trenches in CM:SF 1 were much better aesthetically.  They really look goofy especially with soldiers sticking half-way out.
- The trenches appeared to offer very little protection from the helicopter attack, so why use them?  It was stated in another post that this is realistic - really?
- The town setup was not realistic and looked boring and drab.
- The AA vehicles were not located in an area where they could survive long enough to fire at the incoming helicopter.
- The water graphics really don't look good.  Occasionally, water looks ok with the proper lighting conditions, but not in this video.

  Granted, a lot of my comments are due to CMx2 limitations. However, with a well-designed map, lighting, troop/vehicle selection and camera angles, a compelling and aesthetically pleasing video can be created.
 
  So in summary this video really showcases a lot of the CMx2 flaws, and did not compare/contrast the differences between CMSF 1 and 2 very well.  It also seems apparent to me that it is time for CMx3.
 
  Maybe I am a bit jaded after 11 years of CMx2, however, I hope BFC will take PR more seriously in the future.  Seems that it can only help improve their bottom line, although based on their lack of communication with customers and any sort of marketing, it must not be a priority.
 
 
 

Just some friendly constructive criticism: your post wasn't really a good example of constructive criticism.

It's a video presumably made by a beta tester in response to complaints of lack of any information. It's not a promotional video made by someone who does that as a job, collects a whole bunch of footage with the best camera angles and action shots, all carefully directed, scripted and edited with a dramatic voice or music component to promote the game.
A narrated play through like the CMFI Bear Claws AAR video of Josey Wales would be awesome, but I'd expect that sort of thing nearer release, made with the 1.0rc build of the game. Whether something like that appears remains to be seen, since BF doesn't do the promo trailer video pizzazz at all.

I think the problem lies in the shown scenario, the only real interesting thing about the map is, that it shows the hull down positions of the Syrian tanks and the river with the bridge. I assume that this was the choice why this map was used, to show it to the core customer base (good choice here, but don´t make it a core feature in the video.) and the focus shifted away from the tactic scenario and the equipment, which would be interesting for new players.
The American troops attack, you can see some combined arms and some fire and movement, which is good! Love it! But they are just steamrolling the Syrian troops with them having no proper reaction. I know thats realistic, but a different scenario, with smaller, maybe even more diverse forces fighting against each other on a tactical level would be better to show the spirit of the game.
Please keep in mind, I don´t critizise because I don´t like the game, I think the Combat Mission series is awesome, but I like to point out, what I think could be better.

For me as an CMSF2 fan, the video was good, but basically everything new to see about CMSF2 is awesome for me, no matter what.

Did you miss the announcement? It was a limited release for just two days last week. Incredibly exciting!

Michael

Can't wait to try out the M163 Vulcan and the Flakpanzer Gepard!
Best regards
Thomm

September.

There is no use to push for the release of the game. Battlefront is not holding the release back to push their fans into anger, they have their reason to release the game on the best date possible. Waiting is the most convinient option.

Allready own CMSF but decided to go "full monty" anyway and preorderd the big bundle. My way to say "thank you" Battlefront :-)

Right at the top of the TO&E list it says:
Not a complete list.
I am sure a beta tester will be along shortly to give an answer to your question.