Snake726

The Stryker formations are excellent at urban. I probably wouldnt take any other. 

Given the success of my latest CMBS game, I think the most essential part of urban combat is having a Stryker 105mm weapons platform behind you, and if you take any fire, take the building down

The G41 is an interesting piece of firearm history. Very thematic for German design and production of the era. I'm getting flashbacks at my rant about problems with early war German tank design. It was designed with the requirements that it had to be semi-auto but work like a bolt action. Why? Germans wanted firepower of a semi-auto and the reliability of a bolt action.
One of the requirements was no gas piston system, which explains the gas trap (named Bang after the Dutch inventor) at the muzzle. The other was a back-up bolt action mechanism. Last one was that it needed to load like a '98. They got Walther and Mauser to design them:

Mauser G41

Walther G41
Mauser followed the requirements, Walther cheated. Too bad for Mauser, the requirements were bollocks. Both were produced, almost 7k for for Mauser variant and around 100k for Walther. Both of the rifles were loathed on the Eastern Front. They were inaccurate, didn't cycle properly, were easy to damage and expensive to produce.
A good chunk of them got returned, I'm guessing even more of them got tossed. Walther solved the biggest issue, being spawned by unrealistic requirements, and scrapped the Bang system for the SVT-40 gas-piston. This became the G43. Too little, too late. As the war neared its conclusion, production was eventually shifted to Volksturm bolt action rifles.
I'm not surprised to see the Mosin still being used. The Enfield is still being used, and was used for a long time post-war as a marksmen's rifle. If it was good enough for Simo Hayha, it's good enough for Donbass.
SVT-40 had a funny history too. Very much akin to those Hollywood underdog stories. It was first designed and produced as the replacement for the Mosin. It was very much on track for that, until Barbarossa. A LOT of them were produced (1.5 mil or something like that). They were excellent semi-autos introduced into an army that needed simple bolt action rifles.
They were very much coveted by the Germans, the Fins and later, the Soviets. Germans actually issued their own field manuals for these things. Not only am I not surprised that they are as common with the Soviets in RT, I am surprised that I don't see Germans using them.
The Soviets were purposefully SMG heavy during Bagration, the cheap PPS-43 being an engine for that. Those things took a few hours to produce, and hundreds of thousands of them were being pumped out monthly. Hardly exotic. Great SMG too.

I told the same thing to the CEO of Walmart the other day. He's just a parasite between me and my cheap Chinese goods. My new furnace was just installed by a parasite between me and the manufacturer. Services have no value after all.
 
 
Seriously though, that's one hell of a knee-jerk reaction to a question you clearly misunderstood. 
 
 

uh oh, steam wars!, run for your lives!!!!

Thats great, he wants to add people on Steam as friends so they can communicate together. Your post contributes nothing to the topic.
They're have been countless success stories of indie games succeeding spectacularly on Steam so I would do some research.
 

*Refreshes*

Yea, reading anecdotes from American combatants I often saw variants of "we waited for the Germans to advance out of 'insert cover/concealment here' before opening fire". 

It seemed that many American units managed to keep their heads long enough to wait for the German infantry to enter good fields of fire before engaging. While German Infantry, on the other hand, often did not have a clear idea of where the American line is.

This is so hard . . . #Demo

Speaking of VG "human wave" attacks, I have read that this is really a reported perception, not a tactic.

That is, first-hand accounts sometimes report a "human wave" attack, but the argument is that what has in fact happened is that successive assault waves have become tangled up and clumped together due to poor planning and/or poor execution during an attack.
We all know that a frontal attack involves, well, getting up and moving forward. But I haven't found a historian yet who cites anyone ordering human wave attacks - not even the Russians, whom I always had assumed had launched these sort of attacks, thanks to media representations of it.

For instance, during the Normandy landings and in the Pacific you see some instances of individuals or small units charging unsuppressed machinegun positions, eliminating them, but being killed in the process. This is the sort of thing that happened to larger units.

For instance, in Beevor's book Ardennes 44 he describes an American machinegun crew holding off an SS unit all day, noting that the Germans continually mounted charges straight ahead. This was not a "human wave", but a failure to locate and suppress the enemy base of fire before advancing - they were trying to get away with movement without the fire.

Similarly, at Cassino, we can imagine what would have happened if the Commonwealth didn't have artillery support, and if the first wave was pinned down crossing open ground. Subsequent assault waves would pile up, and unit leaders would perhaps get men moving forward under fire to avoid remaining in the kill zone.

