Odin

A quick update. The action is starting to pick up, and it looks like the Canadians are attacking my right flank, with infantry moving slowly towards the stragglers' new positions in a fambuilding. Mortar fire has been called in to drop just in front of the farm.On the left flank, the Sherman spotted earlier is firing at one of the PzIVs. It has penetrated the panzer twice, but caused no damage. Annoyingly a number of the Panzers have LOS on the Sherman's position, but only the Panzer which has been struck has spotted it. The other panzers need to spot the Sherman next turn or things could get messy.A bren gun carrier has advanced at full speed to the patch of trees in my centre. A scout team have mown the bren crew down. I'm debating whther to pull these men back, as I think this position will become a target now their presence is known.I thought I had taken an overhead shot, but it seems not. So I'll post a birds-eye view of the battlefield soon.

Two turns in and it looks like the Shermies have made it to the battlefield *Edit it appears at this point only one immobilised Sherman was on the battlefield. The rest were to arrive later.

I know the Allied team are posting AAR updates for the Ortona 43 PzC-CM campaign here on the BF forum, so I thought I'd make the trip over from the The Few Good Men, where the German command resides, to post my part of the San Leonardo AAR. The AAR posts below are copied and pasted from the German command's conversation thread on The FGM, and run the course of the whole battle. The first few ware made 'in battle'. The final post covers 50 minutes+ and was made post battle. I'm not sure whether the Allied players are allowed to read this thread or not? Personally I don't feel as though I'm giving important campaign intel away as the Canadian players probably have a good idea of what they were facing now that the battle has concluded. But maybe @kohlenklau would be a better judge of that and should read through the posts below first, before granting the Allied players permission to view (or not). Comments welcome! PS sorry for the black background to the text. Without first copying and pasting the paragraphs into Word, and editing each of them, I don't think I can get rid of it (and I'm a lazy SOAB).

Awesome, a few years back I wanted to produce a similar campaign. Nice to see kohlenklaus has tackled the island.

I'd like to develop a scenario set in 1944, with the Germans using captured Italian armour. To add a little more realism, I want to replace the Italian tank crew uniforms with German ones. So far I've been able to replace the Italian tanker helmet with the panzer crew sidecap, but I can't figure out how to replace the rest of the Italian tanker uniforms with German ones. I've tried replacing the Italian 'coverall' MDR and BMP files (which I presume are the Italian tank ce textures) with renamed German panzer crew textures in a z folder, but it doesn't seem to change anything. Can anyone help me out out? Cheers

This thread seems to have tailed off now, but I followed a link and came across this absolute gem. JasonC your explanation of Soviet doctrine is one of the best posts I've come across on any subject, on any forum. Credit to you sir. I noticed someone posted a link to a post you made some years back about German strongpoint defensive systems. I'm hoping that out there in the ether of the BF forums you've contributed many such posts over the years about various forms of doctrine. Please, please let this be the case? If so, has anyone managed to collate them, or at least signpost them? I notice Jason, you have made many thousands of posts, so trying to find them from scratch may be problematic. But if you or anyone else on the BF forum could point me in the right direction of other such posts I'd love to read more. Here's an idea - a JasonC 'doctrine' Youtube video series which uses CM to illustrate various WWII combatant doctrines (I can dream).

Thanks for clearing that up Steve. I wouldn't surprise me if that was the situation with my work PC. It got infected with malware a few months back. I think I've managed to clear it now, but it could well explain things. Apologies once again for my boob-up!

@ChrisND my apologies for misunderstanding the situation, and thank you for looking into the matter. I'll try to get hold of my work IP and will PM it to you, your time is much appreciated.

Thanks for the kind comments guys

PS, Jorge MC your fantastic cinematic videos were the inspiration behind my new AAR format. Love your films, keep up the great work.

