db_zero

This has probably already been suggested-why not allow designers to designate buildings as "prepared" structure where zooks and fausts can be fired from freely. They would only be initially visible as such to the side that occupied them at the beginning of a battle. This would simulate building that were prepared in advance. For quick battles allow a defending side to purchase prepared structures like TRP's. Might also consider giving a small percentage chance to a building that has been hit by shell fire to become a structure that becomes a free fire building where zooks and fausts can be fired from. This would simulate the fact that with holes and sides of a building blown out the blast effect could be negated to the point where it was feasible to fire weapons that produced a back blast.

I agree 100% meth didn't turn the German soldier into an uber fighting machine, and there are downsides, but its obvious that for all the dowsides its use was widespread. However early in the war the French and British high command was probably in the dark, ignored, misunderstood, and underestimated or all of the above when it came to the use of meth and the temporary advantage it provided the German forces. It could be argued that along with blitzkrieg warfare, radios and other often mentioned factors, meth provided a huge advantage to German forces in 39-41 and beyond. As the war progressed its certain Allied intelligence knew and analyzed the German widespread use of stimulants and its conceivable that by Normandy a decision was made to emulate what the Germans did and issue Allied troops with stimulants of their own. Perhaps it was deemed necessary as it was known by then the German use and development of stimulants and we had to match them in this regard. As a previous poster mentioned it's no big secret, but it’s also not widely discussed, yet the evidence is clear the use was widespread and officially sanctioned at the highest levels-on both sides. What would be interesting to know from a historical standpoint is how these decisions were made and who made them. For all I know the answers could be in some box tucked away in some basement or perhaps it’s considered so sensitive it still classified or redacted out of documents. What I find even more interesting to know is was the British and American public aware of all of this at the time. Were letters sent home mentioning this censored or had references removed. The American and British public was spoon fed only what the government wanted the public to know back in those days. The air raid on Bari that released mustard gas and killed allied troops during the Italian Campaign was kept secret for years. I have a stash of old WW2 documentaries, films, newsreels and other stuff and the I get the impression the drug aspect was not publicized-at least on the Allied home front.

I believe heavy use of stimulants was a factor in the rapid advances in the West at the begining of the war and Eastern Front. I don't think the outcome would have been different as the other factors played huge roles, but speed did facilitate more rapid and prolonged advances-up to a point and then diminishing returns set in. Who know maybe troops were strung out and spent around Dunkirk. The American soldier I was referring to was at the Battle of the Buldge and he was the one who was shelled and the German troops coming over the wire were fresh and caught his unit by surprise. If you've ever encountered someone on meth there are usually tell tale signs. I'm inclined to believe what he saw. Just my opinion though, but it would be interesting to see more research on this as it would change the context of many events.

I'm not so sure... http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-nazi-death-machine-hitler-s-drugged-soldiers-a-354606.html http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/nazi-meth-and-how-german-army-fought-wwii-on-speed-2688200.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371512/Nazis-fed-speed-infantrymen-tested-cocaine-like-stimulant-concentration-camps.html

We’ve all read the history books and know the story. Blitzkrieg strategy and tactics, radios, small unit tactics the list goes on and on. Was there another element involved that has not been widely discussed? What I’ve heard hear and there, but have yet to find a definitive source on is what role if any did the use of methamphetamines played in the success of the German Army in WW2. I have seen a few segments-one was from the History Channel where they briefly discussed the used of meth-or some form of it as a stimulant and how it allowed rates of advance that bewildered the Allied command in the early days of the war. I saw a segment on the show “The American Experience” where a survivor from the 99th or 106th division (I know it was one of those divisions) who mentioned in an interview the German soldiers were clearly “doped up-you could tell by the way their eyes looked”. A friend once mentioned the Germans would inject troops with meth right before a battle. I also recall seeing a book on equipment carried by soldiers in WW2 that had pictures of am injection kit carried by German soldiers. Interesting enough other books on the subject omit the kit. On the other side of the globe I came across another interesting tidbit of related information. I read a book about a Yakusa member who in his waning years wrote a memoir. In it he mentions that when the war ended US Naval intelligence found a huge drug stash in Yokohama. Much was amyl nitrate and given to kamikaze pilots. It appears there was more to it than the cup of sake… Apparently after the war much of the drug stash “disappeared” and was sold on the black market. I’ve also heard much of the impetuous for the Colt 45 was “drugged up” Moro fighters. Kat was a factor in Somalia and other places and in Iraq it was not uncommon to see insurgents fighting drugged out. Remember the game Syndicate when it first came out? You could click the syringe icon and your operatives would go berserk… Anyway back on track-if anyone has links to this subject matter I’d like to see it. I’ve looked around and it’s not something that appears to be widely discussed or available.

That may be true, but if you're going to do one thing like tweak MG's then wouldn't you would have to accommodate the flip side and making tweaks to things such as going to cover and other factors that from reading other threads is not possible with the current game engine? Don't get me wrong I would like to see a ball busting "realistic mode" as a play option. Its easy for us to ask/demand, but I don't know if I'd want to be the programmer/designer who has to deliver the pizza with everything on it. I deal with that cr*p everyday. End users and others asking for the world on a silver platter and then wondering why rubbing the magic genie bottle and asking for 3 wishes doesn't produce results.

I'm sure its been asked many times, but h2h campaigns would really add a welcome element. Throw in some of the requested no cheat Ironman mode and you would see a far more conservative style of play. Imagine taking green troops from Normandy that became hardened vets in later campaigns and knowing that any losses would be replaced by green troops or replacements. Fighting h2h in one off battles is an all or nothing proposition and the fights will gravitate to that sort of mentality.

