Centurian52

Civilians never deserve it. The deliberate bombing of civilians was a serious atrocity committed by the Allies during WW2 (not just German civilians, but Japanese civilians as well (and I don't just mean the nukes)). I don't want to create a false equivalency mind you, what the Germans and Japanese did during the war was far worse than anything the Americans or British did (I'll not be accused of defending the Nazis). And the Germans were no less willing to bomb civilians when they had the chance. But just because someone else did something worse does not mean the terrible things we did don't matter.
Also worth noting that while the deliberate bombing of civilians is always horrific, when Allied strategic bombing (and I do make a distinction between strategic bombing and terror bombing) was directed against industrial targets the impact on the war was decisive.

I fully agree with the results of the survey, but very much hope we will see the Dutch army too. And Soviet paratroopers. 

Civilians never deserve it. The deliberate bombing of civilians was a serious atrocity committed by the Allies during WW2 (not just German civilians, but Japanese civilians as well (and I don't just mean the nukes)). I don't want to create a false equivalency mind you, what the Germans and Japanese did during the war was far worse than anything the Americans or British did (I'll not be accused of defending the Nazis). And the Germans were no less willing to bomb civilians when they had the chance. But just because someone else did something worse does not mean the terrible things we did don't matter.
Also worth noting that while the deliberate bombing of civilians is always horrific, when Allied strategic bombing (and I do make a distinction between strategic bombing and terror bombing) was directed against industrial targets the impact on the war was decisive.

Polish forces were also earmarked for the invasion of Denmark, so Danish troops should be present in a module featuring Polish paras and marines.

Civilians never deserve it. The deliberate bombing of civilians was a serious atrocity committed by the Allies during WW2 (not just German civilians, but Japanese civilians as well (and I don't just mean the nukes)). I don't want to create a false equivalency mind you, what the Germans and Japanese did during the war was far worse than anything the Americans or British did (I'll not be accused of defending the Nazis). And the Germans were no less willing to bomb civilians when they had the chance. But just because someone else did something worse does not mean the terrible things we did don't matter.
Also worth noting that while the deliberate bombing of civilians is always horrific, when Allied strategic bombing (and I do make a distinction between strategic bombing and terror bombing) was directed against industrial targets the impact on the war was decisive.

It's nice to hear that you've been pursuing it, Steve. I hope they get back to you. Porting CMA to CM2 would be simply awesome!

"We are also interested in adding various types of Packs to other Families."

I was thinking the same thing, in regards to NATO sharing lots of equipment. However, I think FRG vs NVA will come before BAOR, but that's my opinion. In addition, its possible it would be an FRG/Netherlands vs NVA/Poland, since lots of the equipment is pretty similar and both factions have a smattering of cool indigenous vehicle designs

The main issue I take with the criticism regarding Churchill's decision to support the Greeks in their struggle is that they are all purely military criticisms. Churchill wasn't a purely military leader (indeed, constitutionally, he wouldn't be much of one at all in any other circumstance other than total war). 
It was an excellent political decision, and arguably a morally sublime one. The United Kingdom was functionally alone at that point, Western Betrayal sentiments were just beginning to really solidify in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and there had hitherto appeared to be no way to get at the Germans on the continent since being bounced off it in 1940. Intervention in Greece showed that the UK was still very much willing to fight against the odds. Crucially, it demonstrated that it wouldn't further abandon anyone who sought to resist Fascism and Nazism. The decision may have made Wavell despair but it certainly would have been a trumpet blast to occupied Europe, and the Americans, that the British were willing to not only defend themselves on their island, but to seek active decision with the enemy. In short, there were political considerations, very good ones. 
Goodness knows there's a lot to criticise Churchill for, the man was far from a saint. I just don't think most of the grounds for criticism are related to his leadership during WWII. From a top-down perspective he did precisely what was necessary to carry his country through the conflict, and it must be said, quite a few other governments-in-exile. Any further analysis is nitpicking best left to academics with more letters behind their names than myself. 

Yess to all this!!!  I also would like to see the Germans first in a module before British and others.  I so want North German Plain maps too and battles between the West Germans and Soviets!  A Battle of Berlin would be amazing too.

I'm betting the first module is going to be the addition of West/East German forces. It seems to be the most popular choice based on a poll that was posted a while back (which I have reposted here), with the results so far being 55% for a German module, with British forces in second place at 25%. I know eventually I would like to see some Battle of West Berlin scenarios/campaigns, which will require the addition of British, French, and East German forces. But I tend to think that the addition of West German forces is the most urgent, since they would have accounted for the largest portion of NATO forces in West Germany at the start of WW3, and as such would have carried much of the early fighting.
As far as expansion of theater, I'm hoping we get some North German Plain maps (one of the other probable Soviet axes of advance alongside the Fulda Gap and the Hof Corridor).
https://www.survey-maker.com/results3624833x06d04c29-109#tab-2

I went to play CMCW this morning and it wouldn't load. In fact, none of my CM games would work. Hadn't touched a thing from last night, but I did notice my computer had rebooted.
 
So I'd click on the CMCW shortcut and the main menu screen would flash up on the screen but then it would go back to the desktop. I knew Microsoft must have pushed an update to Windows 10 last night. Sure enough, they had. Three in fact.
 
So I fixed this in two different ways:
 
1) I ran the game in compatibility mode for Windows 8. Loaded right up. 

2) Uninstalled the latest windows update (Security Update for Microsoft Windows (KB5005031) to be exact).  Everything started working again.
Hope this helps! And if anyone has an idea on why this broke the games, please let me know. 

