General Liederkranz

It would be nice if the purple line that comes up when you select "Pop Smoke" extended out the distance the smoke would go. As it stands it extends (and says) 20m, which I guess is accurate for defensive smoke launchers but not for these. It could go out the full 150+m to show what'll really happen.

Hi @MOS:96B2P
Good skills spot on analysis. 
The smoke columns are from a brace of SU-76s that tried to ambush the Panthers. They scored a few hits on the lead tank and actually killed the commander. The rest of the zug took out the assault guns. The image on the previous page shows one of the KOd SU-76s. 
Aye still noodling away at the campaign. I’m working on the branching missions. This mission is an alternate ‘history’ of an actual event. In the campaign if all going well you’d play the historical version. If not you’ll end up in this one. Which in play testing is just as engaging, I think. 
Campaigns are a bit of PITA to do though! Lot of moving parts and I’ve nowhere near the free time I used to have now. Still it’s progressing nicely. I think!
Cheery!

The Germans in Hot Time in Hatten get about 20 mortars and 6 150 Infantry Guns.  They just become available as part of the reinforcements that are listed so the two tubes is just what you get at start.  Hot Time In Hatten is in the Alsace region and was part of Nordwind not the Bulge and the German units involved in that operation were mostly scratch units that didn't have much in the way of standard TO&Es or heavy artillery.  Nebelwerfers, from a scenario perspective, are also a bit limiting since they are primarily an area saturation weapon and so their usefulness or applicability are fairly limited.  They just aren't a weapon that is typically going to be used for on call strikes on precision targets which is what a player is primarily going to be using when playing.  Artillery in general terms is probably much more accurate in game than it would have been at the time for a variety of reasons that have been discussed and so the Nebelwerfer in game would benefit greatly from that extra accuracy.  The main thing about rocket artillery in the game is that they don't sound any different than normal artillery which is disappointing to me since I remember with some fondness the weird space rocket sounds in CM1 when Nebelwerfers were used. 

It seems natural that those got the most attention in US accounts. My memory (just based on reading Cole recently) is that there are many other instances, early in the battle, of platoons and companies being overrun. Those who survived as stragglers or prisoners probably didn't get as much attention as intact units that survived assaults, like the 395th stand at Höfen or the defenders at Bastogne or Krinkelt-Rocherath. (As I recall, even Lt. Bouck's heroic stand with his I&R platoon at Lanzerath only got attention decades later, because he and all his men were captured. That action doesn't even show up in Cole's account, written in the early 1960s.)

What period are these numbers for? Those numbers on Wikipedia go up through Jan. 25, which would mean they include about a month when the US was back on the offensive and only 2 weeks when it was mostly the Germans attacking. Presumably Huertgen losses wouldn't be included since that battle was over by Dec. 16.
I would also imagine the Germans inflicted far more losses than they suffered in the opening days, mostly not by winning relatively equal head-on engagements but by cutting off and overwhelming smaller American units (or forcing them to surrender, like the whole 422nd and 423rd Infantry Regiments).

IIRCR, Hitler himself requested, that Monschau should be spared. As the story goes, he visited the town before the war and wanted to preserve it‘s beauty. If it is true, it’s a shame that he did not think to have some more places preserved.

Thanks for the good reply. I could imagine it's because they wanted to avoid destroying the two bridges in the town. Would make sense.
I'm sure there are similar good explanations for many of the absent heavy guns in many of the German scenarios. It's up to designers what battles they want to recreate - I just sometimes get the feeling I keep fighting battles that were the exception  When fighting a huge battle with a regiment, it would be fun to get some bigger support assets to plan how to use ...
 

I find Regular and Green units, especially, much steadier when in C2. And while I kind of wish that platoon leaders' abilities affected their squads, they still do indirectly--a better-quality Platoon HQ will hold up better under fire, allowing it to keep its squads in C2 more effectively.
@Josey Wales, thank you for the great explanation!
I just tried this by pulling up a scenario (CMBN MG Sacrifice for a New Religion) and killing a US Rifle Battalion CO. The XO did immediately take over.
I also tried killing a German SS Aufklarungs Platoon CO (in CMFB December Morning), and I found the same thing that @Bulletpoint did--the HQ Support Team's leader did not take over. However, I also noticed that the guy in charge of that team is labeled "Team Leader" rather than "Executive Officer" in the lower-left-hand green text that describes everyone's current activities. So I wonder if he's a different type of assistant. When I've seen "Assistants" take over, whether at platoon, company, or battalion level, they're always the "Executive Officer" type rather than "Team Leader." The difference is subtle because on the UI display down below they're both labeled "Asst," but they're different roles.
So it seems to me this behavior is intended, and the Aufklarungs Platoon HQ Support Team leader is NOT really considered an assistant platoon leader. He's just a team leader/assistant squad leader, so ineligible to take over a platoon. This would make sense, since the Aufklarungs platoons are already commanded by NCOs (Hauptscharführer) rather than officers. The HQ Support Team leaders are even more junior by two ranks (Scharführer). As I understand it that's more like a squad leader's rank than a platoon sergeant's. By contrast, SS PzGd platoons, which do have Executive Officers who can take over, are commanded by officers.

