fivefivesix

Kohl I had a good laugh at "Wheat School," thanks for that. The mod looks great too, thanks for putting it on display!

Just watched the video AARs Aurelius posted, you weren't joking with that artillery barrage. Looks like this will be a good one.

There won't be any UI feedback that the objective is captured. If it is an "occupy" objective, as long as it is clear of enemy and you occupy it at the end of the mission, you win the points for the objective. So feel free to move on (leave a small group behind to occupy it)! The only objective I believe provides a visual indication of being completed is the "touch" objective.

I've thankfully never been shot at. But I often wonder, when playing CM games, how I might behave if placed in the positions of my pixeltruppens. I think everyone has a threshold of danger that they can perform under. Its different for everybody. I personally appreciate that some of my virtual soldiers, even so-called "elite" or "veterans" will eventually cower under fire. I've also had conscript soldiers heroically defend a position under withering fire. So sure, if one machine gun is bearing down on you, it's "easy" enough to shoot back. What if a second machine gun joins in against you? Eventually, its too hot for any (sane) person to stay in position. With the importance that modern armies have placed in machine guns and LMGs, I think it is clear that most modern tactics are based around the accepted psychological stress that suppressive fire can place on the enemy. If they aren't shooting or looking, your buddies are maneuvering to close and destroy them. It doesn't matter if they know that its happening - humans in general can't reason well under stress.

It is an interesting story, but I have to agree with LukeFF. She unquestionably served the Union Army honorably. But the Medal of Honor is meant for "Conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty". She should be honored for being revolutionary in the fact that she was the first woman to serve in the capacity as a battlefield surgeon. But find another award, or make one up for her ... the Medal of Honor is a sacred entitlement. The fact that most post-WWI MoH's are awarded posthumously (at least > 60%) should indicate why.

Hi Feier, welcome. The best title to start with will be dependent on your particular interests. Each title has its own flavor and the terrain in each are vastly different from each other. I started with Battle for Normandy, because that was what I was most interested in tactically and historically. I ultimately found Fortress Italy to be my favorite title (so far), which was unexpected. The mountainous terrain is just so different from anything else. Theres nothing like fighting uphill against dug in infantry with artillery raining down - that will test your tactical abilities. As far as updates, BF have continued to update and produce new content for all titles back to Battle for Normandy. The Bulge module is due out for CMBN hopefully this year, and (I think?) that will bring the Western front all the way to the end of the war. CMFI, CMRT and CMBS all have modules in the works at some point in time. Engine upgrades that are released with new titles have also been made accessible for older titles (back to CMBN) as well, to keep everything up to date. Shock Force is a great game as well, but it does look dated graphically next to any of the newer titles. There was a tale of someday bringing it up to date with the newest engine, which would be fantastic - if it happens, it may be awhile from now. CM:Afghanistan is the only title I don't personally own, and as far as I know, it is static ie. not being further updated / developed. I would suggest trying the demos for each available game. You'll find out what suits you. A lot of folks on this forum will tell you (myself included), eventually you'll end up with all of the titles .

While I have to agree, a map 1/2 covered in forest is not the most exciting thing, CMSF maps are equally drab to me because of the lack of foliage. Some CMSF maps have just one or two small copses or lines of stubby trees. I'll agree with the OP that when large forests are placed, they look more natural with thinned out or even open pockets within them. Maps that I have made will often have a dirt track with thin or no overhead cover breaking up the larger forest. It is much more time consuming, but using a variety of the tree density tiles also gives a more realistic aesthetic, rather than having solid clumps of dense tree growth among solid clumps of sparse tree growth. That being said, I hate fighting in forests. More so because they become LOS / LOF nightmares. If the forest is big enough, artillery and/or armor are mostly useless in providing support for infantry that has to clear them out. Its one thing if a forested area happens to be on a map. I'm likely to avoid it all together if I can. If the entire map is forest, you can't really avoid having to move through it.

This is fantastic. Thank you.

It can certainly be a nerve-wracking task to purposefully apply dirt and mud to a model that you have spent so much time carefully building and painting. I do a buff coat sealer once all the decals have been applied - that way I can fairly easily remedy any mistakes made going forward. I may have been generous with the dusty look this time. Pretty much every Stryker in Afghanistan (or Iraq) that I could find did not appear to get much washing in theater. The Bradley looks good - I see you've got the figure painted and in place. It is hard to tell, what camo pattern is painted on him? I have generally left the figures out of my models - at the 1/35 scale I am just not skilled enough to make them look believable.

