IICptMillerII

BFCs current model is to release two modules per year. If they stick to it, at that rate all games will have at least one new module by 2020. I would say thats pretty impressive. The problem with a cold war scenario in 1971 is that prior to the lessons learned in the Yom Kippur war, US doctrine was to use nukes in response to a conventional invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets. So a CM game taking place in that time period would be really boring. The '85-'89 timeframe is much more interesting as far as conventional conflict due to both doctrine and equipment.

This is my dream CM game, but it is unfortunately unlikely to be made in the next 5 years or so. BFCs current model is to release one major game per year and two modules for already released games per year. There are at least two games covering the Eastern Front that are expected, which means that the earliest possible window for a CM: Fulda Gap isn't until 2019. Its very likely that other games covering WWII or possibly Korea 1950 come about first, not to mention another modern game such as Black Sea in a different environment. So while CM: Fulda Gap may eventually happen (and I sincerely hope it does) I've accepted the fact that it is a long time coming. Now if someone had a boatload of money to throw at BFC to develop a cold war game, that could change the equation some. But that is exceedingly unlikely, so we'll have to wait it out. P.S. Airburst ammunition for artillery and thermals for tanks and IFVs would be in a cold war game, unless that game takes place in the 50's or 60's.

Pls no... This would be exponentially better.

Hi all, I just uploaded my sound mod for the M1 Garand to CMMODSIII. It uses the sound effect from the old Medal of Honor Allied Assault game (and its expansions) for the Garand. I personally think it is one of the best video game sound effects for the M1, not because its the most realistic, but because it is very cinematic and distinct. If you've never played the old MoH games, here is a video I made quickly showcasing the sound effect: Here is the link to the page where you can download it: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5117 The mod works in all CM games featuring the M1:. (CMBN, CMFI, CMFB) Enjoy!

Just wanted to add a quick point of emphasis: when the tanks arrive you can really start clearing out those individual German positions and gain some momentum.Progress will still be slow and tedious, but with the tanks you will have a reliable way to engage/suppress/destroy bothersome German positions. As for a defeat allowing you to progress in the mission, that is not uncommon in campaign design. Usually in the campaign briefing it will tell you what victory conditions are required to continue the campaign. For instance, there could be a mission where if you do not win, you lose the entire campaign. Other campaigns are much less strict, requiring only a draw in order to advance. If memory serves, the campaign allows you to progress even if you do not complete this mission due to its inherent difficulty. Good luck on your third attempt! I'm interested in hearing from you how it turned out. Remember to use a slow rate of fire with the artillery. If you set the mission duration to 'Maximum' but set the rate of fire to 'Harass' (or a similar very slow ROF setting) you effectively will not run out of ammo, and you can cancel the fire mission when you start to get close to where the shells are landing. Even with the slow rate of fire it should be enough, for long enough, to keep the Germans heads down most of the time, and will degrade their morale as well.

I've played this scenario recently and have also had trouble with it. Within the restraints of the campaign, I think your best option is to develop a very detailed fires plan and stick to it. You want friendly artillery falling constantly, at a low rate of fire to preserve ammunition, and you want it layered in tiers so to speak. Essentially you need to establish one really long rolling barrage that your infantry operates behind. This should keep the bulk of the German defenders pinned down, leaving only smaller teams and the like that you'll have to deal with at any one time, instead of the bulk of the defenders firepower. In the first phase of the mission before the tanks arrive, positioning your infantry and sappers should be your primary goal, while spotting enemy positions, all while having that slow steady artillery falling on suspected German positions. Keep the mortars in reserve to engage point targets of German positions as you begin to spot them. If possible, drop smoke near the first minefield and begin clearing it. Be careful though, as the Germans can drop pre-registered fire missions on this location. In the second phase, when the tanks have shown up, use the combination of your infantry and tanks to advance slowly, engaging specific enemy positions with direct fire as you go. From here it just becomes a slog. You have to slowly advance with your tanks and infantry, while maintaining a constant artillery barrage to keep the majority of enemy positions suppressed. Quick note, I found that smoke was relatively useless in this battle. Due to the terrain, it does not block enough of the Germans line of sight to be fully useful, and it tends to blow away rather quickly as well. You would need a lot more smoke rounds in order to effectively blind the Germans here. That said, it can still be used in a few specific places to good effect, such as the bottleneck of the first mine field, and on any German positions that just wont seem to die. You can drop smoke directly on them to blind them and give yourself a chance to maneuver. Ideally, you would have a lot more time to fight this battle. If you're so inclined you could unpack the mission from the campaign and add more time in the editor (max it out at 4 hours) to really give yourself the time needed to slowly prod your way forward. This battle is mainly difficult in my opinion due to how tedious you have to go about fighting it. Every individual German position must be suppressed, and there are a lot of them. If you allow the Germans to fire at you in mass, or allow their officers and observers to view your forces easily, they will murder you with direct and indirect fires. It may also be worth adding additional forces, although that begins to go outside of the original mission parameters and may be historically inaccurate as well. Granted, all of this is much easier said than done. Biggest piece of advice I'll reiterate is to accept that playing the mission is very tedious. It either requires a lot of mental stamina or a lot of breaks. Maybe both. Lots of orders to give every turn for a lot of units, and if you get lazy you'll be severely punished by the Germans. That, or you'll find yourself running out of time with out of place units, which will then turn into a scramble which will lead to mass casualties. Hope this helps some. It would be interesting to hear from the scenario designer his thoughts on the mission. It would also be very interesting to see an AAR done for this mission.