So, a "human wave" attack is really nonsensical as a concept, something that commanders do not order - rather it is advancing under fire, with the perception that a "human wave" attack has occurred when the defenders are overrun or are able to defeat a large attack that wasn't properly supported.

(Unofficial) status is Steve's in a hurry to get it out the door. Demo scenarios have all been play tested and feedback given. Last thing to do in any demo is for Charles to construct the standalone exe with only the art necessary for the scenarios and nothing else. Something he's done many times before.

In open area mortars were used centralised, under control of battalion commander. In forested or urban areas mortar platoons could be attached to companies. In some cases single 82 mortars were given to forward platoons.
If mortars were used "centralised", company commander would direct fire with the help of command detachment. He communicated with fire positions by telephone, messengers, signs, signals and "by chain" ("цепочкой"). I don't know exactly what "by chain" means, I guess that "chain" of soldiers would stretch from OP to mortars and they would shout to each other: "Add 200m! 0-05 to the right! One more spotting round!" So if you roleplay, just make a chain of units and call mortar strike.
In regulations (БУП-42) typically is said: "machiengun and mortar fire". Fire sector was assigned. Also fire tasks at frontline and in the depth of enemy defense were assigned. So direct and undirect fire was used.
There is regulation about mortar company: http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/russr/1942_bup/09.html
You can use google translate. Ask me if something is unclear.
 

Unity of Command 2 is not simple, or 2D - for the second game, two developers are creating an entire 3D engine, and then the game system, and then the content, on top. It's taken them about two years so far. Nothing simple about that. 

DCS is also not simple - each plane or helicopter is essentially a new, separate physics engine inside of the core game, taking at least a couple years to develop.

The John Tiller games are probably the most similar to the current state of Battlefront development - neither team is currently developing a new engine, but rather are developing new content for their existing engines. Whether it is 2D or 3D does not matter in terms of content creation: both require map creation, OOB research, art assets, scenario creation, campaign creation etc.

Again, some of these teams are literally two people. Battlefront can find the time if they wish to. You don't need to pay several salaries to write a blog post. If you don't know what you're working on, and so can't think about how to write an update post, then there are bigger problems at hand.

Battlefront doesn't *need* to do anything - fans are just suggesting that the series might do well to keep up the appearance that the lights are on. This is why so many other very, very small studios in the same niche wargaming space are making an effort to do so. People are suggesting this as a positive addition, not a criticism to be ardently defended against - as if the Battlefront team needs every waking moment to work, and the rest to sleep - they don't even have time to eat, let alone write a blog post one every 6 months: such a thing will slow down development! [/s]

My only deep desire is for a CM:Afrika Korps game.  I know BF has been disinterested in that idea.  But, it always seemed to be a very popular topic with the wargamers I used to know.   
And much of the work re models and uniforms may already be done for CMFI and its modules.  We already have CMSF's desert terrain and buildings.

Please. Have you done any reading on the Soviet sniper doctrine during the war? They were doing a hell of a lot more than just being assassins. 

"Those tactics were also a consequence of changes in German enlistment. After several years of war and heavy losses on the Eastern Front, the German army was forced to rely more heavily on enlisting teenage soldiers. Due to lack of training in more complex group tactics, and thanks to rifle training provided by the Hitlerjugend, those soldiers were often used as autonomous left-behind snipers. While an experienced sniper would take a few lethal shots and retreat to a safer position, those young boys, due both to a disregard for their own safety and to lack of tactical experience would frequently remain in a concealed position and fight until they ran out of ammunition or were killed or wounded. While this tactic generally ended in the demise of the sniper, giving rise to the nickname "Suicide Boys" that was given to those soldiers, this irrational behavior proved quite disruptive to the Allied forces' progress."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper
 

Oh come on, quit making excuses like this. It's crazy. 
Go look at what 1CGS does with a small team and a limited budget for the IL2 Great Battles series - an extremely complex, 3D game based on their own unique proprietary engine. They are able to publish weekly updates very consistently and, if one isn't forthcoming, someone from 1CGS will post that a development isn't coming that particular week. It's become such a tradition that there's a very active topic where people discuss what they think is coming in that week's update. 
Again, that's from a team with a very limited budget and where every dollar and development hour has to be properly accounted for. This isn't EA or Ubisoft we are talking about here.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if people just shoveled money at you when you asked for it and kept their damned mouths shut otherwise? Don't ask questions, just give money.