I think the fact that most people play on difficulties that give far too much info that allow far too precise targeting. Alot of ammo was spent to generate each casualty and alot of fire was directed randomly. A very realstic game would probably appeal to an even smaller crowd and as previous poster said may not be very enjoyable.

If we got h2h campaigns where losses carried over and replacements green and random, you'd see changes in the way players approach battles. Ironman also tends to change things. Even against the AI, I use far more targeting of places where I think the enemy might be, even if I don't have positive targets. I think lower difficulties give players too much information. I've read in the past that green troops who were trained at boot camp had to be retrained by vets to forgrt what they were taught in boot camp about precision fire at spotted targets and to just shoot at at any suspected position where the enemy might be.

That is very interesting to know. Now I wonder if American radios were more rugged and reliable and why if the British knew they had such fragile radios they didn't try to do something about it.

Maybe this time the British will bring radios that work and the correct crystals. Amazing how the simplest of minor details can swing a battle.

My bad. It does seem a bit odd that all cannons can penetrate more than one building. A mud or wood hut maybe, but a stone one IDK. It is good to know, but I would feel a little guilty exploiting it in a game if I shot an opponents tank that was behind a couple of buildings. Then again you could argue the shot when through a couple of windows before hitting the tank!

I would have loved to see that try to cross a bridge. That's the sort of contraction you would expect to see on rails not tracks.

You're now getting into the realm of building construction and resistance to different types of ballistics-something I doubt a small indy company can afford to model and program into a simulation. There was a sim by SPI that went into this. The rules book and some of the detailed background were interesting reading. It was called Cityfight: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cityfight-/111136902936?pt=Games_US&hash=item19e0468f18 I wouldn't doubt the advanced training given to select individuals in the military still cover this.

I'm curious as to how common it was for a platoon commander who I assume was a Second or 1sr LT. to be able to call and receive fire from 105mm or higher caliber howitzers, guns or other assets. I'm sure sure there are many different situations which could complicate the answer to this question. The reason why I bring this up is I recall from my youth and model building days I used to love reading the historical notes that were printed on the front page and for the Monogram kit of the mortar and mortarmen it was that mortars were a LT/platoons "personal artillery" that could always be counted on as assets like 105's were often not available for their use.

If a gun has HE and AP rounds and you target a house to try and ping a tank or track behind it, I assume it will use HE if they have any left its assumed you are targeting the house? Also does a AP lose some penetrating power when its shot through a house?

I have all of the Shock Force and Combat Mission games. I haven't played Shock Force in a long time. All I can say from playing Combat Mission is to play h2h as soon as you feel comfortable doing so. A completely different experience. Many of the things you learn/do against the AI will lead to disaster against a human opponent. I would also try playing Ironman or the equivalent in SF against the AI. I started doing so in Combat Mission and it completely changes the experience when playing against the AI. We have some h2h ladder games going on with Normandy and Italy and I setup the game to be in Ironman mode. Never played a human like that so I don't know what its like or what I'm getting into. I do feel players do have too much information in some of the other modes, on the other hand it may be too fustrating playing with too much realism.

I haven't played many H2H games, that must suck to see someone vanish. I've lost all my games so far and its pretty certain I'm going to lose 2 in progress, but I'll fight to the bitter end. I'm now just seeing how much damage I can inflict. I kinda wear the looser badge with honor

I'm on ver 1.5.3 and for some reason it doesn't work with Italy. It does work for Normandy. The chat used to work, but has stopped working.

I play H2H which looks like its supported. Not sure if the same H2H utility that works for dropbox with CMBN-but seems to have problems with Italy will work for SF. How is the game play for H2H and SF? It seem like it may not be as fun for a Syrian player as they on paper appear to be over matched in many aspects-although in an urban setting they would probably be able to do a lot of damage.

I have all th SF games. Haven't played in a while. I started playing H2H CMBN and Italy/ Gustav line a few weeks ago and can't stop. Seems like SF might be pretty fun to play H2H something I assume you can do?

7.92 if I'm not mistaken was used in the Germans Mausers and MG 34 and 42, but the Mausers used stripper clips and the MGs were belt fed.

Oftentimes if an attacked was prepared additional grenades and other items were handed out. The ammo resupply point is an interesting one. Perhaps an ASP could be something that could be added or purchased in some battles? It does bring up the question of what happens if the location gets shelled or if its in or near a building what happens if the building burns or colapses? I've heard bullets just pop if you have a stash and your home catches fire. Grenades and mortar rounds may be a different stort as well as Ww2 bullets which may have used less stable powder.

When I got my first computer in the late 80's and started playing simulations on a computer as opposed to playing boards games it was a different world. The 90's was a golden age for computer gaming. Titles like the V for Victory, M1 Tank Platoon and other hard core military themed sims were popular. Flight sims were also very popular. Times have changed. If the computing and graphics capability we have today was widely available and cheap back then it would have been very interesting to see what would have been produced. I'm just happy we have indy producers making titles like CMBN and Italy these days.

I spend more on bullets to go shooting every month that I did on Italy. I can understand the pricing concern for some. There certainly were points in my life where I would have to choose between buying a $50+ game or eating. Games like this are never going to be mainstream and many youth today don't have the patience required learn this sort of simulation - I don't want to imply all youth as I have some great games going on with some who are younger, but obviously also into history and this sory of stuff. Overall the trend had been towards mobile and console gaming.