It does seem like he has been dormant for a while now. I have no idea why, or if we can expect anything new anytime soon unfortunately. Still though, it is a good resource as is. Another good resource is the Armchair General youtube videos: I've found that even though I've watched them through a few times now, it is still worthwhile to go back and rewatch them as a kind of refresher course. They do such a good job of covering the basics, and theyre also just fun to watch, in my opinion. Finally, there are these videos made by Slim on the forums here: Its an ongoing project of his, but there is already a ton of great info in the episodes hes released. Again another great resource. None of these resources cover exactly how to conduct a mounted assault, but they all cover tactical basics that when applied to any situation, should produce results. And as I said, if you've already seen all of these, they are still worth rewatching.

Check out http://battledrill.blogspot.com/ Its a blog written by one of the members of the forums who also helped with some 3D animation work for some of the CM games. Its real world tactics applied to CM and how to do it. Very useful resource.

Individually, absolutely. There are plenty of personal stories out there of airborne infantrymen grabbing BARs in Normandy after the gliders landed with the glider Infantry and supplies. However I'm sure there could be a raging debate over how official the unofficial TO&E changes were in reality.

In general, during WWII for US forces there were a lot of unofficial TO&E alterations in the field. BARs were prised because they have the squad more firepower, and after coming up against so many Germans with MGs, they could use all the extra firepower they could get. Another popular change was discarding the Springfield rifle (standard issue to a designated marksman in every squad) for a regular M1. Many preferred the higher rate of fire and adaptability of the semi automatic rifle over the Springfield. This is actually something I wish was more prevalent in CM, as I view the Springfield as being utterly useless. In a firefight I want as many rifles firing as possible. A precision weapon just reduces the firepower of the squad. Just my opinion. Finally, many officers and other soldiers issued the M1 carbine would discard it for an M1. Maj Winters from Band of Brothers is an example of this. Per the airborne TO&E he should have had a carbine, but he used an M1 instead. This was for a few reasons, one being that many did not like the carbine due to performance issues (it was basically a pistol with a stock, not the greatest in a firefight) and because officers didn't want to advertise their importance by looking differently than everyone else.

Very excited to give this a go when I get the chance. Keep the battle packs coming for all the games! You'll have at least one customer who has no issue paying for more content.

I agree with the points made, specifically the points @Erwin and @Holman made. I find it more realistic and immersive if I pay attention to casualties and make attempts to recover them, regardless of if they are dead or just wounded. On the real battlefield, casualties play a massive, if not dominating role in shaping the dynamic of a firefight/battle. Many times, firefights are started by a quick burst of fire that causes a casualty, and then are prolonged by one side trying to recover the casualty before breaking contact. Also as others have mentioned, if you're in it purely to win it via points in the scenario, I believe you suffer less of a hit to the points if you recover most of your casualties. I'm not sure about that though.

Performing buddy aid has practical purposes. Say the guy with the bazooka becomes a casualty. If he is buddy aided, then the bazooka and it's ammo will be recovered. Same can be said for engineers and sachel charges, and all other types of equipment you may want to hang on to. Otherwise, for QBs and regular scenarios it probably isn't all that important. However for campaigns it can be. Buddy aided casualties (wounded, not dead) are more likely to return to your units and replace losses. In a long campaign with minimal reinforcements, this becomes an important part of force preservation.

Sorry I missed the end of this. I've been a bit out of the loop for a while. Hard fought battle, and an excellent AAR! Really showcases the difficulty of fighting through the bocage. Also a good showcase for Theatre of Operations. Very much looking forward to its further development!

Thanks for the update. Looking forward to the finished product!

I was just clarifying my point because I feel a lot has been tossed around and lost in translation in the three or so threads on this topic. Very interested to see what you're able to come up with!