Hello BF forum members, I recently produced an AAR 'film' of a PBEM game I played out with Rico from The Few Good Men, as part of Rico's Cross of Iron multiplayer campaign. I particularly enjoyed the final episode I played, called Blunting the Spear, and decided to make a film out of it. Rather than go for a standard PBEM game, Rico role played the Soviet side which made for a great experience for the German commanders. My encounter turned into a huge tank KO fest which I thought would make for a good AAR subject. So as a homage to Rico's campaign I've put together a film of the battle. I've adopted a different style on this occasion to my usual commentary AARs, and tried to produce something which tells more of a story to reflect the fantastic storyline Rico developed for Cross of Iron. On a separate note, I also hope the BF crew recognise my love for the game they've created. I'm a little annoyed that my work IP address has been banned from accessing BF's sites. I presume they've marked me down as a 'bad egg' for questioning the content of the upcoming CM Bulge release on the FGM forum (it's my understanding that BF staff have read the thread there). Please note this BF, when I've been critical of CM, it's always been out of a love for the game and a desire to see it become the best game it can, rather than a want to undermine it. I would appreciate it if you could take my work IP address off your ban list, I've tried emailing you about the subject but had no response. Even if only in a small way, I hope the few CM videos I've made over the years have helped to market your game and increase its audience. At the very least I hope the hundreds of hours I've put into making them demonstrate that I'm not some destructive CM troll. All the best (and hoping you don't ban my home IP address) Odin

There's always room for Aris, his tank mods are works of art

Nice set you got there

I would also join either 'The Few Good Men' or 'the Blitz' as there are plenty of PBEM experiences to be had on both sites. I'm a member of both, but find myself using FGM more (nothing against the Blitz!). There are some great multiplayer campaigns and tournaments organised by FGM members, players of all standards, and a friendly community of gamers. As others have pointed out, watch some YouTube videos (Armchair General's tactics videos are good watches) and check out Bill H's tactics website. All great sources to improve your CM skills. Oh yeah and if you want to play PBEM I recommend downloading GaJ's CM Helper, which is a great help in minimising the admin involved with 2 player games.

great work I'm yet to play this one, so I'm looking forward to giving it a go

Hi Bill, yeah I thought you have a more detailed version of the suggestion I posted above which only impacts a unit's ability to area target. Although my suggestion is much more limited, it can be used by just referencing the information available in game, rather than having to keep records. Here's an example taken from a turn. It's based on two Soviet platoons' abilities to area fire on a German bunker. Infantry platoon HQ's awareness of German bunker Infantry squad within HQ's C2 Scout team without C2, but with a sound contact on the bunker T34 unaware of bunker's presence, as is its platoon HQ

Having given it some more thought you could tweak this rule slightly, by having two criteria. The first would apply to HQ units equipped with radios. This could be represented as an advantage in CM by not making necessary for such HQs to have LOS on an area to set a squad area target of the area. Going by this assumption, in a CM game a radio equipped HQ unit could order a squad to advance to a position outside of its C2 range and then area target a position at the end of the movement order. 'In game' this could be represented by a squad being given a movement order when within C2 range; and provided an area target is set before the squad leaves C2 to take place at the end of its movement order, the squad can then undertake an area target of the specified area (eg building) once outside of C2 range. this could be likened to a RL situation where a platoon commander gives a squad an order to move to a new position and then suppress a building etc once it has reached its new position. This could even finally give radio equipped XO teams a job to do other than act as medics or reserves for Company HQs. IE if a platoon is split up, a Company XO team could be dispatched with a squad moving outside of its platoon HQ's C2. This would maintain the squad's the ability to communicate with its HQ and maintain its area fire capability. A second criteria/sub-rule would apply to HQs without radios (eg Italian or Soviet). These 'radioless' HQs would be required to have LOS on a position (and C2 with a squad) for the squad to area target a position. The point being to give HQs which lack the ability to communicate with other HQs outside of their direct verbal or visual range an extra disadvantage. From my understanding of it, in RL if a unit lacked radios and, therefore, the ability to co-ordinate with other units it faced a massive disadvantage. At the moment I don't think such units in CM face as big a disadvantage as they would have done in RL. It's not perfect I know, but I hope it makes sense. Guess I should give this a test run in a game against the AI!

