Magpie_Oz

"From our point of view the Poles should be included in the Commonwealth module because their TOE/OOB closely matches the British/Commonwealth forces and the only differences would be adding their formations, voice and slight texture differences to the module. They could NOT be included in a later module since that would necessitate including almost the entire TOE/OOBs found in the Commonwealth module - either a reproduction of the work of the Commonwealth module or a dependency on it. Both bad ideas from our perspective. So MOST LIKELY either the Poles will be included in the Commonwealth module or not at all for the CMBN family." So does that mean that if the 21st AG forces are the only ones in the module as far as the Commonwealth goes for this module, that all other Commonwealth nations are precluded from CM2?

If a soldier has your name in a scenario and gets killed does that mean you can't play any more if you want to be historically accurate?

I think that is the key to it. D-Day introduces so many different things to be simulated for a very short period of time that the amount of work put in doesn't really yield a good game result. It would be difficult to have balanced scenarios that involved one side running across and open beach, or being scattered far and wide across the countryside. Gliders are only ever really used in a tactical sense at Pegasus bridge and even then not really. If it was a PTO module then that would be a different story altogether

"Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles??" Is the original question ergo you are not correct in assuming it will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles for two reasons 1. The Poles are not Commonwealth forces 2. The module seemingly also does not include the New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans and Indians It is not a matter of being pedantic it is a matter of answering the question. As far as the Axis goes you are forgetting Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iraq, The Vichy French, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Denmark, Norway (Ok these two are usually represented in the SS Div Viking) and Spain.

But the general focus isn't "The Commonwealth" it is the British and the Canadians. That is a long way from "The Commonwealth" I find it just a little annoying for the generalisation to be made. It is like calling a module that only contains Italy and Germany "The Axis".

Yes let's, before we get to the point of realising all of these battle set up the utter destruction of the German Army in Falaise Pocket, wouldn't want reality or truth to get in the way of a good story

No the shell is falling from the instant it leaves the barrel, it has to there is nothing holding it up anymore. It inscribes a parabola because of gravity accelerating the shell downwards. i.e the further it goes horizontally the faster it goes vertically down. Yes the barrel is elevated and that is to allow for the 1 to 2 meter drop calced above, air resistance will slow the projectile thus taking longer to reach the range and therefore falling further. If you do the calcs for all ranges: 100m 0.056m 200m 0.225m 300m 0.506m 400m 0.901m 500m 1.407m As you say it is a parabola and you can see in the first 100m it only drops 0.056m in the last it drops 0.506m, 10 times more ! Check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_ballistics#Bullet_drop there is a groovy table (if Physics is able to be groovy?) there that shows the varying drop due to drag calculations and comparing that to empirical radar measurements. They show similar results to my basic calculations

"At 500m there is going to be a negligable ballistic drop, for even the 75 L40," Muzzle Velocity of a 75mm Pak 40 : 933m/s = 500/933 = 0.5359s to 500m (This is ignoring a whole stack of other variables as well, the big one being air resistance that will slow the projectile and thus taking longer to get to range and hence dropping more.) "Ballistic Drop" or just simply the drop due to gravity = 0.5 x g (Gravity 9.8m/s/s) x Time Squared. = 0.5 x 9.8 x 0.5359^2 = 1.407 m (!) Let's say we are shooting a Sherman, 2.74m high, aim at the centre and you are aiming at a point 1.37m off the ground or 1.37 down from the top of the turret which ever way you look at it. If you set your sight as if the range is 700m you will be expecting a drop of 2.758m, more than the height of the target so you would need to aim into the ground to hit it, aim at the centre and your shot will miss by 1.4m

Poland is not part of the Commonwealth, might need a name change if they are going to be included. Of course functionally the would be more or less the same as the British Army / Paratroopers in general.

Yep I am a frustrated ex-ASL player too in fact I had been hunting a computer version of it since 1988 when these new fangled computer thingies came out that you could take home with you, Amiga 500 they were called. It was only in the '0's that I finally found the Combat Mission series after some in tense Googling.

At 250m I would think anything would be fairly easily spotted by any unit I would think. Perhaps the ATGM team was out of sight and unspottable by anyone? Did the ATGM team spot your snipers or anyone else?

OK here's a thing. The longest range tank v tank shot ever performed was by a Challenger 1 mounting an L30 rifled gun. I forget the exact amount but the range was over 5000m. Although it is not something that is done very often, I know that the L30 can group 3 rounds in a circle 300mm across from 1000m, on a range, stationary, known environmentals, level ground, target and shooter same height, modern FCS etc. Wind the clock back 70 years and place the tank in combat and I reckon the group of a WW2 tank gun would be lucky to have the entire tank as the mean point of impact rather than any specific part, regardless of the experience of the crew. To hit the tank was the objective if you managed to hit a particular weak point all well and good but there is no way you can place a round "within 2 inches" or on the mantlet or any other such thing. I would think that an Elite crew would be better at estimating the various factors that effect the shot thus giving them a higher chance of a hit, rather than a tighter group. The Wittman gunner, Bobby Woll, would leave his sights set at 800m and the estimate the offset required from there, simply by his greater experience. This meant he could fire sooner and more accurately than a gunner who had to muck about setting the sights etc. Combat experience shows the tank to fire first is usually the victor

