IICptMillerII

I thought this for a very long time myself, until a friend of mine pointed something out. C2 and to a lesser degree equipment widen the gap between a "Regular" US squad and a "Regular" Russian/UKR squad. A US squad will see the enemy faster (better optics) and will pass on information faster and more efficiently (more and better radios) and engage the enemy more accurately (weapon optics, thermals, etc) than other similarly trained squads of other nations. All of those effects stack to give the US squad an advantage over the others. If a modern Russian squad from Black Sea fought against a US squad from one of the WWII titles, and all soft factors were the same (training, motivation, etc) the US squad would have a very rough time. So the way I look at it now is that all training tiers are the same across the board, and the difference in performance lies in the details and peculiarities of each nation. That all being said, I would not be surprised if there was some under the hood modeling of training quality, nor would I have any problem with that as I think its realistic and suspected it to be that way for a long time anyways.

I know that there wasn't a whole lot of fighting in the town itself, but I always thought it would be cool to have a master map that covered the St Lo area. Oh well, maybe this thread will inspire some scenario designers to make one, or more scenarios based around the St Lo campaign. One can hope.

I've always been curious as to why no one took on the task of making a proper St. Lo. map. Although I can understand why no one wants to take it on, it would be quite the undertaking. By the time the Americans got to the town, it was pulverized. Modeling the complete destruction of the town in CM would be a very time consuming task. Hopefully however someone does take on the task of making it.

El em ayyyyyyy oh. Seriously though thanks for the memes m8

I know, its so obvious you would think it wouldn't have to be pointed out, but alas...

For real?

Have you tried learning and understanding basic tactical principles? Tends to improve ones performance in CM. And hey if that fails you can always load up the mission in the editor and give yourself 18 battleship batteries to help even the score!

Yes, because the Sherman doesn't possess enough firepower as it is...

So, the tank commander hatch has these things that in layman terms are called 'little windows' that allow the tank commander to see out of the tank when he is buttoned. Yes, even behind him. Modern technology truly is a wonder. So when Mr. Sneaky Bazooka Joe crawls up behind a buttoned panther tank, doing his best to be Solid Snake, it actually turns out that the tank commander can see him crawling up to his tank with a long metal tube, and decides that shooting the man with the long metal tube is the right action to take. I honestly am amazed this conversation has gone as long as it has.

I essentially got rolled myself. Unfortunately the machine gun protecting my entire left flank got caught reloading and suffered a bunch of casualties, which then allowed close to a platoon of German infantry to pour over the ridge. Then, in the same minute the AT gun took too much direct fire and the crew abandoned the gun, effectively ending my ability to resist. Called it a cease fire there. I'll likely give the scenario another go, but next time I'll use the player setup version and concoct my own defense.

In the same scenario listed above: Had a 60 mortar team led by Corporal Spunkmeyer (yes, his actual listed name) provide very accurate direct fire support with their mortar, landing a number of direct hits. Very fun little scenario!

No worries! These things take time. I would be very interested in doing a small(ish) PBEM game using these rules once you've completed this AAR.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the system evolves with further playtesting as the AAR plays out. I'm planning on waiting to give the system a try until after the AAR is done, so that I have a good example to go by and to benefit from any changes to the system you make. Looking forward to it!

This is somewhat of a misconception. The argument between theories came down to two schools of thought. The first being that tanks should be spread out over the entire army and mixed with infantry formations in order to lend direct support to the infantry in the attack or defense. For example, having 1 company of tanks attached to every infantry battalion. The second school of thought was that tanks should primarily be organized in their own divisions ( a division made of tanks, not infantry) preferably with supporting armored infantry to allow for proper massing for effective breakthrough attacks. These concepts apply to the operational level of warfare primarily, not the tactical layer that CM depicts. The reality is that the second school of thought is the way to go. The German Blitzkrieg was successful in large part due to the Germans adopting the second school of thought and applying it on the battlefield (at least in 39-41) At the start of the war, the US had armored divisions and infantry divisions. They did not employ an army template that spread out all the tanks in the army across the infantry divisions. However, attached to most infantry divisions was a tank battalion. The attached tank battalions primary job was to support the parent infantry division in whatever it was doing. This was not an endorsement of the first school of thought however, as the Army had most of its armor concentrated in the armored divisions. So, the US followed the second school of thought as well. However, no one disputes that tanks are excellent infantry support, and a key part of any competent combined arms team. Combined arms on the tactical battlefield involves all combat branches (infantry, armor, artillery and airpower) working together to overcome the enemy. On the tactical battlefield you want these combat arms intertwined with each other to insure they provide maximum support to one another, thus defeating the enemy swifter while suffering less casualties. During WWII the US Army got very good at creating combined arms teams that consisted of mixed infantry and armor units (on the tactical level, not operational) that were extremely effective in the drive across France. If anyone would like some reading on how the US Army came to develop the combined arms team, and many other tactics that helped win the war in Europe, I highly recommend Closing With The Enemy by Michael Doubler. If anyone wants a scenario for CMBN that does a very good job of depicting the combined arms team, check out @Rinaldi's mission "Duel in the Mist" which is part of the Arracourt community made mission pack.