You're right.  I just tested a US Weapons Platoon in CMBN.  Killed the CO.  The XO in the support team became the new platoon HQ.  
It even worked within a US infantry platoon.   Not sure why I thought this didn't work at platoon level.  I'm glad it does, at least in some circumstances.  So  @Bulletpoint I'm not sure if what you are seeing is intended behavior or not.  
Thanks @General Liederkranz.  Glad you caught that.  +1

The Coy XO definitely takes over if the Coy Commander goes down.
A Bttn XO does not appear take over if the Bttn Commander goes down.
It would seem as if from @Bulletpoint's post that the Asst Plt Ldr behaves more like a Bttn XO than a Coy XO.
I have no idea or explanation as why it is like this.
 
As for a leader attributes passing down to his subordinate units - this categorically does not happen. I explain this in my post The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue
To conceptualise this, imagine the leadership modifier is exactly the same as the fitness modifier with respect to who it affects.
An unfit Platoon HQ that gets out of breath walking up a hill does not mean that all of the squads under their command get out of breath walking up the hill. 
The same for Leadership. A Plt Leader who has a -2 Leadership modifier only applies that modifier to the rest of the Platoon HQ. The squads are dependent on the leadership modifier of their individual Squad Leaders (or team leaders when split).
I think this gets confusing for people because of 2 reasons.
1. The Leadership modifier is the only soft factor that can dynamically change as a result of casualties.
2. It is the only one of the factors that is applied to individuals as opposed to the team as a whole. Experience, Fitness and Motivation remain the same for a unit throughout the game irrespective of which individual within the team becomes a casualty.
What I mean here is that a unit with +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and is Fit at the start of the game will still have +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and be Fit at the end, even if all but one member is killed and the unit is Rattled and Exhausted.  Leadership, however, will change depending on which individual becomes the casualty. If for example the sole survivor of a squad is Sgt Cane who had a +2 Leadership modifier at the beginning, the Squad will still have the +2 Leadership modifier. However if the sole survivor is Private Pants then the Leadership modifier is likely to have changed to -1 or -2. The the other soft factors will remain the same as they were at the beginning because they apply to the unit as a collective.
 

I don’t have the game handy right now, but I’m sure I’ve seen this happen. Last night, for example, in CMBN the commander of a US Rifle Company’s Weapons Platoon was hit and the HQ Support Team, with the XO in it, became the new HQ. The icon of that unit changed and he became the center of C2 for the platoon. I’m sure I’ve seen it with others too. It gives formations with Platoon XOs (US, British) more resiliency than those without (most Soviets, some Germans).
Could it be this is a CMFB 4.0 bug? I have noticed some weirdness with Assistants in CMFB under 4.0. For example, German Volksgrenadier squads and some US Armored Infantry squads get an extra Assistant, in addition to the one they already have, but with an ordinary private’s rank. Seems like one soldier has just been mislabeled. This is obviously a different issue but it may suggest something weird happened with assistant leaders in general in the update. 

It would be nice if the purple line that comes up when you select "Pop Smoke" extended out the distance the smoke would go. As it stands it extends (and says) 20m, which I guess is accurate for defensive smoke launchers but not for these. It could go out the full 150+m to show what'll really happen.

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

Looks like the crew members are wearing reserve parachutes just in case...

