Heirloom_Tomato

She will be turning 16 in December. Her Grade 10 History Class covered Canadian History from 1900 to present day and of course I was a big help for her WW1 and WW2 sections. When she asked if I had any books on the role of Canada in WW2 and I brought her 15 books..... lets just say her project on Juno Beach was the best in the class! 
Some of her friends at school like to play World of Tanks and she was griping about how it sucks to start off with a crappy tank when everyone else has uber tanks. I told her should could play with the best, if she played me in CM since everyone can have the best right off the start in CM. We have played a few battles in CMFI and CMRT, platoon of infantry and a tank. She is getting better, but with sports teams and homework it has been a while since we last played. We usually play the battle twice, each of us as either side, just to show her it is possible to win as either Allies or Axis if you use the equipment properly. 
No allowance in my house, everyone chips in to help out and we take care of spending money for them if needed. 

How many of you Steam users can make a single purchase through Steam, install it on multiple computers, and play the same game, at the same time, on those machines? 
I have never been able to do it and I think it is impossible to do.  I purchased two new laptops just shy of a year ago and installed all my CM games on both laptops. My daughter and I can play LAN a match anytime we want with CM. We can't however play a LAN game with any of my Steam titles as they are installed under one user name on both laptops.
For this reason alone, Battlefront should stay away from Steam like it is the plague. I have ZERO interest in purchasing multiple copies of each game just to be able to enjoy a battle with a family member.
 

She will be turning 16 in December. Her Grade 10 History Class covered Canadian History from 1900 to present day and of course I was a big help for her WW1 and WW2 sections. When she asked if I had any books on the role of Canada in WW2 and I brought her 15 books..... lets just say her project on Juno Beach was the best in the class! 
Some of her friends at school like to play World of Tanks and she was griping about how it sucks to start off with a crappy tank when everyone else has uber tanks. I told her should could play with the best, if she played me in CM since everyone can have the best right off the start in CM. We have played a few battles in CMFI and CMRT, platoon of infantry and a tank. She is getting better, but with sports teams and homework it has been a while since we last played. We usually play the battle twice, each of us as either side, just to show her it is possible to win as either Allies or Axis if you use the equipment properly. 
No allowance in my house, everyone chips in to help out and we take care of spending money for them if needed. 

How many of you Steam users can make a single purchase through Steam, install it on multiple computers, and play the same game, at the same time, on those machines? 
I have never been able to do it and I think it is impossible to do.  I purchased two new laptops just shy of a year ago and installed all my CM games on both laptops. My daughter and I can play LAN a match anytime we want with CM. We can't however play a LAN game with any of my Steam titles as they are installed under one user name on both laptops.
For this reason alone, Battlefront should stay away from Steam like it is the plague. I have ZERO interest in purchasing multiple copies of each game just to be able to enjoy a battle with a family member.
 

She will be turning 16 in December. Her Grade 10 History Class covered Canadian History from 1900 to present day and of course I was a big help for her WW1 and WW2 sections. When she asked if I had any books on the role of Canada in WW2 and I brought her 15 books..... lets just say her project on Juno Beach was the best in the class! 
Some of her friends at school like to play World of Tanks and she was griping about how it sucks to start off with a crappy tank when everyone else has uber tanks. I told her should could play with the best, if she played me in CM since everyone can have the best right off the start in CM. We have played a few battles in CMFI and CMRT, platoon of infantry and a tank. She is getting better, but with sports teams and homework it has been a while since we last played. We usually play the battle twice, each of us as either side, just to show her it is possible to win as either Allies or Axis if you use the equipment properly. 
No allowance in my house, everyone chips in to help out and we take care of spending money for them if needed. 

She will be turning 16 in December. Her Grade 10 History Class covered Canadian History from 1900 to present day and of course I was a big help for her WW1 and WW2 sections. When she asked if I had any books on the role of Canada in WW2 and I brought her 15 books..... lets just say her project on Juno Beach was the best in the class! 
Some of her friends at school like to play World of Tanks and she was griping about how it sucks to start off with a crappy tank when everyone else has uber tanks. I told her should could play with the best, if she played me in CM since everyone can have the best right off the start in CM. We have played a few battles in CMFI and CMRT, platoon of infantry and a tank. She is getting better, but with sports teams and homework it has been a while since we last played. We usually play the battle twice, each of us as either side, just to show her it is possible to win as either Allies or Axis if you use the equipment properly. 
No allowance in my house, everyone chips in to help out and we take care of spending money for them if needed. 

I have always assumed it was fine. I own both machines, we live in the same house, she only plays with me.  If she starts to play games with multiple other people, playing for hours a day, then yes, purchasing a second copy for her makes sense. But for the odd game between family members every couple of weeks? 