Haven't noticed any issues. I've played both singleplayer, multiplayer and PBEM games in v4 and have not seen this issue at all.

I'll have to give this a try when I get the chance. Thanks for posting the template!

This looks like a very cool idea. Very excited to see it play out.

For uniforms and gear and such, there is no "0" or "1" in the file names. Not sure about the earlier versions. Sound files do use "0" and "1" if I remember correctly.

The difference between standard and grenadier is that when you select grenadier in the editor, it gives one of the German riflemen a rifle grenade. Standard means that no one in the German squad will have a rifle grenade. Panzergrenadiers were traditionally halftrack infantry. The biggest difference they bring is that they have 2 MG42s per squad instead of the standard 1. As you can imagine this gives them quite the advantage in firepower. There may be other small differences that others will likely point out, but I believe that covers the big differences.

The helmets are: smod_american_helmet-soldier Airborne uniforms are: smod_american_m42-para_uniform If you want them to appear with the 101st or 82nd patches they need a modtag, so the name looks like: smod_american_m42-para_uniform [101st] smod_american_m42-para_uniform 2 [101st]

The uniform mod you are trying to use is out of date. I know because I had the same problem you had a while ago. When v3 came out, the uniform names were changed. The mod you are trying to use is using the old names for uniforms. To fix it, simply rename the bmp file to: smod_american_m41_uniform It should now show up in game. So if you have 3 bmp files for uniforms they should be named: smod_american_m41_uniform smod_american_m41_uniform 2 smod_american_m41_uniform 3 Hope this resolves your issue.

Well if you want a scenario to utilize the Africa mods, then you need to apply the modtag in the editor. In order to do that the modtag text file must be accessible via the editor. I think this is just a reminder to put the text file in a place you can remember, and where the editor can be pointed to.

A full editor is provided with all CM games that allow for each user to create/modify scenarios that they want to play. If you want a long exercise that doesn't involve much contact with the enemy, you can make it yourself. Further, there are a handful of community members that create scenarios and campaigns that are extremely historically accurate, thus giving you scenarios that reflect real battles. So you can either make your own scenarios, or download scenarios made from other community members. There are plenty of options.

Glad to see you back around Bil! I believe it is to make it easier to find the modtag in the editor when making missions that you want to have utilize the tagged mods.

I just want to quickly point out that comparing Steel Division to Combat Mission is not fair to either game. Steel Division is much more a game than it is a simulator. Most of the more "realistic" features are generalizations, specifically with the way infantry combat is handled. Moreover, the TO&E is extremely unrealistic in Steel Division. For example, all German division templates get access to a plethora of aircraft of varying type to provide CAS during matches. This is completely a-historical, but is done for multiplayer balance purposes, and is admissible because the game does not claim to be a true to history simulation. Another example is the German 352nd Infantry division getting king tigers and jagdpanthers, and the 101st Airborne division getting organic M10 tank destroyers, Sherman DD tanks and the M22 light tank to name a few. Its also important to note that Steel Division is designed to be much more accessible than Combat Mission is. Anyone who has played common popular strategy games will easily pick up Steel Division and get the hang of it after a short while. Combat Mission understands a basic knowledge of real tactics, and a general idea of each sides equipment and capabilities in order to be successful on the battlefield. In that way it is more of a so-called "study sim." I own both Steel Division and Combat Mission and enjoy each for what they offer. They both have pros and cons, and both do a good job at what they offer. But comparing the two different games and saying that Steel Division is proof of a game doing what Combat Mission does, but better is simply untrue.