Thanks gents. The dust is from a weathering kit from Tamiya - its actually a mixture of "sand", "light sand" and "mud". The cargo straps were included with the kit, but basically really slender strips of masking tape. In most walk arounds and detailed pictures I could find, the stowage baskets that run along each side have metal fixtures and loops for tiedowns and straps. This model didn't achieve that level of detail, so I had to compromise a bit and try to make attachment points as realistic as possible.

I started this project more than a year ago. At the time, I was playing a lot of Shock Force and was thus inspired to put some aftermarket slat armor on. Well, the slat armor didn't work out (anyone who has succeeded with that, good on you). So, I ditched the slat and just went for the general armor-less build. I thought about putting some ERA blocks on to mimic a "Black Sea" up-armored M1126 styled variant, but couldn't find any decent kits. After some digging around, I found a unit that appeared to operate slat-cage-less Strykers in Afghanistan at some point in 2009, so that is what this one became a tribute to. After putting the finishing touches on tonight, I am pretty happy with the outcome. I am definitely still learning a lot with modeling. A few mistakes here and there, a few things I would have done differently. Thankfully all the images of Strykers in Afghanistan show these vehicles just plastered with dust and sand, so heavy weathering was helpful to hide any blemishes. Anyway, any critique or comments would be welcome!

Always good to see more Italian theater campaigns. Looking forward to some screenshots!

So far in the Russian campaign my strategy has been basically this: pre-planned artillery, up to and including organic mortars on suspected enemy strongpoints. The Russian C2 is just too limited to be able to accurately and quickly bring artillery fire during the fight, perhaps with the exception of the company (battalion?) mortars. Only a handful of officers have the capacity, and wait times are usually 8+ minutes (playing elite). The few fire missions I have called in during action have come in 300-400 meters off, as well. I usually start with the weapons company machine guns (and any available rifle company machine guns) setting up in overwatch of my planned route of advance - pioneer platoons are the first forward, to sort out any mine fields that lay ahead, particular along roads and paths. I am specifically trying to identify anti-tank mines, as I need to ensure the limited numbers of SU-76s (or whatever mobile gun / armor) can safely advance along with the infantry. Then, each infantry company is sent forward along this route. Armor moves "slow" along with the infantry, who are always set to "quick", unless maneuvering far from the front, in which case they move at a walking pace to preserve energy. The infantry company usually stays about 100-150 meters ahead of the armor, to hopefully spot any AT gun positions. Once the rifle platoons start taking small arms fire (usually medium-heavy machine guns at 400 + meter ranges), the SU-76s are moved forward to blast away at the machine guns. If AT guns are spotted, either by infantry or when they kill a SU-76, I try to move multiple guns and bring HE on top of them from several positions. Rifle companies bound forward, along with armor at this pace, eliminating strong points as they appear. One thing I have done is to split up the rifle platoons into their smaller sections, when advancing. This is tedious normally, and even more so when commanding a battalion of infantry, but because they advance as one large group, it does prevent excessive casualties when the machine guns do start up. I usually plot "quick" commands up to the destination with 10-15 second pauses every 30 meters or so. This helps keep them fresh, and also further splits up the company to minimize casualties. As far as the distance covered total, I advance forward towards the next available cover, that is in range of my guns and overwatching machine guns. This process is then repeated until the final objective is secured. Weapons company is moving forward once there is enough machine guns from the rifle companies set up at the next base of fire. Then the weapons machine guns set up from there, and the pioneers set out again, etc, etc. It is definitely a slow going process. This has worked fairly well - casualties are taken, especially when close assaulting strong points or entrenched infantry. I generally try to soften these spots up as much as possible, but eventually my guys have to physically occupy those positions - and a few remaining MP44s or machine guns or potato mashers can do a lot of damage. Probably my biggest fear is enemy artillery. Since entire companies are advancing as a singular supported unit, and my strategy thus far has required long periods of static over watch as other units move - enemy artillery has caused most of my casualties. How do you avoid heavy losses to artillery when an entire company is packed together like this?