Combat Mission manual is pretty comprehensive and easy to read and understand, but I suppose, there are a few topics around like this one, that could make a nice addition to it

It's supposed to work this way, to cover advancing infantry:
 
 

It's supposed to work this way, to cover advancing infantry:
 
 

Interesting situation. The earlier version would require a different activation key - and download link. Really the only way you can do that would be to contact support to make the request. I have no idea how it will be received.
https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

Yes, that being said, I personally feel there is a certain disconnect between the level of detail when it comes to vehicles variants (Panzer IV Ausf. H (early)) and Infantry equipment. I wish there was some bigger variety there just for historical flavor, even if maybe the actual gameplay effect would be small. I'd have to imagine that modifying a TOE or making a new type of rifle is ultimately less work than making some obscure tank. I made a thread about this before, but some examples of infantry weapons that in my eyes should be added to the WW2 series:
For German infantry set to "ill-equipped":
MG26(t) (to replace random amounts of MG34/42)
MP Beretta (especially for the Bulge game)
MP 28
Luftwaffe Field Division stuff:
MG15 / MG81
And the G41(w) as replacement for the G43 on 1943 and early 1944 maps
In terms of TOE for the Eastern Front game:
A variant of the Grenadier Kompanie with 1 Sturmzug for those Divisions that had the MP43 introduced. Call it Grenadier-Kompanie (Stg) or whatever, just copy the already existing one and change it a bit.
If the Italy Game includes old style (1941) Infanterie ToE, port it over to the Normandy game as well.
For Russians:
Fewer SVT40s for Russian infantry in 1944 / 45. (In fact, I know of no photo of a Tokarev rifle on the front post 1943, although I am willing to be proven wrong on this)
A variant of the Rifle Company with an smg platoon.
PRTS semi automatic for units set to "Better than average" equipment.
For Americans:
M9A1 Bazooka and M1919A6 set to proper start date (post Normandy)
Springfield grenade launcher in Normandy and Bulge if equipment set to bad. Again, can be ported over from Italy.

According to the US Army's official history, even the infantry--the 3/119th--didn't arrive until after dark on the 18th, and tank support from the 743rd Tank Battalion not until the morning of the 19th: https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_15.HTM
But would they have moved faster if KG Peiper did?

Yep, you can get as complicated as you want with this stuff.  As an example: I have a Unit Tasking form on a Word document where I generally record the current mission for each platoon (I usually play with a Company + so maybe 6 platoons).  So if it was part of the original plan it is allowed (it can also be added with the appropriate time delay/communications).  1st platoon will suppress Hilltop #231 in order to support the advance of 3rd platoon.  Also, the units can burn through ammo pretty fast so this particular example of area firing probably won't happen very much or for very long.    All kinds of interesting rules you can adopt and modify to what interests you.     

You can also add the dismounted vehicle to the TOE of the unit you want the runner to be assigned.  This will create realistic platoon. company and battalion runners within the C2 system.  I actually wait for the information to be relayed through the C2 system before allowing a unit to react to it.  Example: A tank can't fire on an OpFor HMG position until the tank has at least a tentative contact for the position.  An infantry platoon sends a runner over to the tank.  Generally in a minute or three the tank gets the tentative contact and is then able to react to the HMG.  See the below link for peregrine's command layers.  
 
The scenario TOC uses several novel ideas that have not been used before.  Most are explained with accompanying screenshots in the thread you linked.  But in summary it provides the player with time sensitive actionable intelligence and the use of a grid system.  The grid system and intelligence code make it possible for the scenario to report locations and times to the player (some intelligence also comes with a reliability rating).  You "play the role" as the commander of a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) for a four hour shift.  During your four hour shift you attempt to analyze and use your intelligence (SIGINT, HUMINT, TSE, SCIF, S2, UAVs) to keep control of the approximately 7.5 square kilometer area of operation. 
The TOC is located in a Forward Operating Base (FOB) that has a Helicopter Landing Zone (HLZ) where reinforcements will arrive, and other units need to exit from.  There is an S4 section in the FOB that provides additional vehicles and ammo during your four hour shift.  Logistics matter in this scenario.    Another feature included in the scenario is the ability to destroy OpFor base camps thereby preventing the Separatists from receiving their scheduled reinforcements.   
Back to the original topic of roll playing if you do a search for "House Rules" you will find more information on this interesting topic. 
I use a modified form of @Peregrine rules when playing the AI.  See link below.  Also, as discussed above, dismounted truck drivers make good runners for the WWII titles.   
  
 

edit in a couple vehicles, dismount the drivers and use those as runners.  Save you some guess work and also provide the opportunity that your runner doesn't make it.  

I think this is by design: if a vehicle is in operation it serves as a working c2 node. When the vehicle is dismounted, it is not in operation and therefore not a functioning c2 node. Troops in vehicles can use the vehicle c2 equipment but if they dismount they have to do with what they carry. From the manual: "Exception: On-map support assets including mortars and howitzers can fire indirect even if they are out of command & control and lack a radio, provided that either the spotter is within 50m or the support asset is next to a vehicle equipped with a radio".