Bit the bullet on making a forum account to bring this up, because it's something I've been running up against more and more as I play more and start to poke around at making and modifying scenarios. Basically I've been finding some bugs, oversights and oddities in TO&Es and thought a place to collate and discuss them would be valuable, as I doubt I'm the only one who has found some, and documenting them all in one place might help players and scenario makers work around what is and isn't there, help the devs identify and rectify technical issues or consider alterations to certain formations/vehicles/teams and also just let some of us politely vent a little bit of frustration. Many of these issues are likely to be extremely simple, a matter of changing a number value in a unit's cargo load or adding something to a force selection list, but given the breadth and depth of content in CM, it's still worth reporting them because otherwise it is very likely that they'll continue to slip through the cracks, as indeed they have done until now. Of course, in an ideal world we could crowdsource solutions from the community rather than just feedback but sadly I don't think TO&E editing is going to be on the cards anytime soon.
I'll try to break down what I've found so far into Bugs, Oversights and Quibbles: Bugs are things that don't work, formations that should be present in a given period not appearing for selection in Quick Battles and the like, where I anticipate something is supposed to be functioning a certain way but just isn't, Oversights are things that aren't there or haven't been appropriately modified for task or errors in correctly portrayig a unit's historical organisation, ala vehicles not being accessible in the single vehicles tab or having inappropriate cargo/ammunition loads, or the wrong vehicle being the command vehicle of a mixed platform platoon, etc. These are issues that likely were simply missed in the larger scale work of getting the game developed, and Quibbles are things that I just don't like, be it for reasons of history, gameplay/balance or a combination thereof, like the points costing or composition of certain units/vehicles, they will be a lot more long-winded as they require justification. The reason I'm putting these three, potentially very divergent categories all in the same thread is that I don't know BF's intent on each instance and thus can't say with absolute confidence what was a conscious choice that I just happen to disagree with and what was missed or didn't function as intended, so I'd rather none of them be wholly discounted as 'irrelevant to the topic' because their exact origin was not correctly divined, and I also particularly think there is still merit to debate on whether certain TO&E choices are the 'correct' ones (especially in relation to specialist teams, where things are considerably less cut and dry than the documentation backed and relatively rigid organisation of a formation). I'd encourage others who want to add to the list to use the same terminology as consistency will make the information easier to parse, and help avoid muddying the water.
So, all that waffling out of the way, I'll get to the meat of things, though note that as I've spent most of my time with FI, and mostly the Commonwealth forces therein that's where the majority of things I've turned up are, but I'd like for this thread to eventually be title agnostic.
--
Bugs
- Fortress Italy German Army Gebirgsjager Battalion is not able to be selected in Quick Battles even when it should be present, though it is available in the scenario editor.
- Fortress Italy and Battle for Normandy British Reconnaissance Regiments are only available in the Infantry tab and thus cannot be taken with their vehicle component in QBs, only scenarios, and vice versa, with a dismounted Recce Regt (a not uncommon occurence especially in Italy) unavailable in the Scenario Editor.
- Fortress Italy Brazilian and Indian forces cannot take any vehicles in QBs due to only having Infantry tabs.
- Battle for Normandy Commonwealth Armoured formations have a Recce Platoon option menu that has only a single entry, 'Stuart Tank', presumably this was intended to work similarly to the one in Fortress Italy British Armoured units where you can select between gun tanks or Stuart Recces with a dismount element, but I'm not sure if its current state is truly a bug or simply a vestigial feature that was cut due to the Stuart Recce being a vehicle pack entry for BfN.
Oversights
- Fortress Italy Canadians have no anti-tank gun Specialist Teams.
- Fortress Italy New Zealanders and Indians have no 6-pounder anti-tank gun Specialist Teams (they do however, have 17 pounder ones, unlike the Canadians).
- Fortress Italy British Airborne vehicles (jeeps and the Airborne Infantry tab Supply Platoon) have not had their ammunition loads changed to reflect the paras' use of 9mm at all, let alone their higher concentration of SMGs in general, with twice as much .45 as 9mm despite the only Thompsons in the airborne orgs being in the hands of mortar gunners.
- Fortress Italy and Battle for Normandy British Medium Mortar and 6-pounder ATG Specialist Teams do not come with ammo bearers, while their US and German counterparts do, and when taken in formations British Mortars and ATGs have ammo bearers (This one might be a conscious choice I suppose but that seems like a cruel one if so given the British reliance on supporting fires).