So far in the Russian campaign my strategy has been basically this: pre-planned artillery, up to and including organic mortars on suspected enemy strongpoints. The Russian C2 is just too limited to be able to accurately and quickly bring artillery fire during the fight, perhaps with the exception of the company (battalion?) mortars. Only a handful of officers have the capacity, and wait times are usually 8+ minutes (playing elite). The few fire missions I have called in during action have come in 300-400 meters off, as well. I usually start with the weapons company machine guns (and any available rifle company machine guns) setting up in overwatch of my planned route of advance - pioneer platoons are the first forward, to sort out any mine fields that lay ahead, particular along roads and paths. I am specifically trying to identify anti-tank mines, as I need to ensure the limited numbers of SU-76s (or whatever mobile gun / armor) can safely advance along with the infantry. Then, each infantry company is sent forward along this route. Armor moves "slow" along with the infantry, who are always set to "quick", unless maneuvering far from the front, in which case they move at a walking pace to preserve energy. The infantry company usually stays about 100-150 meters ahead of the armor, to hopefully spot any AT gun positions. Once the rifle platoons start taking small arms fire (usually medium-heavy machine guns at 400 + meter ranges), the SU-76s are moved forward to blast away at the machine guns. If AT guns are spotted, either by infantry or when they kill a SU-76, I try to move multiple guns and bring HE on top of them from several positions. Rifle companies bound forward, along with armor at this pace, eliminating strong points as they appear. One thing I have done is to split up the rifle platoons into their smaller sections, when advancing. This is tedious normally, and even more so when commanding a battalion of infantry, but because they advance as one large group, it does prevent excessive casualties when the machine guns do start up. I usually plot "quick" commands up to the destination with 10-15 second pauses every 30 meters or so. This helps keep them fresh, and also further splits up the company to minimize casualties. As far as the distance covered total, I advance forward towards the next available cover, that is in range of my guns and overwatching machine guns. This process is then repeated until the final objective is secured. Weapons company is moving forward once there is enough machine guns from the rifle companies set up at the next base of fire. Then the weapons machine guns set up from there, and the pioneers set out again, etc, etc. It is definitely a slow going process. This has worked fairly well - casualties are taken, especially when close assaulting strong points or entrenched infantry. I generally try to soften these spots up as much as possible, but eventually my guys have to physically occupy those positions - and a few remaining MP44s or machine guns or potato mashers can do a lot of damage. Probably my biggest fear is enemy artillery. Since entire companies are advancing as a singular supported unit, and my strategy thus far has required long periods of static over watch as other units move - enemy artillery has caused most of my casualties. How do you avoid heavy losses to artillery when an entire company is packed together like this?

Just had a chance to really read through this thread again - thanks to everyone for their replies. I'll be sure to check out the references mentioned. So far the Russian campaign has been great - definitely a different flavor than anything else Combat Mission offers.

I don't think either option you mentioned is possible (unlimited ammo or ammo resupply during a scenario). One alternative / compromise would be to have different batteries come on call as reinforcements at set times, which you could narrate in the briefing and reinforcement message as "ammo resupply at time x" or whatever you wanted.

I just tested this with U.S. 60 & 81 mm mortars - the mortars point up at launch as expected, and point downward when descending for approximately the last 1/2 - 2/3 of descent. They do have a strange transition at the peak of flight - the mortar begins to lay on its side as it approaches the peak and stays in that position until it finally tips downward on the way down (again, about 1/2 - 2/3 of the descent). It does seem to conflict with the physics as I would intuitively expect. I have version 3.11 - so I'm not sure if this has been changed from earlier versions, or perhaps you're catching the mortar in free fall at or near the maximum altitude, which is where I observed the same thing that you did.

I've just started the Russian campaign. I've had this game since release, and I must admit I've been reluctant to play this campaign because of the lack of familiarity I have with Russian equipment and doctrine. So far I have approached the first mission the same way I might with U.S. forces - scout forward slowly, identify pockets of resistance, fix them, and then flank & assault (or bypass), and repeat. This is obviously a slow process. How "wrong" is this approach? I am tempted by the need to rapidly advance to send wave after wave of infantry running towards the German lines until I have smashed through - at a huge cost in casualties. I understand the Russian priority during Bagration was up-tempo offensive, and that speed was key in breaking through and cutting off German units. So, I want to stay true to that mindset, however - if I have enough time given during a specific mission, doesn't it make sense to slow down and avoid unnecessary casualties? Thanks for any input.

