DougPhresh

I was wondering, if the Americans really only encountered Tigers 3 times in North-West Europe, why are they included in the base game? It seems like they could have been saved for the Commonwealth module.

The Firefly was really better than it had any right to be considering how they managed to cram that gun and ammunition into the Sherman, and all of the compromises that entailed.

I have to say I'm also a Battalion scale guy, with some qualms about the CM UI and would be Brigade scale, given some major changes. This could mean anything from being able to assign follow orders and still placing waypoints so a single vehicle drives down a road, but all others follow, to a way to automatically draw move orders along a road, to telling units to move and ticking a box so they take roads when appropriate. Having a "semi-automatic" system, halfway to graviteam would do a lot of good. Having the option like Graviteam or Command Ops to give orders to a HQ and for all of their subordinates to execute would reduce player workload at those larger scales. I like the granular control compared to Graviteam, I just don't need it at all times. I'd like to order a battalion to move to contact with a few clicks, but still manage a team during the firefight if it comes down to it. Quality of life changes and more TAC AI improvements could go a long way. I believe infantry on long distance move orders already drift towards columns and seem roughly to follow roads and paths along the route.

When trenches are on uneven terrain I often wonder if the 2ft protruding above ground on a single side does any good. IIRC hits by small arms are modeled on a per-pixel scale and not abstracted, meaning that those trenches are not doing much if anything.

OP LINNET II is in my opinion, one of the single best CM scenarios, full-stop. I would be over the moon to see scenarios, campaigns and especially QBs at that scale. Especially because we don't have operations, large scenarios with several battalions and reinforcements are especially satisfying. If anything, I would have liked a scenario generator for LINNET. The concept of 4 variations with the same German force is great for replay ability and really shines. It would be nice to select force templates, almost like QB so it could be, for example "OP LINNET e - POLgnd CDNgnd" where the initial forces are elements of the Polish armoured recce and motor infantry and Canadian armour comes to the rescue. Add the same for the German side, so it's a SS formation attacking or so on and you have some of the biggest battles in CM with many iterations without new or more casual players fiddling with the editor for hours.

I'd like to say coming from Fortress Italy, I've found that the Allied halftracks with guns and howitzers are very useful. I know they are conceptually similar to the Stryker MGS, but in practice I've been able to get much better use of them. Having a big gun with Commonwealth armoured car formations is a tremendous boon to their ability to recce and screen, and when used with motorized infantry, a powerful direct fire weapon that can keep up with them and fire from under armour is incredibly valuable. I can see why the StuH and Sherman 105 are better, but when those aren't available, it's much better than towing guns into action or redirecting a tank platoon to neutralize a stubborn trench. Any thoughts here on the Autocar SP 75mm or the M3 and T30?

Scheldt to Spandau

As the timeline heads towards the later war, did Canadian forces transferred from Italy to North-West Europe have battledress from Canadian stocks (green) or from UK stocks (brown)? I seem to remember reading that supply in the Italian theatre used UK stocks but I can't find the source right now.

Not trying to derail, but at what point would you say that most FJs did not have jump training and most Gebirgsjäger were not skilled climbers?

FJ troops using the "winter" appearance wear Field Division uniforms, including the M1935 helmet.

Great stuff. I know the mod community is spread thin with all of the upcoming modules for other series but I'm glad an oft forgotten theatre has gotten so much love

I was wondering what the function of 2IC teams is in this system. Does putting a 2IC team next to another formation's HQ increase integration? i.e parking Tank Squadron 2IC next to Infantry Btn HQ, or vice versa.

I just wanted to say this this is an incredible resource! Bookmarked.

Was there ever a compilation of all of @Fuser's mods?

e: Double post! Sorry.

Incredible! Great stuff, thank you @umlaut . I just want to say that you're being far too humble. You did a really good job, and as you can see with the reference material, anyone who is very serious about this sort of thing would just have to add some formation badges. Maybe someone very enterprising soul could use mod tags to create Mickey Mouse camouflaged vehicles, the upside to which would be that late-war vehicles in that scheme will certainly be useful in the Commonwealth module for CMFB.