- The Bedford QLT TT truck is not available in the Single Vehicles tab for any Fortress Italy Commonwealth force, and as such can only be brought in lorried infantry battalions. It is available in the Single Vehicles tab in Battle for Normandy.
- The Lloyd mortar carrier is not available in the Single Vehicles tab for FI and BfN Commonwealth forces (Honestly the vehicle itself might be an oversight, as it's only present in anti-tank gun platoons/troops [2x Lloyds + 2x 'mortar' Lloyds per section], and contains ammo for 2 inch mortars, which the anti-tank gun platoons do not have and as far as I know the only use of the Lloyd in a mortar related role was as a transport for the 4.2" Heavy Mortar).
- Battle for Normandy British Armoured Car Squadron Car Troops have one of the scout cars designated as the troop HQ vehicle, which is contrary to the Nov 1943 War Establishments and what accounts I've seen of British AC units in action where the subaltern generally commanded from one of the two Daimler armoured cars.
- Fortress Italy Stuart Recces and BfN Stuart Kangaroos carry no additional ammunition for infantry arms. Particularly rough on the former on account of their organic scout teams.
- Fortress Italy New Zealanders have two different Morris CS8 trucks available in the Single Vehicles tab, one of which has 2" mortar ammo and one of which does not. The former is the only Morris CS8 available to any Commonwealth force in FI that has 2" ammo.
- Fortress Italy and BfN dismounted carrier formations (Infantry Only Recce Regts and Inf Bat Carrier Platoons) lose access to their section PIAT and 2" airborne mortar entirely as they are stored in their vehicles and the game does not take into account those vehicles not being there in the way it does if one were to select the 'dismounted' option available for many mechanised/motorised platoons. It would be nice if these formations could retain those weapons when dismounted, and/or for the sections to be amalgamated into 9 man sections with a 3x3 structure, as dismounted they must act more conventionally as infantry.
Quibbles
- 2 inch mortar ammo is bizarrely rare in both FI and BfN, despite the 2" being one of the integral platoon weapons of British infantry. The only places it can be found are Lloyd mortar carriers, Bedford QLD GSs (in very small quantities), QLD TTs, the aforementioned Kiwi CS8, and one universal carrier in each carrier section from a carrier platoon (though this ammunition is intended for the section's own airborne 2" rather than the resupply of platoon weapons). Not a single round for can be found in a supply platoon's trucks. This seems very odd to me especially when the 2" already comes with such a small complement of initial ammunition, often only enough for a single engagement. Admittedly, making the QLD TT available as a Single Vehicle in FI will mostly address this one.
- A specific quibble as an example for a greater, broader quibble. Daimler Dingo crews should have a rifle and a Bren gun instead of just revolvers, as the given stowage for the vehicle included a rifle, and the sum total procedure for dismounting the Bren gun on a Dingo was to lift it up out of the slot in the front plate. I often wish to use the Dingo crew to conduct stealthier, foot recce once they've reached the limits of where they can safely take their light vehicle, or used its mobility to get to an advantageous vantage point, but with only a pair of revolvers if they run into literally anything they can't generate enough fire to win or to disengage. This kind of dismounted work is both interesting from a gameplay perspective and historical, so giving the crew the necessary tools to look after themselves is I think fine. The broader quibble is that all recce/armoured recce vehicle crews from all nations should receive their proper allotment of stowed weapons for dismounted work, the Daimler Dingo's just a good example as if required I can post the stowage sketches and a historical example of crews dismounting to infiltrate and then hold a position.
- British Scout and Breach teams just kind of suck, and that's a shame because Specialist teams should be a way to flavour units and represent task organisations. Scout teams for everyone else are a combination of foot recce and assault team that can bolster the point squad in an attack with extra close range firepower. A German Scout team is three men, with three SMGs and a pair of binoculars for 28 pts (assuming Reg/Normal/+0, baseline ratings). A US Scout team costs 35 pts, but gets not just binos and a pair of SMGs, but a pair of demo charges, making it a more assault friendly Breach team, albeit with half as many charges. The British team costs 26 pts, gets one SMG, with a 20% chance of a second one and no binoculars. You might as well just grab a scout or assault team from a rifle section for recon or assault, it doesn't offer a tangential utility like the US team does, and at just 2pts cheaper than the vastly more effective German team it's not even good value in a QB setting. My proposition for improving it is simple: Scout teams represent a task organised or attached down three man foot reconnaissance element for an infantry formation. The British already have just such a unit that the Scout team could be modeled off: The carrier section dismount team, exactly the unit a battalion commander might assign to help scout for a probing platoon or to bolster their automatic firepower in an assault. Pump the points up (given an extra 2 SMGs and a pair of binos apparently clock in at 2pts and the cost of Bren detachment is 26pts, I can't imagine more than 30pts being necessary), give them an SMG, a Bren and a rifle with a 1 in 3 chance of getting a pair of binoculars (representing getting the section leader's team).