To the immediate left of each forum heading is a little blue/green symbol with "" notation in it. That button does it for me.

The Germans only had 1 (understrength) tank division in southern France at the time. Most of the German infantry involved was non-motorized and poorly equipped. The Eastern front (mostly) and Normandy had diverted the majority of supply of equipment and reinforcement. A large part of the German army group was ultimately cut off and destroyed / surrendered - the divisions that escaped went through the Vosges Mountains

Operation Dragoon occurred about 2 months after Overlord in the middle of August 1944. By that time, the Battle of Normandy was wrapping up - it coincided closely with the Falaise pocket closing up. Paris was liberated about 10 days later. The U.S. and French army that landed in Southern France fought against a German army group that mostly implemented a fighting withdrawal / delaying actions, but few if any strong defensive stands were ever held. Dragoon is probably overshadowed by the much heavier fighting that took place in Normandy. Historically, by that time in the war, Germany could not muster and meaningful resistance to the Allies in France. Strategically a very important operation (the "anvil" to Overlords "hammer"), although not many decisive battles took place.

Ian, I suppose you're probably correct that a change may take more effort than its worth. I didn't think about the equipment being damaged, but that definitely makes sense. I suppose I thought that perhaps any WIA troops would not experience the 25% KIA transition only in the event of an enemy surrender, which doesn't seem like itself would be too difficult to attempt. I'll try to stop thinking about it; my main impetus for considering is that I am into the meat of the Road to Nijmegen campaign and I find myself inexplicably attached to my pixel troops - I would rather them get a boat home with a debilitating injury than to meet their end in a muddy Holland field!

I seem to remember that any WIA pixeltruppen have a 25% chance of being KIA at the end of battle, if not buddy aided during the scenario. This generally seems to make sense - however, in the case of an enemy surrender, should this chance be reduced? For example, one of my platoons took 2 WIA casualties crossing open ground from machine gun fire - I wasn't able to buddy aid them as I couldn't eliminate the machine gun nest (from my current positions). The enemy then surrendered shortly later, leaving me no chance to buddy aid them. The same could apply for equipment lost during a campaign - 1 bazooka team I had had the bazooka carrier KIA, but the second member of the team was bazooka-less for the next battle, even following enemy surrender. Thoughts?

I've had some time off school so I started up "The Road to Nijmegen" Allied campaign for the Market Garden module. Really enjoying it a lot, although I had a spotting oddity occur during "The check at Hoek" mission. I had a Sherman tank peaking through a tree line (under cover). 700 m away is a German 88 emplacement, previously spotted by infantry across the map. My Sherman was concealed behind a set of structures that was about 150 m from the 88 (~550 m from my tank). The 88 somehow gets a spot on the Sherman and destroys it. The projectile passes clean through the roof of one of the buildings. This definitely took me by surprise, as I was fairly confident in my tank being well protected (and physically unseeable, with the buildings laying in the way). I know that everything in this game is more-or-less abstracted to some degree, but this was a little disconcerting considering I had other tanks that I felt were positioned just as well as this one. I didn't think to take screen pics until the following turn, but this will give an idea of what it looks like: Down the barrel of the 88: Screen angled up a few degrees to show destroyed tank, starting to burn: Map shot of range and buildings: Here is a link to the saved file: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7fmhblfokdds8ys/AACWV-lDDR9aen_ymYUgED4Ra?dl=0 This save is from the following turn. The tank has started to burn, but the 88 takes an identical shot at the retreating vehicle crew. Any thoughts? I've decided it was a lucky Luftwaffe attack and moved on.

I've never personally played a game this way, but it should be possible. The first scenario you have would be the way to do it. A1 plots their movement orders (for their units only) saves the file and sends it to A2. Important to note that this save file will go to the "Saved Games" folder and not the "Outgoing Email" folder. A2 receives the file from A1, plots their orders, and then pushes the big red button. A2 would be responsible for sending the file to the opposing team. B1 receives the file, process repeats through B team and B2 then sends the new file to A1 again. This should work whether it is against a human opponent or AI, although I would say if you're already going through the trouble of PBEM it makes more sense to have a human opponent. It would require pretty high levels of cooperation and communication between the players on the same teams. While it easy enough to assign organized force structures to individual players, certain things like off board artillery and CAS would have to be thoughtfully assigned as to not leave your teammate with little / no support.