Well, what's wrong with that? The point of a forum is to well, discuss the game. If people are asking more questions, that means they are interested in what's being developed. That's how good rapport is developed. 

This whole "time" excuse is bizarre. Here are two very small, very complicated, niche wargames. How much "time" are the developers wasting by posting updates?
Because they have been hitting their release dates, while updating the community and  listening to feedback.
http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1445/rule-waves-2-developers-journal
http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22735-work-in-progress-dreadnoughts/

Yes, here is an article about the new USMC squad organisation. The SAW is being dropped, and the more accurate M27 is being adopted more widely. https://www.overtdefense.com/2018/05/05/usmc-transition-12-man-rifle-squads/

I don't think anyone is asking for huge dev diaries here. Although if you're looking for an example of a niche company absolutely killing it in once-a-week posts,
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-122-planetary-rework-part-2-of-4.1115992/
In any case, I think people are more asking for simple, general things.
- What kind of changes are in the patches
- What kind of additions are coming to CMFI
- What (broadly) will be coming to CMRT
- What bugs/TOE/OOB/suggestions by the community have the devs noticed, and what has been passed on to developers
 
An example of this done right is how BTR's great post in the CMBS tech forum was received
What would bring this to a level I think would absolutely impress the community is to say, "Coming with the CMBS patch are the changes pointed out to us by community member BTR back in 2015!" with a side-by-side of fixed models.

1. It's strange because it's not the case; as the OP mentioned, the Marine are in the process of trials to adopt the M27 IAR. In fact, they're wanting to use the same rifle in different configurations for riflemen and marksmen as well - much like the British model. (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/03/08/congress-grills-marines-over-m27/)

The US Army has not followed suit not because they are concerned with the magazine capacity of the M27, but rather because it is chambered in 5.56 rather than 7.62, which brass believes will not solve for what they imagine to be a proliferation of body armour. (https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/14/army-wont-follow-usmc-adopting-m27-iar/)
One element to consider is that unless the report is factually incorrect, they make a good point if the 3-5 round burst technique employed by SAW gunners is in fact only delivering one bullet on target. If they are just factually wrong about this, or are lying, then you have a point - but there is no way to tell from this one study.
 
2. The solution seems not to necessarily be a new gadget, but the advocacy of delivering single rounds rather than bursts, at least at the ranges of modern combats.
It may well have been that the MG42 did so well because it made a terrifying sound, not because it was terrible accurate past 300 yards. American infantrymen were, after some time in Normandy, advised to get up and bound forward when they ceased to hear the weapon firing - because it indicated that the gun was being reloaded. This indicates that many American infantrymen were effectively suppressed to some degree not even by close proximity to fire, but by knowing that they could be if they stood up.

This is likely the suppression effect achieved by cyclic fire or sustained bursts, and may well serve as a counter-argument to the article. Those rounds may not have to hit accurately near the target to suppress them if it is the case that soldiers keep their heads down upon hearing close sustained fire. Likely this varies largely on training, with greener troops being more easily suppressed by proximity fire and the noise of sustained fire, and better trained soldiers ignoring proximity fire and noise as a metric.

3. Not if the Minimi is the SAW employed by a military. The US Army might have the M240 higher up the chain, but the M249 is the SAW employed - they don't have several different types of SAWs serving the same role. Many forces employ it, so it is a reasonable thing to advocate changing - and the article is likely advocating it because the Marines and the Army are actively looking to replace it, and so there is big money there. The article is not the odd man out in advocating this, it is what those services are requesting.

@Battlefront.com  Gotcha, I misunderstood your post at first and thought you had removed the videos of CTS in action.
The images you did remove were from 1945 France, I posted them as a reference point, to point out that perceived collaborators always receive rough treatment, even in countries we would normally consider the height of civilisation and democracy. 
This comment was actually made in relation to videos of atrocities filmed in Mosul during and after ISIS' defeat, vaguely referenced in the Guardian article.....I pointedly did not link to them and in fact have made other posts rebutting the accusations made against CTS in relation to at least one of these videos in my Mosul thread (I didn't link to them there either BTW). 
I'm not sympathising with anyone (other than CTS), just stating the facts to give perspective to the distinctly vague account provided in the Guardian article that was linked to just above. 
Apologies for the double confusion (and the inappropriate images). 

I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire.

e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work?  Did units move differently under fire before?