For the Breach team, with no SMG they cannot be relied upon for one of their primary tasks, breaching into structures because they'll often bust in and promptly lose the firefight with people in the room or the next one down where your covering troops who can't follow them in for another turn cannot assist. Also, they get binoculars for some reason, unlike the Scout team. Now, I get why they have no SMG, the British were relatively light on automatic weapons for the most part and it's important not to overcorrect that in the name of gameplay and risk damaging the historical representation of these forces, but, I'm fairly certain there were instances where CW units' SMGs were task organised into concentrations in the frontline units, particularly for urban fighting, and I think a Breach team is a good opportunity to represent that. I don't want to make a concrete statement that it was done because I can't remember what sources I heard it from and in which battles (I want to say Ortona but I just cannot remember) but giving them a weapon distribution the same as the current Scout team (1 SMG with 1 in 5 chance of a second) or just a pair of SMGs would go a long way to making them a bit more fun to use.
- FI and BfN British Motor Platoons should probably have a chance at a second SMG in their first section and the platoon commander should have a higher chance of a rifle or SMG than a revolver. Motor platoons had 7 SMGs in their war establishment per platoon and 20 rifles. 15 Rifles in the sections, another 3 for the mortarmen and HQ, that leaves two 'spare' for 2 of the drivers, and similarly, 5 SMGs are drawn by the HQ, Mortar team and similarly, 2 are left for the drivers, nominally. However, given the job of a driver, I've some pretty hefty doubts that the Platoon commander was happy to leave a functional rifle or SMG in the trunk to saunter about with his revolver, but this is conjectural because I've yet to find much of anything detailed written about the motor battalions.
--
Well, if you made it through that godawful meandering novella of a post, thank you, feel free to chime in with your own TO&E discrepancies if you've run into any, gripes if you've got them, or just to tell me I'm wrong, again my hope here is that this can be a bit of a ongoing thread for CM TO&E discussion and analysis.
A few were picture requests- There's an M44 in the top picture (center), and the other two are Soviet winter (with the random mix of Ushanka and helmet).
There's a good deal of visual variety for the infantry, always at the service of showing things that could be a characteristic of the unit ("military" versus "standard" appearance for Volkssturm), and for breaking up visual repetition over large formations (Soviet winter helmet/Ushanka- also for greatcoat models).
Two man UK sniper team equipped with an AT launcher each, set to hide in an isolated farm far to my left flank. After taking out both tanks they effortlessly picked off the dazed crew trying to crawl away. I think someone has earned a medal in this particular engagement...
Steve, I think you will never feel spiritually complete or fully emotionally actualized w/o at least getting to Fall Blau. I am only thinking of you and your mental and spiritual health going forward into the future.
But there are many paths to enlightenment. A CMCW NATO module w Germany, England, Netherlands, and also some Norway battles would greatly improve your karmic trajectory even if Fall Blau must wait.
Again, only thinking of you, not my own selfish and grasping desires.
Finns, Hungarians, and Romanians:
I did a small Finn Mod before I departed. I did a good part on a Hungarian Mod as well. I just did a Romanian Mod. Later this year I plan also to bring in the Italians...and the Spanish Blue Division.
Their quality could be enhanced by BFC if the F&R module has:
1. purchasable team of a water-cooled HMG team on the axis side...
2. scraped together a few earlier Panzers from the training schools
3. Give us a KV-1 and we can mod the toothpick.
In the last year I really enjoyed slowly slogging through the Scottish Corridor campaign in CMBN set during Operation Epsom. I say slog because it’s wet, muddy and the SS you face are tenacious and dug in. But I had an absolute blast even if it can be tough going. I think the campaign maker @Paper Tiger is one of the best, the maps are beautiful and realistic looking and the enemy positions and AI plans keep you on your toes. There’s a nice mix of forces, attack and defence and manageable battle sizes.
Adding to my enjoyment of playing the campaign, was watching after each mission to see how Double Vision did in his epic video AAR series on YouTube >
Think about it- There are only so many of us to make any of these things.