As big as possible!

Are you confused about what he is confused about?
Now I am confused. 

I agree.  Please keep up the great work BFC team.

I agree.  Please keep up the great work BFC team.

For more than a year, I joined this community after the acquisition of the complete CMBN game.
and I confirm that one of my childhood dreams has been fulfilled
The thread on the patch is stiff.
Criticism can be constructive but can also be morally destructive for a team
Also I wanted to tell you that I thank you for your wonderful work
 

So I just checked the editor and no trains, partisans or SS units available. Thanks for the bone about the new Red Thunder module. 😁
If these units aren't in the next module I will hold you responsible for getting my hopes up. Especially working trains.

Greetings! 

This is my first real attempt with the editor - which started out from this real-world Luftwaffe aerial shot I came across for the village of Golynki, west of Smolensk...



...which I stretched to fit more neatly into a CM-friendly grid, and came out with this map:





It is a 2000m x 1792m map, covering a few types of terrain: a peat bog in the northern half, a wooded area and the near-pristine village of Tregubovka to the southeast, and the larger village of Golynki to the soutwest, which has been largely demolished and abandoned under the German occupation. The map is divided in half by drainage ditch running north-south (both it and a secondary ditch on the northeast side are passable 'shallow ford' throughout), and has a major rail line running east-west in the bottom quarter of the map. 



At the moment, I have no data on any actions that took place here - all I learned is that this area was recaptured by the Soviets in October 1943 (I originally thought it was part of the CMRT timeline in 1944, but it is not so). 






It's a very detailed, handcrafted map - it may still need a bit of optimization as I went very heavy on the flavour objects (so the frame rate might drag down in certain areas, depending on your system). On the upside, it's very pretty in places





I'm trying to figure out what to do with it in terms of scenario - and since I have absolutely 0 experience with scenario building and AI programming at the moment, any help or advice would be appreciated! What would you like to see on this map?

At the moment, there is no AI and all the parameters, objectives, etc. are placeholders only. It's only really usable in the editor right now.

You may download my current WIP version of it here: 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hA9cr80cdMmHkGK8mhhbNgZz_LAefsyH

...or in the forum attachment.

If you have anything that you'd like to create on this map yourself, or use it or any part of it for your own scenarios - you're very welcome to do so (with credit for map given).

Thanks for checking it out! 
CCIP - Golynki (v01 map only).btt

I bought the 4.0 upgrade big bundle and then purchased CMFB later. When I installed CMFB, it was already at version 4.0 so I would think any game you buy now will be at 4.0 as well.

I count 6 shell casings in this image, looks like he wanted to make sure that guy was dead. Revenge best served with close range automatic weapons!

Ambush!!

U.S. Lend Lease became law in March 1941, and the first shipments of over 300,000 tons of supplies (in 1941) began on June 22.
Granted, the total amount of Lend-Lease to the Soviets in 1941 was very small, only about 2% of the total wartime shipments; 1942 amounted to about 2.5 Million tons, or about 14% of total. The British delivered weapons in 1941 on the back of American credit, in fact, almost all British supplies sent to the USSR were paid for with American credit.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ssd?id=mdp.39015004950914
 
1. I've heard it took until early 1942 (February or March) to get production up to the levels of 1941 before the factories moved, but I haven't seen anything specific yet. (Citation Needed)

2. Post-war, the Soviets had an almost fanatical censorship campaign in place which systematically devalued the contributions of the other nations in WW2. It got so bad that battle records of campaigns were literally burned in order to cover up the full scale of Soviet defeats early in the war.
David M. Glantz has written extensively on this topic, and an interesting yet abbreviated lecture for the U.S. Army War College is on YouTube: 
 
3. I think the evidence is conclusive that Germany did not plan for a campaign against the Soviet Union lasting longer than one year. I'm reminded of an anecdote from Vietnam I once heard: In the basement of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense wanted to know how long it would take to win the Vietnam War. So they compiled all statistical data they had available, fed it into a supercomputer, and went home for the weekend while they waited for it to spit out the answer. When they arrived Monday morning, the computer had spat out a card with one sentence on it: "You won the war in 1965, but the enemy also gets a vote."
 
4. I think it's relatively simple. Hitler and the Nazis did not possess a rational worldview. In fact, Dan Carlin recently released a video where he speculates the overall reason Germany lost World War Two is because of the Nazis themselves:
I know Dan Carlin is not a historian, but he makes a very compelling argument. Based on my own reading of Mein Kampf, I have to agree. Hitler was not a rational individual.
 
It has been said elsewhere in this thread, but I agree completely. Wars are not fought by individuals.
If they were, we could simply mobilize our wargamers to command legions of unmanned weapon systems and conquer the world...
 
