Ivanov

Don't kid yourself guys. A best selling game has to include American forces, so no Eastern Front or North Africa 1941-42. Maybe the first CM3 game could be something like Torch to Tunis. But unfortunately it seems like Normandy would always have the priority. I personally would love to see Barbarossa or France 1940. As to North Africa - sure the open terrain gives you a possibility of sweeping maneuvers, but the maps would need to be huge and the whole concept of the game should be different, with the introduction of planning and operational phases.

There could be maps, that would represent nuclear wastelands and a new category of units - post nuke stragglers

True. But anyway, there's a potential for a FB expansion - Patton at Metz, Colmar Pocket, crossing the Rhine, Ruhr pocket... And of course the British expansions with Canadians and Poles - aforementioned Scheldt or Rhineland. Well, that would be at least two expansions - one Americans with the addition of the French and second British with the Allied nations.

Given the limited resources of Battlefront ( look how painfully slow is the proces of remaking SF ), I don't think Fulda is even on the horizon. But in some unspecified future - why not? It would sell like crazy.

The demo is excellent! CM is getting better and better with each release, no matter if it's WW2 or modern. It's a pity we'll have to wait for a final, complete game. Oh and by the way - Fulda!

But two MG 42's per squad, with their rate of fire, surely are able to hit something. From my experience squad vs squad, the Germans are able very quickly to achieve a fire superiority and suppress the US squad.

Yeah, I've always thought, that the German and Soviet squads are too lavishly equipped with the automatic weapons. Two MG 42's, MP 40 and StG 44 per squad seems way over the top. Compare it to US squads in Bulge game and Waffen SS looks like space stromtroopers, against the medieval peasant rebles with pitchforks and sticks. Same in case of the Soviets, they have too many submachine guns per squad. Maybe some elite recon troops, the Spetsnaz precursors were so equipped, but definitely not the regular units, not even Guards. I think that the German and Soviet squads in CM had been boosted for the game balance reasons.

You won't be disappointed.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the YT videos. They are not representative because they always show successful attacks from the ambush positions. I haven't seen many videos where the missile missed or malfunctioned. So the ATGM porn present online has to represent only small fraction of the actual launches. Of course the're ATGM systems like Spike NLOS with a range over 20km designed to be fired at the targets BVR. But they are designed for the helicopters or some future tank destroyers, that would be networked with drones or other observation systems. Having said this, I'd love to see a little bigger CM maps. They don't have to be 10x10km, but maybe 5x5km, something more suitable for mechanized combat. The current maps are great for infantry combat or WW2. For modern mech warfare - not so much.

Yeah, and how often will they have the opportunity to fire at such a long distances? On the European theatre, the average engagement distance for tanks or ATGMs is about 1km.

Because there're tons of WW2 based games, including Combat Mission. Games like Shock Force or Black Sea are quite exhilarating because unlike WW2, the themes they represent haven't been overdone to death by the gaming industry. It's not even that they are fictional, I'd be equally happy for example with CM Yom Kippur. I think that there's a big market for the 80's based game, because many people grew up or even served in the military during that period. For some reason Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm become one of my favourite games on all times. I just can't get the same level of excitement anymore if it comes to WW2.

1. Fulda. 2. Middle East. 3. Barbarossa. 4. Early War.

Spot the Canadian:

I've enjoyed it a lot. His passion for the subject is contagious.

I think this fits well to describe both content of the internet (directed to the millennial generation who doesn't read books, just shares links and videos ) and to modern media ( news programs, press etc ) in general.

Did he wrote that is his memoirs after the war? If so, I'd take it with a big grain of salt. During the war, at the end of 1944 he said that the war would be lost, if the Upper Silesian Industrial Region was captured by the Soviets. BTW even by the end of 1944, none from the upper echelons of the Nazi elites, was seriously considering, that Third Reich would be defeated. Even the supposedly rational Speer was "working towards the Fuhrer", convinced that there could be a bloody draw, which would convince the Western Powers to ally with Germany against the Soviets. At some stage Himmler was even trying to suggest Hitler, that maybe a separate peace with Soviet Union would be possible. No rational thinking there in any case. It was really the failure of the Ardennes offensive which persuaded those who could be convinced, that there would be no German victory. According to Kersaw, half of German military dead were suffered during the war, died during the period from July of 1944 till the end of the war. Also half of the bombs dropped on Germany by the Allies account for the last nine months of the war. The efforts of Speer assured, that the Second World War agony would last for as long as it did. The historians still study and debate this issue and they are very far from drawing the final conclusions. That's why a random guy from Youtube, who claims "it was oil" sounds so ridiculous. Ps. You really gotta love Dr Citino.

That's an interesting statement. I've always thought, that especially in the 80's, BW was in a pretty good shape, being the main the pillar of NATO's defences. From the other hand, in theory the Wehrmacht was never completely ready for the war, but this fact never prevent it from being quite effective ( at least for the time being ), when the actual war broke out

lmao

Nope. I think you misinterpreted my comments. But let's just leave like that, unless you have something constructive to add on the subject of the discussion.

Mhm, ok.

Nope. I was just disagreeing with judging BW state based on the look of the soldiers from the video. I've been also trying to turn this exchange into more constructive discussion about the real reasons, why German army has become what it is today. So thank you for the recent comments of @panzersaurkrautwerfer @DerKommissar @Rinaldi and @Saint_Fuller

I see that the functional analphabetism is alive and well. Where did I say that German army is in a perfect shape?

It's also worth mentioning, that from the point of view of the majority of German political class, using military in international relations is "obsolete". German international politics, has similar goals to Russian aims, that is to spread German influence in the "near abroad" and expand the buffer zone around the country. But the main tool of this expansion is economy and the main vehicle of it is the EU. This policy has been hugely successful so far, hence I don't expect that we'll see increase of importance of German armed forces any time soon.

And why is that in your opinion?

@Rinaldi denial of what? I'm not denying that the BW is in a poor shape. Wer're just discussing what is the cause.