Mos +1 for starting this thread. Posel this is something I've also mulled over in the past. If WWII units' ability to 'borg spot' (is that the correct term?) was further limited in CM, I think it would improve the simulation aspect of the game. For example, could BF create an extra difficulty level for its WWII titles by incorporating an extra level of C2 (or C3 if you will)? EG If a squad cannot see an enemy unit there would be only two types of situation said squad could 'area target' a position: - If its HQ unit has LOS on the position to be fired on, and the squad is within C2 of its HQ. - Or if the squad has a sound contact, or previous visual on an enemy unit, it could fire on the location without the need for a C2 link (maybe area fire could be extended to 3-4 squares radius from the location of a sound contact). I realise this wouldn't drastically alter gameplay or eliminate borg sportting, but I think this, or something similar, would help to limit borg spotting's impact on play. As with Bill's suggestions if you've got a trusted opponent, or are playing the AI, you could do this off your own bat without the need for an extra difficulty level. But if such addition could be done without a complete coding melt down I'd love to see it in future releases. As for Bill's suggestion concerning movement, that sounds great but I guess it is something which could not be coded without drastic changes to the game. Looking forward to seeing how you get on with it though Bill!

An engine upgrade, which as things stand is going to be released after Bulge (with the Jan 45 -May 45 module being my best guess). I have ideas that I'd like to see in an engine upgrade, but I'm not sure now is the time to list them verbatim and I'm sure BF already have plans for v4. I also wasn't impressed by the vehicles listed as 'highlights''. A lot of the German ones are already available in CMBN, as are many of the Allied ones. Given we're paying for a new game rather than a module I don't think it unreasonable that Bulge runs from Oct 44 - May 45. I know this is longer that what BN, FI, or RT have offered, but there is much less work involved for BF, as the vast majority of units are already made and in a Western theatre game which we have already paid for along with the numerous BN modules! On aside note it's annoying we're going to have to wait for the module before we get hold of Commonwealth forces - which I already have in CMBN, but will unable to use in late war encounters without purchasing the Bulge Jan-May mod! I'm not going to post any more about the subject as I'd hate bore Ian further , but I'll just finish by stating we already have a Western European title in CMBN, and personally I'm unhappy this is going to be broken down into two titles, for little return in new content (going by what ChrisND has posted). Now the precedent has been set, BF are unlikely to have compunction about breaking down the Eastern Front into numerous titles; so just how many games are we going to end up having to purchase? Based on ChrisND's summary I feel like BF will be dropping the level of value it has offered us over previous titles and as a consumer I feel I'll be getting a poorer deal for it

I've tried to be as polite as I can Ian, but damn you test my patience. This is not a 'silly' thing. To me it is a fundamental issue which shows BF are willing to drastically lower the bar in terms of the content they offer in their titles - which is a longterm issue. Sorry I bore you by not jumping up and down over Bulge, but to me this is a fudamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base.

Please read my first post on the subject on page 20

Neither have I, but I think I've explained over the course of my previous posts as to why I believe Bulge will represent a significant drop in value for money when compared to the other CM2 titles. Even Chris listed units already available in the CMBN family (eg Jagdpanther) as 'highlights', which I thought was scraping the barrel. From what I've read in Chris's post, Bulge does not offer any more content than what I would reasonably expect a module to offer - which is why I think BF are pushing the goodwill of its customer base by marketing Bulge as a new game with a new game pricetag. Sburke, you present the work BF put into CMBS almost as a reason to be grateful to accept whatever BF decides to offer us in Bulge. To me that is the wrong way of looking at things. I believe BS demonstrated a level of content which BF should aim for every time in a new title. Some might defend BF by arguing that as a smaller company it is unreasonable for us to expect BS levels of new content for every new game - I would agree with this. But judging from what has been listed by ChrisND, Bulge will be falling way below what was offered in FI or RT. I say this because Bulge will be largely utilising a pre-existing unit base with no new engine upgrade - which they will in turn expect us to pay for as an add-on to Bulge. Sburke you tell me to quit my whining and wait for the game's release before I judge it (if more politely than how I've phrased it). But again that makes no sense to me; now is the time to raise these concerns, because once the game is released our feedback will be meaningless in regards to improving the content of the Bulge title, as the good ship Bulge will have already set sail (unless we want to pay for it as additional DLC!). This is why I whinge now, rather than later.

