DerKommissar

Almost every point in that article was either false, or completely missed the point. I took a look in the comments, and realized that they were aiming at the "Stab in the Back 2.0" crowd. They love to blame everything but the Wehrmacht for the loss in WW2. Agreed.

There's a good chance, it'll be home by Christmas.

Can confirm this. Much respect and some envy for CM in the English-speaking G-team community (which is largely Steam based). Same applies to the Armored Brigade Steam community -- at least from my limited experience. IDK where this talk of indifference and even hate for CM is coming from. That's so bizarre, considering the Royal Ordnance L7 (105mm L/52) was designed by the British. I guess the Americans were fairly familiar with the "One-Oh-Five". However, the British tankers were probably used to the QF 20-Pounder (84 mm) designation on the Centurions. Too bad 25% increase in bore diameter doesn't equal 25% increase in projectile mass.

I've recently finished the Kampgruppe Peiper campaign, and had a few take-aways on Panther and P. 4 performance: - Bazookas are aging quickly. They were cutting edge in '43, but there are tactics and designs to mitigate their effectiveness. - A WW2 tank's greatest weakness: situational awareness. You can drive a troop of Panthers up to a building with a couple of GI squads in it. The GIs can have a BBQ in relative safety. As a TC pops the hatch, the roundel on the cap becomes a bull's eye. Just so happens -- the doughboys are natural marksmen. - They require infantry eyes to be of any use, especially in an urban environment. A wise defender uses MGs, and snipers to slow infantry advances and mortars/guns to eliminate them. - An attacker may decide to rush their tanks in without infantry support. They can expect heavy losses due to flanking and are still unable to clear buildings. - A WW2 tank's second-greatest weakness: the tracks. A freshly forged Panther can get immobilized due to mud on a flat field. Now, it can't accomplish any tasks -- may as well be destroyed. - HE ammunition is worth its weight in gold. 75mm HE is no laughing matter, but rarely fatal to GIs in cover. Area fire is a trick you can do, only if you have spare HE. Out of HE? Your tank becomes a glorified pillbox. You can suppress, but you can't break defences. - HE can also be effective at disabling a tank's vision systems, tracks or weapon. A nimble defender can make due with big booms, or door knockers, in place of serious AT weaponry. The P. 4 can spot as well, if not better, than the Panther. P. 4 off-road performance is as good, if not better, than the Panther. The HE quality & quantity is the roughly same. The only advantages the Panther is better frontal armour and more muzzle velocity. The P. 4's long barreled 75mm didn't have much difficulties destroying Shermans and SPGs at normal ranges. Tanks in CM do enjoy smaller map sizes. Super effective AT-weapons like 88s or 76s cannot shoot your tanks full of holes from a hill, 2km off-map. CM's scale does not lend its scope well to deep, inter-connected, Kursk style defences. Tanks in CM also enjoy a simplified transmission model. Each tank has perfect neutral steering and can't get broken down, or stuck in a ditch (due to gravity, rather than ground condition). I'm not going to cry IMBA on tanks in CM. They are still limited by vision, mobility and ammunition. But I will say that within CM's scope -- the tank really shines.

Looks like it's making muzzle discipline obsolete, as well. xD

*hits table repeatedly* FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN! Isn't that a Slayer song? I can't imagine the traffic will be any better on the CM2 engine. I, henceforth, alter my suggestion to Red Snow.

Red Lightning?

Warthunder and WoT cheat by not having infantry. The whole concept of AFVs fighting in a vacuum is not only comically absurd, but also helps performance.

Wunderbar! Fingers crossed for Königsberg being part of RED HAMMER!

Really cool! I've also been following that Shock Force 2/Command combo-game. I've given the whole concept some thought, and now have some sort of battle plan for my campaign. Simplicity and narrative being the focus, Engle Matrix is the prime inspiration -- but, also, Blackjack! Just like in Blackjack, the players will be playing against the House (Umpire in Engle Matrix). Players will have a pool of chips, Core Points. This caps how many points can be spent in the Quick Battle editor to buy forces. Core Points are, also, bet (spent) on the player's proposed changes to the Matrix. Unlike Blackjack, the amount of Core Points bet will determine the chance of attaining desired results from the Matrix, as well as the magnitude of the pay-out. It will be the House's (Umpire's) task to set the total difficulty roll for each check, based on the narrative. Example: The German player spent 350 CP, gained 245 CP and a TRP for this battle. They can now only spend a maximum of 2905 points in QB, but can add a free TRP. If Hill 217 is occupied by the US player, their changes will also be reflected, in the QB. Otherwise, the battle will be fought against that area's forces (QB can be fought against AI or a human volunteer). The result of the QB will be posted on the forum. The difference in victory points of the two sides, at the end of QB, will be added to the Player(s)'s CP pool. The end goal of this system is to allow the narrative to play with QB settings. So, the map-type will be dependent on location, weather and mud on the current forecast, and the type of engagement based on player's actions. A gutsy effort to survey the terrain, may result in a Map Preview for the Player. While, a blown bridge, may result in an Infantry only composition. Size of the map, and battle, will be up to the player. A 5000 CP army may need a Large or Huge map/army to use, while a 1000 CP army would get annihilated by an RNG Huge army. The map will keep track of the location of player's units, areas historically occupied by divisions, as well as the ever-changing front line. Teamwork will be key, as players can share CP, and temporary supports, with their comrades. Each turn will start with a briefing for that day, and then players will be able to purpose their plans. The House will change the turn, every real-life week. I already have a Normandy map almost finished. I am thinking starting CP will be 3000. Keep in mind, that landing on the beaches of Normandy or dropping from the sky will be a Matrix check.

