HarryB

I hope they address the issue of 'steel trees'. In the pbem game I am playing I fired a shell with the 150mm German infantry gun using what the game said was a clear line of sight. What appeared to happen was the shot actually hit the top of a tree and bounced backwards, killing some soldiers who were behind the gun. I have no way to be certain of this, but I don't see anything else that could have fired the explosive round into the troops positioned behind the gun and the timing was absolutely perfect with the shot hitting the top of the tree. Let's get real here. The tops of trees are usually pretty flimsy, no way should they be able to deflect a round from a 150mm gun. Even if they set off the explosive charge the leaves should all be blown away, along with a good chunk of the tree that set it off. Make no mistake, this is the best computer wargame I have played, but there are a few warts that could use some Compound W...And ditto about the armor arc, a definite necessity.

Played through the campaign and enjoyed it, but I do have a couple of small suggestions. In the dialog, it seems that the only cuss word they know is 'F**k', I would suggest mixing it up with 'Sh*t', and 'Sonofab**ch', etc. for a little variety. I also think you might want to make it a little harder by throwing in a few more Germans. Good job though, it's obvious you put a lot of work into it.

Speaking of 1.01, any word on when we can expect it?

Would it be possible to have the game engine take all the files from a pbem game and stitch them together into one large file with FOW turned off so that both players could watch the entire battle unfold as a movie? I think it would be very interesting and fun to watch. Not sure how difficult it would be to program, but if it could be done I think it would be pretty neat.

To me, this is simply a programming issue. I believe it has been stated before that vehicle crews that abandon their vehicles can get back in them later, but gun crews who abandon their guns cannot crew them again. I am curious why this is so. To me, this makes infantry guns less effective than they should be; all you need to do to disable the gun is pick off a few of the crew because nobody can help them push the gun around. I think everyone would agree that this is an unrealistic limitation. Battlefront, any chance you guys will take a look at this? Any chance you will change the code or is it just too difficult to change it given the way the code is currently written?

In the game I am currently playing I have a 150mm infantry gun where two of the crew have been hit so I am now down to only a gunner and a loader. I need to be able to move the gun a bit, but the two of them don't seem to be able to make much progress. However, sitting right next to them is the 4 man loader team. You'd think that they would be able to help push the thing instead of sitting there laughing as the two poor bastards left on the gun crew try to push the heavy hunk of metal around. Is is possible to code it so that ammo bearer teams can take over for dead or wounded crew? I would understand if they couldn't take over as gunner because they lack the proper training, but anyone should be able to help push the gun around. Thoughts?

It's just a fun vehicle to use, nothing else quite like it; great for blasting infantry in built up areas. I built a model of one as a kid.

Even if it was a wreck used as a practice target, something had to wreck it in the first place. We will never know the exact circumstances that lead to this AFV's destruction, but it looks like it met a violent end at the hands of the Allies, one way or another.

An interesting thing to note is that in the picture of the Brummbar's barrel at the link above, there is a shell from a Sherman imbedded in the gun mantlet. A very clear indicator that these vehicles were not only present in Normandy, but actively engaged in the fighting. Would anyone from Battlefront like to make a comment as to whether the Brummbar might be included in the next module?

Cheers, the colon was part of the sentence, didn't mean for it to be part of the link so I just deleted it. If they are digging up pieces of them in Normandy, you know they took part in the fighting. I definitely think that the vehicle is unique and interesting enough to be worth including in the next module.

I think it is an interesting and fairly unique vehicle and fun to play around with. It was not included in CMBO, and we had to wait for CMBB for it to be released in CMx1. I am hoping that we will be able to play around with it in Normandy this time around. I have done some poking around on the net and it appears that there was a unit of Brummbars in Normandy at the time of the Allied invasion. According to Achtungpanzer.com "Sturmpanzerabteilung 217 was formed from April to June of 1944 at Grafenwohr. In July of 1944, it was send to Normandy, south-east of Caen. Part of Sturmpanzerabteilung 217 was destroyed at Falaise, while the rest withdrew into Holand and took part in defence of Aachen." This from http://www.lerenfort.fsnet.co.uk/page39N.htm "Another remarkable find from Normandy below is the 15cm main armament from a Sd.kfz 166 or Sturmpanzer IV "Brummbar". This would have belonged to a Brummbar of Sturm Panzer Abteilung 217 that fought in Normandy during the Summer of '44 and is one of two to be found in the same collection!" There is a picture of the recovered barrel below the text. So, I'm going to make a personal plea that it be included when you introduce the Brits. Come on Battlefront, don't make me wait until the Russian Front this time around to play with the Brummbar, it's just too cool not to be included in the next module!

Wanted to give this a bump. Is there any reason that point values should not be displayed in the editor?

Could you guys make it so the the point values of units show up in the scenario editor? It would help with seeing how balanced the forces are when you are purchasing units and make it easier to know if you were designing a scenario that was reasonably fair.