> I disagree. The Germans acted quickly to secure the Balkan oil fields specifically because they knew the blockade would not end. After their experience with the British blockade in WW1, I refuse to believe they would not anticipate such an eventuality from happening again. Things like "The Turnip Winter" will stick in the memory of people for generations.
 
> Indeed, and when you see things like the Detroit Tank Arsenal ALONE out-producing the entire German Tank-Building Industry during WW2, you realize oil alone is not the deciding factor in that equation. Overall, the Germans did not fully mobilize their economy and industry towards war production until 1942. Hitler was adamant about not encumbering the German population with things like rationing and shortages like they faced in WW1. Like I said, "The Turnip Winter" tends to stick in the minds of the people who went through it.
As far as manpower goes, where do you get the idea the Axis and Allied manpower were close? They weren't even in the same hemisphere.
Even a simple wiki search shows the extraordinary gap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Historical_context
 
> Is it oil, or is it the fact the United States had vast amounts of natural resources, food, strategic minerals, steel production, etc. and simply gave it all away with the understanding that the cost for everything would only be counted after the war was over? It wasn't just war materiel that got sent through lend-lease, but things like raw steel, coal, oil, gas, food, etc.
Meanwhile, Germany had a chronic inability to fully mobilize and take advantage of the strategic resources and production facilities they took over. Not planning for a long war led them to simply disregard the ideas of re-tooling captured factories for war production until it was too late. French factories mostly sat idle in the occupied territories, and while Germany did take over the entire Czech tank force, they made relatively little use of the excellent arms production facilities available. If every scrap of resources had been put towards the war fighting effort from the very beginning... well, we'll never know the answer to that question...
 
> From June 1941, to the end of 1942, the Soviets produced some 30,000 tanks, and received several thousand lend-lease tanks. Which is at least four times as many as the Germans produced in the same time period. Just because your enemy doesn't have as many tanks, is no reason to not produce them in staggering numbers. Even in June 1941, the Soviets had a 2:1 advantage in tanks, and made ruthless efforts at increasing production all throughout the war, to the point they used substandard metals and far looser tolerances than were seen as standard in the western nations.
"The Red Army categorized tank readiness in five categories, from 1 to 5, with 1 being new and 5 being retired for scrapping. In the western military districts that bore the brunt of the 1941 fighting, there were 12,782 tanks, of which 2,157 (17 percent) were new (Category 1), 8,383 (66 percent) were operational with minor maintenance issues (Category 2), and the rest (18 percent) in need medium maintenance or capital rebuilding." - Zaloga, Steven. Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II (Kindle Locations 1491-1494). Stackpole Books. Kindle Edition.
Weapons production is a question of DOCTRINE, not statistical analysis. Soviet doctrine emphasized the use of light, highly mobile artillery, and so they built large numbers of mortars.
Soviet doctrine also emphasized the breakthrough role of tanks and mechanized infantry, and so they build many thousands of them too.
http://armchairgeneral.com/deep-battle-the-vision-of-marshall-tukhachevskii.htm
 
> When the vast majority of your major industrial base is powered by coal, which the Germans had in abundance, then the lack of production of war materiel cannot be summarized as:
"They didn't have enough oil."
The Germans needed oil for OPERATIONS, not PRODUCTION. If World War Two is a battle of production (as has often been stated), then the Germans did not lose it because of a lack of oil.
They lost it because they didn't want to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a fully mobilized wartime economy. At least, not until it was clear they were losing, and then their utilization of forced labor tells a clear and understandable story. Not only did they lack production, but they also lacked manpower. They couldn't meet the manpower needs of the military, and also run their factories at their maximum rate. They had to utilize forced labor to ensure their production could meet it's goals, and even then, a chunk of their dwindling production capacity was spent on projects that would not prove to be of any benefit. Vengeance Weapons for example. Their incompetence in the realm of strategic planning is obvious.
Compare Germany to the United States, which had a clearly defined production plan, immediate and effective national mobilization, a well-organized industrial base, and highly competent businessmen and army personnel in charge of planning, design, development, and production.
 
But this brings me back to the Dan Carlin video I posted up above: Why were such incompetent people in charge of the German war effort?
Because of the Nazis...
Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Thanks for the thread, it went down well with lunch.

A possibility with this idea would be to set the HQ units as the spot objectives and the rest of the formation as the destroy objectives. The higher up the command chain, the more value for spotting, ie: 50 points for platoon HQ's, 150 for Company HQ's and 300 for the Battalion HQ.

A possibility with this idea would be to set the HQ units as the spot objectives and the rest of the formation as the destroy objectives. The higher up the command chain, the more value for spotting, ie: 50 points for platoon HQ's, 150 for Company HQ's and 300 for the Battalion HQ.