In my experience the v4 upgrade shortened turn loading times. Onsmaller battles the turn is almost instantaneous, and on larger battles turns seem to load better as well. I haven't had a chance to upgrade CMFI yet, but I've upgraded all the other titles and noticed a positive effect on turn load times. Could be an issue with CMFI, or it could be an issue on your end. Quick note, having CM installed on an SSD does reduce load times, both of loading a battle and turn loading times, but it only saves you a handful of seconds (10-30 from what I've observed)

All good points. My main point has been that HE artillery is not an optimal tool to use to destroy tanks. If you dump a battalions worth of 155s on a stationary Abrams (or any other modern tank for that matter) you're going to kill it, as one of the shells will find a weak spot on the armor, or a fragment of sufficient size will do the same. However, the tank is not going to sit there and allow itself to get pounded by artillery. Once it knows it's being targeted/bracketed by artillery it's going to move. After all one of the biggest and primary advantages a tank brings to the battlefield is mobility and firepower. In the case of avoiding being destroyed by artillery, it relies on the mobility advantage. This obviously is no longer the case for a tank that has lost its mobility, whether it be due to being fracked by the artillery, being in a permanent fortified position (doctrinal folly, but a topic for a different discussion) or if the ones shooting the artillery have a pre registered target on the tank and are able to hit it fast enough, with enough shells to knock it out. So again, just to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I DO NOT think that tanks are invincible against artillery. I DO think that artillery is the wrong tool to kill a tank with because all the tank must do to survive is move.

Thanks for the pictures @Haiduk and @Armorgunner I want to quickly make something clear that has been a continued point of misunderstanding; I am talking specifically about the effects of artillery against tanks. I have no doubt that artillery can wreak havoc on AFVs/IFVs, trucks, jeeps, buggys, cars, humvees, ATVs, etc etc. My primary point of skepticism is about the effects of HE artillery against tanks. Just want that to be extremely clear. Looking forward to the results of @HerrTom research.

This is my primary point of skepticism: artillery fragments tend to be smaller than a .50 caliber round (in most cases, and depending on the size and type of shell, etc) Based on that, and physics, if a .50 cal round cannot penetrate the side of a tank turret, then how could a smaller fragment hole to do so? Even if it's moving faster, its lower mass means less kinetic energy, which makes it even harder to cause a penetration. Just explaining my reasoning. However I am extremely interested in where you are taking this research @HerrTom. If you're able to pull data that shows that artillery generally is able to produce fragments larger than .50 cal rounds with similar ballistics, then I think you may be onto something. According to the data @shift8 found, most artillery fragments are smaller than .50 cal rounds and have reduced ballistic power as a result, which leads to the very small chances of penetration. But if documentation is found that directly contradicts this, I'll be more than happy to change my mind on this whole debate.

Forgot to mention the uniform allowance enlisted soldiers get, my bad. It's also worth pointing out that you can get a housing allowance if you're living off base (BAH) and the military compensates you for lots of other expenses, such as necessary travel or lodging during PCS. I wasn't trying to be critical of the current policies, just pointing out that the new uniforms were developed based on combat experience in Afghanistan and other theatres, not just as away for some lucky defense contractor to make extra cash. As far as the uniform itself, it's grown on me but I'm still not a big fan. It feels like a knock off of BDUs in a way, almost like a European equivalent. Not that something being European is a bad thing, it just doesn't feel quite right. That said and my personal feelings aside, it is a necessary replacement, and it's more than capable.

This is a very good and fair point. Maps have been getting larger (a good thing in my opinion) which means without having a flexible way to provide motorized transport to Infantry, means the battle is going to take much longer as the Infantry has to make its way to the fight. Dont get me wrong, the more capabilities available to the player the better. If someone is dumb enough to leave his Infantry on a tank that's exposed to heavy fire, well that's his loss and his enemy's fortune. However from what I understand, adding the tank riding ability to CMBN and CMFI sounds like a rather monumental undertaking, as all the vehicles have to be remodeled. We just saw how much time an effort went into overhauling the TO&E for CMFI. It took months. A project such as adding tank riders would likely also take months. Personally, I would rather BFC work on other things, like upgrades and future modules to the games than delaying all that just to add tank riders to two games. Again, it's not that I am opposed to having tank riders as an ability in the game, it's just that there are other things I would like to see released first, so tank riders is lower on my personal priority list.

I agree completely, and I'm confident there will be some such tweak in an upcoming patch. All that is needed is for foxholes/trenches and the like to impart some kind of extra bonus that keeps troops from fleeing from artillery barrages so quickly.

I don't disagree. Did you know that you have to pay for the haircut you get when you get to basic training? Also all the other hygienic things such as deodorant and the like. When you first get to basic you get a payment in advance in order to pay for all that crap. There's lots of things you have to personally pay for. Officers have to pay for their class A uniforms and all the furnishings that go with it when they first commission. It usually costs around $1500 last I heard. Some of it I understand (for example a unit specific thing like a Stetson instead of a beret if in a cavalry unit) but a lot of it seems rather absurd. Is the way it is though. It is an extension of government after all, where waste is the norm and there is no such thing as "enough money."

No. Scorpion starts off darker because it makes the camo more effective, AND it prolongs its lifespan. I'll also point out that most soldiers only get issued one set of camo. All other sets they have to purchase by themselves out of pocket. Many of the soldiers who had the digital UCP had to purchase the new uniforms themselves, depending on the demands of their units. New soldiers get issued the camo at basic training, and soldiers who are being sent on a deployment are also issued the new camo. Most other cases require the individual to purchase the new camo themselves. This is hardly some bloated DoD money grab. If anything it's the solution to a problem caused by the old UCP digital camo that was adopted over a decade ago.