LukeFF Mods for me and many others are a big thing as they are a big improvement graphically and soundwise over the stock game. BTW The installation of them is much more time consuming than that of a DOS 90s game, and they eat up a lot of harddrive to boot

Well your marketing guy has confirmed many of my prejudices about marketeers; and Ian It's also not just about Bulge, there will undoubtedly be a Jan 45 - May 45 module which we'll be asked to pay an additional $35 for, and then there will be numerous other titles in the series which we'll be asked to purchase. But how many of those titles will be sold as full games when they only really warrant a module? I think I pay my dues to BF, and I understand they are a small company providing a niche product, so I'm happy to pay a more than I would for the average game title/series. However, it really annoys me when games companies try ask their customers to pay for a new game when it consists of content which amounts to no more than a module's worth. Going by ChrisND's opening summary I personally feel standards of content will be drastically diminished from what we have come to expect, based on past purchases of other CM2 titles. If we will be getting a new game's worth of content I would say fine, I'm happy to pay a full game asking price, and as you say Ian it ultimately comes down to where each individual draws the line on what they believe to be sufficient new content. However, for me I believe Bulge will be falling woefully short. BF has stated there will be no engine upgrade included, and judging by ChrisND's statement, Bulge's content will be an equivalent to what Market Garden or GL offered. Arguably Commonwealth Forces offered more than what Bulge will (again going by ChrisND's statement), as it came with a new engine upgrade and almost certainly more units. If BF were including v4 in Bulge for me that would just, and only just, warrant a new game (given most of the units are already available), but we won't even be getting that, and even that would still leave the pain in the arse issue of installing another game and Gigabytes worth of mods. To go back to Ian's marketing colleague, perhaps he'd also tell you if a business takes its customers for granted, offering poor value for money, trust will be broken which will ultimately result in a smaller customer base. If the new Bulge content does not drastically increase from what ChrisND has listed, in my view (and the views of others if posts in this thread are anything to go by), BF will damage its relationship with a significant portion of its longstanding customer base. I hope I'm proven wrong and there will be a lot more in Bulge than what ChrisND listed if it is to be marketed as a new game at a full game asking price. I'll just finish by saying I have a lot of respect for BF in allowing gamers to make posts which critique their games or policy as it demonstrates they are a company willing to listen and respect their customers' views. I also know from personal experience they've taken onboard suggestions posted in the forum, so I hope you're listening BF and please don't take this as an attack - when push comes to shove I love CM and I am forever grateful for you publishing the game which I dreamed of as a kid.

First off, I just want to make this clear, I love CM2. I've spent more time playing the series than any other game / game series. It's because I love the series so much that I feel pained that as a lonstanding customer who has spent a lot of money on Battlefront products that I feel I'm being taken for granted when being asked to pay a full game price for a title which, from what I've read in terms of features/content, does not warrant a full game price. This is why I believe this to be so - Bulge will be using the pre-existing v3 engine; add little in the way of extra units when compared to BN, FI, or RT; and although it will provide a new 'battle setting', from what BF have written it will not be significantly different to what can be obtained through the FI 'Battle of the Bulge mod'. I understand that from a marketing point of view it makes complete sense for BF to offer Bulge as a new game, as it is likely to attract new customers who are enticed by the Ardennes setting who do not want to have to purchase CMBN. However, for those of us who have stood by BF throughout CM2, I feel we are being taken for granted as we will receive little new material for our $55 while we'll also go through the hassle or installing a new game and mods which is perhaps an even bigger bug bear for me than paying an extra $20. So if we must be asked to do this, I think the least BF could do is offer Bulge to owners of CMBN and the v3 engine at a price similar to what we paid for MG, (lets face it, MG, which came with the v3 upgrade, offered more content than what BF has proposed Bulge will do). At the very most we should only be paying a price equivalent to independently buying an engine upgrade and module pack (ie $45) - I realise this woudn't be a significant saving, but it would at least make me feel a little more respected as a longterm customer. Alternatively, perhaps BF could extend the timeframe of the game to May 45 to represent better value for money (I realise this is unlikely to happen as there is extra money to be made selling this as a $35 module ). If I've missed a post from BF stating we won't be asked to pay full game price, please ignore this, I haven't read all the posts on the thread. However, if I haven't missed anything significant on pricing I don't want to have arguments with people who tell me my views are plain wrong or I'm an idiot - which seems to have happened to a few other unfortunate posters complaing about the state of affairs. I am just posting my opinion on the matter and ultimately I'll probably end up buying the game even if asked to pay $55. If ask to do so though, it will undoubtedly leave a bad after-taste .