How about some scenario and beta testing work followed by 20 minutes of napping and then back to working on some more amazing QB maps? Please?

Let's see How should I use my time today?
1. Work on Scenarios, and QB Maps while beta testing multiple titles,
2. Read Forum threads written by players wondering 'what's going on, why the delays', OR 'don't you guys understand business or customer service'.
3. Take a Nap.
Gosh, I just can't make up my mind...Why not help me choose.

The one, ok two, mistakes I made all the time at first was trying to move too quickly and spreading my forces too thin. I still have a tendency to fall victim to those same mistakes from time to time.
I always find I am in a rush for some reason to try and hurry the battle along. This leads me to sending my pixeltruppen too quickly into unexplored territory and to their deaths. The saying "Never send a Company where a platoon hasn't been, never send a platoon where  a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a scout hasn't been" should be something to always remember. The clock in the game is important to keep an eye on, but don't let it force you into poor decisions.
As for splitting up forces, the temptation to send first platoon off to take objective 1 and second platoon off to take objective 2, at the same time, rarely results in success. Keep them together, use the extra troops for more covering and suppressing fire, and tackle the objectives one at a time. Use first platoon as the lead for the first objective, with second backing them up and able to flank or add their firepower to the battle to help overwhelm the enemy. Then use second platoon as the lead for the next objective and first platoon as your reserve. In CM battles it really is almost impossible to use too big of a hammer to hit your enemy with.
The issue I struggle the most with now is timing. When do I call in the mortars or try adding one more squad to the fight? Or the barrage I called in will be ending soon, when do I start moving my men up to take advantage of the barrage, yet not walk them into friendly fires. Or trying to get all the pieces of an assault moving at the right times to effectively support each other.
For all three of these challenges, practice, practice, practice. Hopefully every battle you will get just a little bit better.

The one, ok two, mistakes I made all the time at first was trying to move too quickly and spreading my forces too thin. I still have a tendency to fall victim to those same mistakes from time to time.
I always find I am in a rush for some reason to try and hurry the battle along. This leads me to sending my pixeltruppen too quickly into unexplored territory and to their deaths. The saying "Never send a Company where a platoon hasn't been, never send a platoon where  a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a scout hasn't been" should be something to always remember. The clock in the game is important to keep an eye on, but don't let it force you into poor decisions.
As for splitting up forces, the temptation to send first platoon off to take objective 1 and second platoon off to take objective 2, at the same time, rarely results in success. Keep them together, use the extra troops for more covering and suppressing fire, and tackle the objectives one at a time. Use first platoon as the lead for the first objective, with second backing them up and able to flank or add their firepower to the battle to help overwhelm the enemy. Then use second platoon as the lead for the next objective and first platoon as your reserve. In CM battles it really is almost impossible to use too big of a hammer to hit your enemy with.
The issue I struggle the most with now is timing. When do I call in the mortars or try adding one more squad to the fight? Or the barrage I called in will be ending soon, when do I start moving my men up to take advantage of the barrage, yet not walk them into friendly fires. Or trying to get all the pieces of an assault moving at the right times to effectively support each other.
For all three of these challenges, practice, practice, practice. Hopefully every battle you will get just a little bit better.

The one, ok two, mistakes I made all the time at first was trying to move too quickly and spreading my forces too thin. I still have a tendency to fall victim to those same mistakes from time to time.
I always find I am in a rush for some reason to try and hurry the battle along. This leads me to sending my pixeltruppen too quickly into unexplored territory and to their deaths. The saying "Never send a Company where a platoon hasn't been, never send a platoon where  a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a scout hasn't been" should be something to always remember. The clock in the game is important to keep an eye on, but don't let it force you into poor decisions.
As for splitting up forces, the temptation to send first platoon off to take objective 1 and second platoon off to take objective 2, at the same time, rarely results in success. Keep them together, use the extra troops for more covering and suppressing fire, and tackle the objectives one at a time. Use first platoon as the lead for the first objective, with second backing them up and able to flank or add their firepower to the battle to help overwhelm the enemy. Then use second platoon as the lead for the next objective and first platoon as your reserve. In CM battles it really is almost impossible to use too big of a hammer to hit your enemy with.
The issue I struggle the most with now is timing. When do I call in the mortars or try adding one more squad to the fight? Or the barrage I called in will be ending soon, when do I start moving my men up to take advantage of the barrage, yet not walk them into friendly fires. Or trying to get all the pieces of an assault moving at the right times to effectively support each other.
For all three of these challenges, practice, practice, practice. Hopefully every battle you will get just a little bit better.