And that is one of the problems with selecting the forces the way they are set up now, they are not part of a unified command structure. If you could add platoons and companies to existing formations, they would be part of the structure. If they are just battalions pared down to company level or below, they are just individual units with the command structure stopping at the highest level remaining within their individual battalion instead of reporting to a higher level commander. A better way to do it would be to select one battalion level formation and then add companies to it, or add platoons to individual companies within the existing battalion, but that is not possible the way it is set up now.

Ok, I was able to delete the battalion commander after deleting every white unit below him, but this is still not as good a solution as having companies and platoons selectable to attach to existing formations. If I do it this way, I can end up with a bunch of battalions pared down to company level or below, but they are not part of a unified command structure, not to mention the fact that it is cumbersome to do it this way.

Well, when I am in the force selection screen and highlight the battalion commander, the only option I see is 'rename', the 'delete' button has disappeared. If there is some funky way to delete the battalion commander that is not obvious, that is just bad design. I should not have to search the forums to figure out how to perform a simple operation like that.

I don't think you've really read the post. There is nothing in it about violating the chain of command. The way things are set up now you have the choice to add individual vehicles or battalions, with nothin in the middle. The whole point of the post is that you should be able to add company and platoon level formations to the chain of command without having to add their battalion first. If individual vehicles can be added to the chain, there is no reason that these formations cannot be added as well.

No, you can't delete the battalion level HQ units, you also can't delete the company commander that the platoon you added was attached to, so you quickly end up with a whole bunch of high level commanders and very few troops to command.

Not that I really care about historical fidelity in the formations I am using in my quick battle, but it seems to me that the way it is now is even less realistic. If I want to add a platoon of engineers I have to add the engineer battalion and then chop it down to a platoon. I could end up with five battalion commanders on the field commanding a very small force which is a bit ridiculous to me.

I don't think 'historical reasons' explain the lack of options. Individual vehicles are selectable and attach to whatever formation you have selected. Why is that different than attaching a company or platoon?

I’m a little disappointed with the formations available for choosing when the player is doing his force selection at the beginning of a quick battle. Even for the smaller engagements I’m almost compelled to select a battalion level formation and then completely gut it. I would like to see more company and platoon level formations that are selectable. I primarily play quick battles and one of the things I liked best about CMx1 was that I could customize my forces to my liking; I really don’t care whether it is historical or not, I’m just looking for an interesting game. Maybe I want to add a platoon of Panthers to an infantry company, or add a company of grenadiers to a panzer battalion. To me it almost seems like the people who selected the formations available for quick battles don’t play quick battles themselves. The way it is now, if I want to add a platoon of tanks I have to select an entire battalion and then pare it down as much as possible, which really makes it more of a pain than it is worth so I just end up selecting individual vehicles. I really don’t understand why company level formations aren’t available. Why should it be difficult to attach a company of Panzer IVs to a grenadier battalion? I also find it curious that you can’t even select what type of tank you want when you select a panzer battalion, sometimes you get Panthers, sometimes you get Panzer IVs. The situation with infantry is much the same, if I want to add a company or platoon I must add the battalion and then pare it down as much as possible. I don’t understand the logic of this. If I can add individual vehicles to the chain of command, why is it a problem to add companies or platoons? The formations are there within the battalions, all it takes is someone to break them out and make them available for selection. One additional thing I would like to see is the ability to adjust the force level of the defender like you now can for the attacker. I would like to be able to set up an evenly matched meeting engagement quick battle with more than the 7200 points currently available for a Huge battle, but the only side that can be adjusted is the attacker.

Do you really think the tac AI would react differently depending on what nation you are facing? I would expect it to react to certain parameters, rather than specific vehicles and infantry formations. If that was the case you would have to program each nation specifically for fighting against every type of vehicle, weapon and formation that you would be facing. That would be very difficult and cumbersome. It has already been stated that you can have battles within each separate game with any mix of nationalities you want that are in that game. Would battlefront really go through the trouble to program each unit in the game for how they should react against every piece of equipment etc. in the game, including equipment and formations that are on the same side? I don't think so. And if the game was designed to be modular, then updates should be able to be applied to all nations. That is why I am having a hard time understanding why it would be difficult to include the Russians in the mix.

Excellent news, although it is too bad about the Russians. It would be interesting to simulate the Allies going up against the Soviets after the Germans were defeated. I guess I don't really understand the difficulty of folding the Russians into the other CM:BN games. How much beyond combining the unit lists does it go? I would think that improvements made to the game could be made to work for the Allies as well. I played a lot of CMBO and CMBB, but never really got into CM:SF. This feature was one that I was asking for with the earlier CM games, but it never happened.

I agree with Tank Hunter, I think it would be great if the modules were combined into one large game, instead of separate executables. The way I see it, you are just incorporating more infantry formations and vehicle types into one large database. If they would start their initial game with the understanding that future modules will be designed to be "plugged in", then I don't think the programming load would be too significant. I would also like to see things structured around "Side A" vs. "Side B" instead of Axis vs. Allied. I would enjoy playing games where forces on both sides were identical as well as American vs. British, American vs. Russian, British vs. Russian. More variety that way. I don't care that it isn't historical. If people don't like the non-historical matchups they can still stick with the traditional ones. If the game is designed this way, it becomes kind of a toolbox where the only limitation is the imagination of the scenario creator.