If you can figure out the loading order to get them into Amtraks.

Would Germans-only tank riding be a fair compromise for CMBN and FI? It seems like the Allies mostly rode tanks on the way to the jump-off point where as the Germans sometimes rode them into combat. Of course by 1945, the Western Allies rode tanks as SOP.

I can't imagine trying to clear woods without pausing. Still, a tweaked Hunt command that allows for a cautious advance without exhaustion would be a welcome change. I disagree that it could be "too" useful and totally replace Quick or Assault, commands that I find indispensable. A cautious, readied posture (and accompanying animation) would make it less efficient than Move for routine movement even without artificially penalizing exhaustion. In contact with the enemy, moving relatively slowly in line is less useful than either Assault or the minimized exposure of Quick.

I'd be as happy as anyone to see the early and mid war in Combat Mission but I am sometimes wary of romanticism for the Wehrmacht during the years when they seemed unstoppable. While the campaigns for Poland, the Low Countries and Barbarossa were incredible, the Einsatzgruppen that followed in their wake, and the Wehrmacht's own crimes are unconscionable. I'm very proud that this community does not traffic in "both sides were bad" "brave soldiers fighting for their country" tropes or comparing GIs killing camp guards or the Reds sacking Berlin to the top to bottom atrocities of the Third Reich. I wonder if there is something in wargamming and amateur military history itself that causes that romanticism for the defeated. It happens with the CSA, the Third Reich and Napoleon, though in that last case I don't think there is as much moral equivocation, nor the need for it. At least Afrika Korps would mainly feature the Italians who for all the bad that they did, fought a fairly "clean" war in North Africa, made more of an effort than any other Axis power to save their Jewry, and when push came to shove the Italian people joined up with the Partisans and Co-Belligerents. I'm much more comfortable with people waxing nostalgically about the valour of the Folgore than the Waffen SS. I hope that isn't addressed at me. I don't think anyone here is white supremacist, a nazi or racist. I certainly didn't say so, much less make an accusation. Wargaming and military history have long had a historiography that sanitizes the Third Reich and CSA, for totally understandable reasons. When I was young I was obsessed with Tiger tanks and saw the Heer as soldiers just like my own country's. The truth is more complicated, but a wargame does not have the duty to inform about logistics or war crimes, nor should it. This community stands out as one that is exceptionally good for having a culture of nuanced discussion. When discussing the topics outside the scope of a game, I think it is fair to point out the advances in the discipline, especially these past few decades. Look no further than the Axis History forums to see how far we've come recently. It's nothing short of incredible and I find it rather admirable. I'm not going to dignify the remark about scoring points or posting for my own self validation with a response. Peruse my posting history and make your own judgement, if you'd like. Finally, this is a friendly dialogue among fellow hobbyists. Get off your high horse about censorship or freedom of speech. I asked the question in good faith, and good an answer in good faith. That's a positive exchange for everyone. I think @Bulletpoint is a good poster and I appreciate his taking the time to elaborate on what he meant. Why on Earth would I want to censor him?

The employment of Soviet guns is something scenario designers should keep in mind. A battalion may only have a pair of 45mm guns and a few AT rifles but Soviet AT defense would include massed AT guns, AT rifles, SP guns and mines from Regiment and Division. Not saying the gun doesn't need tweaking. Only that when you think about the Soviets, the "weapons system" is the infantry battalion, tank company, artillery battery rather than the Germans and Western Allies who expect more from smaller forces.

Fighting as a battalion the Soviets are nearly unbeatable. Trying to use them like the Western Allied armies is a recipe for disaster though.

Glantz' title on the subject is in a class of its own. What the Soviets did there, especially considering the terrain is nothing short of incredible.

NATO, but only because it's nice to see yourself on the big screen.

The myriad Osprey titles are very good for force compositions.