I don't think the French actually manufactured any Panthers did they? I thought it was just that they cobbled together enough bits to equip a regiment or so. They did produce a copy of the main gun tho'

"those who only care about lost sales, and those who don't want their products used by people without paying, regardless of whether they would have bought it or not." I do not understand what that is meant to mean, are you suggesting that BF want us to pay for it every time we run it? or are you suggesting that it is ok to give a game to someone who would not have otherwise bought it? Why is that most people would not ever consider taking 2 stereos with them when they leave the electronics store having paid for one but those same people seem to think it is ok to use multiple copies of computer software in contravention of the EULA? The amount of work that goes into these games and the number of people who buy them must make for some pretty slim margins I expect and I for one have no problem at all with paying for fair use and BF implementing what ever restrictions on it that their business model requires.

Can you use Engineers "Sweep Mines" at all ?

A sniper scope is a really bad thing to use for surveillance. They have high magnification but quite a narrow field of view. Of course the team does carry other optics like the wider field spotter scopes and the rifle scope will give you a good close up view once you have localised the target. I do not think a thermal or IR gear will help a great deal when looking for a concealed soldier 1000m away. The big thing a sniper team has over the average team is that it is trained to sit a watch and not be detected so from that perspective they are a better prospect for surveillance over a regular team. It would be interesting to compare if the snipers are harder to spot than a regular team of the same size. Have you noticed at all that although not quicker to spot a target initially you do get more information about a spotted target? Those two things would be a good simulation of the sniper teams special skills I reckon.

Isn't it a bit dangerous to have the ammo stored in the middle of the tank like that?

ok well that is a bit different then. A jeep would not be sufficient for a mortar team of 4 plus the mortar itself, barrel, baseplate, bipod and sight, plus ammo, and I am talking 3" mortars and up here not the 60mm glorified grenade projector but I do agree that not being able to load on helicopters and larger trucks does seem a fair sort of short coming after all mobility is one of the key aspects of a mortar. MG's however are an entirely different matter as they can be easily carried in almost anything, even many HMG's. Not wanting to be pedantic but I must point out that a support weapon that is stowed for transport cannot support the infantry anyway but I get the point you are making.

Some tanks despite the best maintenance efforts were quite unreliable, famously the early Pz V's had a tenancy to stall or even burst into flames because of their over worked engines, the Cromwell too could shed a track easily if the driver was not careful. Even the best of tanks and drivers can still run afoul of bad ground or panic that leads to a bad decision. I for one would love to see a fairly detailed model of the perils of manoeuvring on the battlefield. Another aspect would be the simulation of poor supply and hence bad maintenance thus degrading the performance of your 500 pointers, would make you think twice about putting too many eggs in a particular basket

I wouldn't call it a blunder, it is a matter of how far you want to go. With each ability there opens up a whole range of other possibilities. How big does the vehicle need to be? How much ammo can it carry ? What if the ammo is in one and the tube in another? what about the mortar in the truck and the crew on foot? etc etc. With each question arises another round of things that can happen that need to be modelled. I guess the programmers have to draw the line somewhere which is what "it is not implemented means" not sure why a simple direct answer of the facts is unprofessional.

Yes I do the Alt-Tab thing when I need to drop back to desk top and that works well enough. My main want was to be able to change focus when the games are loading. As they take awhile it is sometimes nice to be able to do something else while you wait. I find if I Alt-Tab when a load is in progress the game crashes.

The quickest way to kill the XO ? Tell the men it was he who cancelled the beer ration, then let nature take its course.

Yes the flames from the hatches would be the ammo and "other" combustibles from inside. The rear decks will be the flames from the engine. The tracks themselves often have rubber inserts and the road wheels usually have a rubber rim as well that would be what you see burning. I am not sure if a tank would brew up differently depending on the weapon, an internal fire from what ever cause should be pretty much the same. Those massive flames in the video on the first tank look very much like the propellant from the main gun rounds burning and also maybe some metal, like aluminium or magnesium. I am not 100% sure how these tanks are being destroyed. Even the smartest of smart bombs would be doing well to hit a tank direct (JDAM CEP 10m) but I have a feeling the bombs may be proximity fused to explode above the tank and send fragments down through the thinner upper armour. If that is the case it would be a series of penetrations not unlike an AT round rather than a single colossal wallop of a 500lb bomb direct hit. Maybe someone else in here can confirm but I would think a direct hit with a bomb would blow the tank apart and leave a crater as well ?

I cannot imagine a situation where the RSM would end up in command of a battalion. After CO, 2IC, XO, OpsO, IntO, RSO, and the raft of other officers at BHQ, one of the Coy OC's would be well before the RSM. I guess the important thing to consider is what actually happens when the Pl Comd is out of action. Does the HQ continue to function as a command unit to the subordinates?

Does anyone know if there is a command line switch to run the game in a window? Makes it easier to do other stuff while the game is running if I can have it in a window