Lunsku

I'd just like to second that I'd really like to see more scenarios at this tiny scale.

I didn't find the crossing very challenging. I had the platoon in good positions at the bocage by the river, and just poured area fire on the positions I had seen machinegun fire from. Once the first squad was over, it essentially could move by the bocage there and assault the positions closest to the riverbank, and cover other squads moving over one at time. I really felt the key was suppressing the opponent positions you had idea about properly before going over. The US squads can put out such a heavy firepower, with two covering and one moving, that it kept enemy heads down.

Edit: Argh, beaten by more informative post while typing this! The US Army Engineer Field Manual (FM 5-15) from 1944 lists following rough guidelines for "Thickness required for protection against single shots by direct-fire weapons", against "Small arms and MG (7.92mm) fire at 100 yards", 7.92 being to my understanding the common German WW2 era caliber: Brick masonry 1½ feet (~45 cm) Concrete (not reinforced) 1 feet (~30 cm) Concrete (reinforced) ½ feet (~15 cm) Stone masonry 1 feet (~30 cm) Wood 2 feet (~60 cm) Timber 3 feet (~90 cm) "Note: Protective thickness given is for a single shot only. Where direct-fire weapons are able to get five or six hits in the same area, the required protective thickness is approximate twice that indicated." Those already feel to me kinda thick walls required for most materials. I guess we must remember that most WW2 era service weapon ammo pack quite a bigger punch than modern assault rifle ammunition. There's also table listing "Thickness of materials required to protect against penetration of fragments from projectiles and bombs exploding at the distance of 50 feet". I'll list thicknesses against 75mm/105mm/155mm HE shells, respectively: Brick masonry 4/6/8 inches Concrete (plain) 4/5/6 inches Concrete (reinforced) 3/4/5 inches Timber 8/10/14 inches Those are much reasonable numbers. And to remind these are about shrapnel from nearby explosion, not what would protect from direct shell hit.

I actually returned with CMBN, can't access my old account though anymore. Having a good PBEM with Hukka I think at the moment. I'd like to point out that 84 (not 84%!) is a good score. There are problems I think, and those I outline in the review, but the I wrote the review as pretty much positive one.

No biggie, just reclaim your honour be beating my yanks. :3

This area looks oddly familiar... wrong angle though. I would say that there's quite a lot of trees, not dense but still some between my troops and your tank there. alt+t a couple of times and see how it looks like from the tank viewpoint then.

With the changes on Panzerfaust/Panzershreck/Bazooka firing, it'll be interesting to see how PIAT will work once Commonwealth forces are in. Guessing they might be fireable from inside a building, thanks to the differences in the firing mechanism?

Hear, hear. I must admit I'm a bit on the same boat, after wasting a lot of time with CMBO back in 2000-2002 (looks like my old forums account disappeared with some board transition). It's pretty much just UI issues to me mostly, and most have been mentioned. More clearly seeing who is firing at what, visualizing C&C links better, GRAND UNIT LIST, generally tools to help to visualize what is happening better. I just feel that I could much more intuitively step into CMBO back in the day. Still, definitely not a ~50 € wasted, hopefully my steelbook hits mailbox back here in Finland this week or the next. Just looking at the mechanics I really like the CMx2 system. Relative spotting is great once I got used to it, non-abstract infantry is absolutely great, with the ability to split proper fire teams and all, and hasn't been problematic for me. It's a robust engine, and many of the UI and clarity issues are solvable. And hey, theres a new PBEM file from my buddy already, better stop writing this...