LemuelG

I guess the case I'm making is that these changes were already well underway by Normandy. The passage from Nordyke's book is quite un-ambiguous and detailed (as far as it matters to a platoon leader; why should he be confused about how many squads he had, and how they were organized?). More, from Ridgeway: AB leaders were aware of the short-comings of their organization prior to Normandy - some pre-Neptune changes are more obvious - adding 2 parachute regiments and subtracting a glider regiment from the OOB, for instance. My sources are limited, but I think the subject deserves another look. If you have it wrong, then in-game AB companies are being severely short-changed. I think there is ample evidence for a BAR to be added to every para squad, at the very least.

Haha, I guess I missed that boat. Cue posts referring me to search function... What happened in that thread? I guess team 3-squad lost?

I wasn't originally worried about this (ignorance), but as I've researched for a scenario I've come across a few hints that maybe the in-game Para companies are a bit under-weight. Reading things like this prompted me to post: Out of the Blue: U.S. Army Airborne Operations in World War II, James A. Huston p.187 Four Stars of Valor: The Combat History of the 505th Parachute Infantry, Phil Nordyke p.223 In No Better Place to die, Robert Murphy states his company's (A, 1/505) post-drop strength at 146 men total, with a (approx.) 90% assembly-rate. Significantly higher than what we find in-game. Of course, three extra sections is an attractive explanation for this higher head-count. Tangled within eyewitness accounts in the same book are also a number of references to BARs in each section, er squad. I guess what I'm asking for is the ability to purchase extra squads for each platoon as 'specialist teams'. And a BAR for every parachute squad, or at least the option. For now I understand it is not by-the-book, but there is significant evidence that the reality diverged sharply from theory, some similar cases of which BFC have already made concession for (57mm guns for one).

Thanks, I really like this. Great job.

I do this too, but I am careful to remember that all those lovely little things (and there are a few, formations being the first feature I'd jack from it for CM) in AP which are absent in CMBN effectively come with a cost - i.e. the complete lack of human vs. human play (inexcusable), or realistic tactical situations/missions. It just shows that as yet there is no such thing as the perfect tactical game, but we get closer all the time. I did really enjoy fanging around in T-34s crushing the cowering crews of burning panzers under my treads, or rolling right over the top of an ATG... man, that game really needed MP

I'm guessing.. it's because Pz.IVs are more likely to operate in formation, maybe? German commanders actually moaned about the Panther's performance in bocage country, the long barrel became a genuine liability. Jagdpanzer IVs also suffered from these issues - one unfortunate collision between your long long gun and, anything at all - it's now useless. Maneuvering these vehicles in confined spaces required a lot of care and co-ordination from the crew.

I've got another one - what if Germany doesn't wage a remorseless war of genocide and slavery, and instead enters Soviet territory offering a viable and attractive alternative to Bolshevik terror?

Agreed, it would be nice to be able cut small chunks off large maps for ease of editing and viewing, pasting them back in later. It would be nice to have a comprehensive explanation of the algorithm behind map-expansion from someone familiar with the code. At least let us plan around limitations.

Well that doesn't sound like much fun, you should really take your licks, come back swinging - it will be much more gratifying than tearing your hair out and interrupting the battle for several minutes if one of your gunners treads on a mine or a platoon leader is killed by a bullet ricocheting off a tank. No wonder you're not enjoying it, an actual combat commander in Normandy with that attitude would probably melt-down within a few minutes of action. Make yourself some rules - one save every five/ten turns or something. Cut back your re-loads until you don't do it at all unless there is a crash or some-such, it's like weening yourself off the dope. Keep playing if you're bad, it'll pass - I remember how rough a time I had with Close Combat the first time I played it, that seems laughable now.

Yes, everyone's favorite "Hitler's biggest mistake"... I wonder, should he have just ignored the vast amounts of material sent over the ocean? I've got one - what if the Nazis didn't squander so much of Europe's resources on the mass-murder and enslavement of millions defenceless civilians? Might that have helped?

I have no problem with my infantry firing on TCs foolish enough to expose themselves to small-arms fire, good show chaps. I see it as perfectly desirable and realistic... why the heck would they wait until it was within 100m? That would be madness. If there was a problem it was with an almost super-natural infantry-spotting ability of buttoned tanks, something apparently adjusted in the patch. If you don't want your guys to fire upon a tank, or be fired upon by a tank you should get them out of harm's way, or hide.

No duh. And first-aid/battlefield evac. is a far more complex issue than having a guy squat over a gravely wounded guy and mime wrapping bandages for a minute or two; most people get over it and don't moan about it's implementation (buddy-aid, that is). Turns out some gross abstractions are sufficient to enhance enjoyment and tactical experience, for me and a few others at least - if that were not true this game would not exist. And, for what it's worth I'd like to see a 'no time-limit' option.