If they hired outsiders, how would they even know how to do any of what is necessary? And would anyone want something made by a person with no real investment in what they are doing?
This is games developed by people that like the game (and made it themselves, because no one else could).
Aragorn, although it pains me to say this, since you liked my Goum mod so much, but I never thought F&R development was a shambles, and I think Steve has explained things (again) succinctly. In fact, I expected BFC long ago to stop announcing anything until they hit the FC stage, sort of like FI or CW, only even later. So breathe slow, count to 10, play with the Goums, pull a Brian and look on the brighter side of life, then kiss and make up with BFCs release plans. 😎 I have faith you can do it!
We all know BFC will continue to make the bestest, most excellent games and modules and packs for us—on their timetable, not ours. And they likely will, tragically, hope for early release only to achieve a later one. What with all the content that we already have, it doesn’t seem like we are really losing anything waiting for the next treat. I mean, come on, R2V content was insane, just as insane as SF2, and you know F&R is going to be, too.
Glorious March to Victory, Final Post - "Like Tears in Rain"
Well big thank you to all who watched. I figure I should stop leaving you all hanging, so we cease fired on the last turn (33 I believe). Now take the end-screen with a grain of salt:
So first off there was a dumb double-accounting error for the Soviet side. Basically the parameters were:
En Cas 50% = 50 VPs
En Condition 50% = 50 VPs
Dollbach Village = 100 VPs.
The error was the Soviets had another 100 VPs for having fewer than/better than 50% cas/cond, so I subtracted that because if we had paid attention Bil was above 50% too. So the score was really 100 because I held the town. (Note, also a small error in that his M150s were counted as tanks...a bug we noted for fixing)
The outstanding question is "could Bil have reduced me to 50% without going there himself"...that one is tougher. So for Soviets:
215 men: lost 71 = 33%
17 Tanks: lost 10 = 58%
17 AFVs: lost 9 = 53%
For the US:
138 men: lost 56 = 40.5%
12 Tanks: lost 6 = 50%
17 AFVs (also counting his mortar carriers): Lost 6 = 35%
So this was by no stretch a "Total Victory", that was straight up on us for not checking the victory parameters. I hold the village but given the drubbing I received in taking it, I am not sure I can put a statue up in Red Square for this either. Add to this the fact I started with a lot more men and tanks, it starts to push the whole thing into Draw territory to my mind.
Now Bil had much better arty, had air (I had none) and EW which made my arty next to useless without TRPs (which I did not have) so there is that. And my starting position was not the best but it is a poor craftsman that blames the workbench.
I will let you all judge for yourselves. Regardless, was a helluva fight, the kind that comes around only every so often, and we are all working to get you guys a chance at it yourselves soon enough.
It was many things, combined. Making games is damned complex on an easy day, and we didn't get many of those.
BFC got busy in spurts as Steve laid out with projects that had timelines other than the traditional ways, that's been said many times. Otherwise- health issues, people vanish between modules, the pandemic. We all stuck with it, even though it took up vast tracts of our time when we needed it elsewhere. This has been intense, and it is something of a miracle it will exist, at all. That's the facts.
If I ever did anything remotely like this again (not likely), I'd have it spring out of thin air.
Hi,
I was wondering how USMC would have been used in a cold war gone hot scenario like CMCW 1975-1985? (Yes, I am also thinking about USMC module...)
Where? How? Against what?
Thank you kindly. I believe I have two scenarios, 4 campaigns (2 are from opposite perspectives), and a mess of big, historically derived maps (nearly 20?) and around 100+ QBs from said maps.
Lots of great scenarios by others, and I can finally (almost) play 'em myself!
I just got my V shot so the chance of my dropping dead before the release is diminished. Considering that state of the world this last year, that wasn't outside the realm of possibility. People ask 'If you thought you just had a month to live how would you spend it?' Apparently in my case the answer is working feverishly on a cold war tactical game!
Been re-reading "Decision in the Ukraine, Summer 1943, II SS and III Panzerkorps", and have scanned maps (L-37-6-B Dmitrijewka, 1939-ish) from the archives at the Library of Congress.
Time to finally break down and try to create a Campaign based around Aug., 1, 1943. Tons of action in the book as the Germans try/push the Russians back across the Mius. First comes the map work. Probably multiple master maps as the scope of the battles spans from east of Gerassimova to south of Marinovka, some 10km by 10km, at least at first blush. First up, where to divide the map?
AlexUK got a reaction from benpark in Fire and Rubble