It's ALIVE!!! I've shelved this concept, for now. I've been running an Edge of the Empire campaign, and I like to focus on GMing one thing at a time. This being said, I do play an RNG Quick Battle from time to time. A desire for operational context is still there, and I was thinking of experimenting on a smaller, personal, scale. Just player vs environment, for now. I've also done an AAR for the excellent Kampgruppe Peiper campaign. That format could work with an umpire, instead of a scripted campaign. Around battalion level is where CM shines, so I agree. The idea was to let players mix & match companies like cards in a hand, allowing for combined arms shenanigans.

Any update on release date? I presume it's end of October?

As a fan of both franchises, I think the comparisons are Apples vs Oranges. CM focuses on depicting the crucial moments of the tip of the spearhead. GT focuses on the day-to-day operations of a Brigade across a wide front. CM battles tend to be incredibly fast paced, which each minute being of significance. GT battles tend to be slow paced, many being operationally trivial. In CM, you command squads and teams with WE-GO. In GT, you command platoons in RT and companies in TB. Me too. I think Steel Armour: Blaze of War was a fantastic sim. For some reason, they've stopped updating it. There's an untapped market for a serious tank sim, that's also a game (unlike Steel Beasts).

Much like the Division on which its based on, this game is going through a brutal baptism of fire. Hopefully, it'll learn its lessons quickly. I spent much of yesterday night playing this game. It's buggy AF! Ironically enough, I feel the 2D ones had higher visual fidelity. Yet, 3D does give a better idea of hills and valleys. I had 3 C2Ds, just playing the main campaign. In addition, streaming the game on Discord crashed the game every time my buddy connected. All this being said, I found the core gameplay loop engaging. I loved the sound affects, and morale system. Sergeants shouting, "GET BACK HERE!", to a member of the squad running away in sheer horror of a snub-nosed P. 4. I hope they keep polishing it, to resemble something more than an early beta. Because, I can see myself playing this game. Unless Rome to Victory drops soon -- in which case, I may forget all about the Bloody First.

That was a solid record though -- why stop pre-ordering after that? Never figured them for being Royalist. Last thing I pre-ordered was Rome to Victory, xD. I'm guessing the CMRT module will come out in 2020. I hope a CMBS module will come out before the heat death of the universe.

Fair enough. ROF is higher for a mortar. I'll concede indirect fire support firepower. Mobility, as well -- wheels are quick, and the tube is lighter. During my time in the Shield of Kiev campaign, I struggled to establish fire superiority. In my understanding of Soviet doctrine, fire superiority IS maneuver. I am but a humble Canuck, so I may be entirely wrong. I tended to use BTR-4s as IFVs, which lead to some disastrous losses. The Oplot-Ms were my only real means of engaging entrenched infantry, and they were of short supply. I have big love for indirect fire support, in terms of both howitzers and mortars -- but, even with modern tech, direct fire is still more expedient. What I wanted were those old Soviet assault guns or a Mobile Gun System. Something that can lob serious shells on overwatch, in support of infantry. That'd make the Cossacks think twice before popping out of a house to gun down a squad advancing along a street. 2s1 ticked most of my boxes: big shell, tracked mobility, decent magazine and small silhouette. After seeing videos of them being used widely in Syria, both in direct, and indirect roles -- I agree with augmenting a Jager brigade with such machines.

We weren't expecting special forces.

In which regard? Surely the D30 is more powerful than a 120mm mortar. If I remember correctly, the 2s1 also carries more ammo.

I'd take a 122mm assault howitzer over a fancy MRAP mortar -- any day of the week. Could have used some on-map 2S1's in the Shield of Kiev campaign. There's really no better choice in the light mobile howitzer/assault gun role, and 122mm is such a versatile caliber.

RT is there for new players, who are used to mainstream tactics games -- which are mostly RT. CM's WEGO takes some time to wrap a neophyte's brain around. Now I play Iron, WEGO, only. However, I played my first tutorial on Normal, RT. It's fair to say that "spectrum" and "fidelity" are inversely proportional to each-other. Narrower scope means less details to focus on, wider scope means more abstraction. It's always a compromise. Some games strike a better rate of exchange than others, but it really depends on what you value more. Didn't know old CM games were on GOG. I'll probably pick them up -- well worth the 8 CAD.

Sounds superb. Polishing takes time, there's no way around it.

Great work, any word on the UK one?

You know the 105 tank is effective when the Huns ditch a bunker voluntarily! Best form of Recon, in CM. Open fire and see if the enemy is brave enough to return fire.

CM3: Fulda Gap confirmed?