Not for me. I have no idea what circumstances conspire to make the trees flash, but it pisses me off enough that I tend to visit the editor to annihilate any offenders (only some trees flash for me, and they can be 'fixed' with deletion).

The scenario was taken from a pamphlet put together by the US army with the intent of passing along tactical lessons learned in Normandy to fresh troops about to be deployed there. Take it as you like - it may be cherry-picked, but it was held up as an example to be followed.

While I would argue about it's relative importance vs. castles, I agree with this whole-heartedly. A country-style church with a more significant stature and more substantial bell-tower would be very desirable for historical scenario design; it would be nice if we could also have 'diagonal' churches - y'all know what I mean. While I'm here I might as well quickly plug my desire for an in-between height for hedges/walls as well. New map-elements are a sure-fire way of making the game better, particularly castles. Castles.

Aww, I got all excited - but then I realized I hadn't assigned any objectives, I double-checked to be sure, and there was nowt. Am currently sitting at 2368m horizontally; westward expansion is not possible, it freely extends to the east out past 2500m (too lazy to go further).

All armoured formations had organic repair units, down to company level. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/german-tank-maintenance-recovery.html The ability to respond quickly to breakdowns/damage etc was a major factor in being able to keep these units moving. Particularly for the Germans who could not rely on rapid replacement of losses incurred.

Sure, though a dedicated 81mm mortar is a pretty convincing problem-solver. The solution to vehicle-recovery under fire is much the same as almost every tactical problem, fire-superiority. Agreed, just planting seeds for the next major release..

I used 'em in the demo without problems. I drive them right up to the hedge first, then plot a slow movement to the other side directly, takes a few seconds. Hope that helps.

I suspect the map can only be expanded a certain amount in each direction, I have one that is little more than 2km wide and can only be expanded to the east, having added much ground to the west already it wont go any further. Please fix

I'd take US para battalion over any other equivalent. More explosives, more mortars, HQs equipped to kick butt. Some of the AB formations committed at Normandy were pretty green, others were crack - on both sides. I think it's fair to say leadership in allied AB was generally much more aggressive and determined than was the case in the rifle divisions. A lot of those guys died pretty fast though. Paratroopers are also trained in the use of most weapons the division fielded, as they could not always be assured that they would be able to find their assigned-weapon in the drop-canisters, and would take whatever they found, swapping them later on when a mutually-beneficial arrangement can be made with another soldier. I wonder if this is represented in-game? (presumably the guy who buddy-aids a Zook won't be as good with it as the guy who's it was; AB should perhaps not suffer <as much as others> from that penalty)

I remember those discussions, I was inclined to believe it since I had so often noticed MG crews barely using their ammo stocks. Since, I have seen s.MG42s really going to town at close range. Certainly the 'test' which involved a US rifle company advancing toward a German platoon over open-ground was pretty ridiculous. Germans tended not to emplace their guns right out in the open facing superior forces - gee, imagine that weapons in highly unfavorable positions facing much greater forces don't perform so well. It's also worth mentioning the significant gulf between a belt-fed s.MG42 and a drum-fed l.MG42 in terms of accurate and consistent firepower.

No it doesn't. Leave the strawmen out of it eh? A thrown track is a thrown track. I don't remember anyone asking for the crew to give their vehicle a full-service in-situ; just put the friggin track back on, dig yourself out of the mud, do something!! Not rocket-science bro, severe damage is obviously not worth repairing in-game. http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html B-b-b-but... not under fire? Not under the circumstances we find in game? Of course I call BS on this, this stuff happened all the time. Will I bother building an air-tight case? No, it doesn't benefit me to do this, I wont get the time I spend doing it back, so stuff it. Every single armoured formation in WWII had it's own organic recovery & repair outfits; while mostly rear-echelon, elements travel directly behind the vanguard ready to respond ASAP to any demands for their services, these repair sections were expected to triage the vehicle, if the job is simple enough to do in a few hours with parts and tools on-hand then they are expected to do it, and hurry-up about it. Arguments like: "but not in your typical CMBN scenario (whatever that means)" or "but not in a hot-zone" are provably false. Battlefield repairs/recovery are completely realistic. It is that simple.

3-4 hours, so... within the time-frame of a long CMBN battle?

I already add high stone directly up against some walls to fortify them, since the truly thick ones didn't have too many windows anyway. In the case of 'gray castle' I'm pretty dissatisfied with what I came up with... that thing's like a proper castle gatehouse; It's perhaps not quite critical tactically , but would be a brilliant aesthetic touch. Here's La Fiere manor: I really would like castles. I wont throw a tantrum if it doesn't get off the ground.