Ok,
Since it was just dropped in the Steve Grammont interview, let us start our speculations in what the CW module will be!
 
Obviously we have to see the introduction of NATO equipment and forces along with the East Germans.  Beyond that though, I am completely hoping for an expansion in the theater, maybe deeper into the west or maybe even a fictional push by NATO in the Soviet Bloc countries.  I mean hey, we already have CMFR and RT maps!!
I would also love to see new campaigns in the expansion of conventional WWIII.

A target command for infantry that specifies to use grenades (call it: TARGET GRENADES or THROW GRENADES) would be really useful. There have been plenty of times where I have gotten my infantry just to the cusp of a position I want them to storm and I wanted them to throw grenades before storming it, but they just fired their rifles instead. And this should be much easier to implement than a FOLLOW command.

I still have my Shock Force mousepad.

I know I would happily buy just a basic black T-shirt with the BFC logo on it (the tank silhouette and muzzle flash). For sure a mousepad or coffee mug of the same.

Note that TIK video series that Centurion52 mentions are based on sources such as Glantz, Jason Marks, others, and he cross references his sources looking for confirmation/disagreement to gain a degree of confidence in what he is reporting.  But the visuals are priceless -- think of maps from Glantz et al except shown dynamically.  Great stuff.

I think it may have been possible for the Germans to beat the Soviets. I don't think it was possible for them to win WW2 mind you, but that's a separate topic (basically there is no way they build a navy strong enough to beat the British and Americans before the Americans get nukes).
I guess my opinion is that Operation Barbarossa went about as well for the Germans as it was ever going to. Some adjustment to decisions made during Barbarossa might make a marginal difference. The real make or break operation (I think) was Fall Blau.
Fall Blau of course was the big plan to take the Caucasus oil fields. The original plan was that Army Groups A and B would be launched one at a time, with Army Group B forming a northern blocking line stretching along the Don and Volga to Astrakhan, and then Army Group A would charge into the Caucasus and take the oil fields at Maikop and Grozny (and optimistically Baku as well). The plan changed early on with initially very weak Soviet resistance, leading the Germans to conclude that the Soviet army had collapsed, so they launched both Army Groups at the same time in order to speed the capture of the oil fields. This diluted the strength and logistical support of both Army Groups. On top of that units were pulled from the operation to reinforce Army Group Center.
Historically Army Group B only got about half way to Astrakhan, stalling out at Stalingrad. Army Group A was able to take Maikop, but couldn't take Grozny. And the oil fields at Maikop had been wrecked by the Soviets before the Germans could capture them. The Germans would be forced to retreat from the Caucasus before they could repair the oil fields at Maikop.
If the Germans could somehow win Fall Blau they could resume the highly mobile warfare that brought them their early successes, and possibly defeat the Soviets. But creating a scenario in which they win Fall Blau isn't easy. The obvious steps involve keeping to the original plan, allowing each Army Group to move with full strength and support (also don't strip any units away from Fall Blau, and prioritize reinforcements to Army Groups A and B, instead of to Army Group Center). This almost certainly would have led to the Germans winning the Battle of Stalingrad, since they were so close to taking the city historically that it seems even the slightest nudge would have made the difference in that battle. But Stalingrad is only a milestone enroute to Astrakhan, and there is no guarantee that this is enough to get them all the way to Astrakhan.
If it is enough for them to take Astrakhan and dig in along the planned northern blocking line, then Army Group A has almost a free hand in the Caucasus. The Germans take Maikop, Grozny, and Baku. Of course the Soviets still wreck all of the oil fields before the Germans can capture them (like they did historically with Maikop), so the northern blocking line needs to hold long enough for the Germans to repair the oil fields. Historically the part of the line that had already formed along the Don did not hold against the Soviet Operation Uranus. Perhaps the line is stronger now that Army Group B is no longer trying to conduct offensive operations at the same time. Or perhaps Fall Blau really was doomed from the start. There is no change I can think of that will guarantee German success, only changes that give slightly better chances of success.

TIK goes into more detail in his Battlestorm Stalingrad series. But basically the city itself wasn't the problem. In fact 6th Army actually took most of their casualties outside the city. The problem is that they simply didn't have enough strength to both defend their growing northern flank and continue the advance at the same time.
By the time they actually reached the city itself their strength was sapped due to the triple factors of heavy casualties on the approaches to the city (particularly on the Don bend), most of their replacements being sent to Army Group Center instead (thanks for that Halder), and the fact that they had to pull divisions away from the advance to defend their northern flank.
edit: Also crossing the river north of Stalingrad definitely wasn't an option, since there were massive numbers of Soviet troops defending that direction (relentlessly attacking from that direction actually, which kept a lot of German forces away from the city).
 

I think it may have been possible for the Germans to beat the Soviets. I don't think it was possible for them to win WW2 mind you, but that's a separate topic (basically there is no way they build a navy strong enough to beat the British and Americans before the Americans get nukes).
I guess my opinion is that Operation Barbarossa went about as well for the Germans as it was ever going to. Some adjustment to decisions made during Barbarossa might make a marginal difference. The real make or break operation (I think) was Fall Blau.
Fall Blau of course was the big plan to take the Caucasus oil fields. The original plan was that Army Groups A and B would be launched one at a time, with Army Group B forming a northern blocking line stretching along the Don and Volga to Astrakhan, and then Army Group A would charge into the Caucasus and take the oil fields at Maikop and Grozny (and optimistically Baku as well). The plan changed early on with initially very weak Soviet resistance, leading the Germans to conclude that the Soviet army had collapsed, so they launched both Army Groups at the same time in order to speed the capture of the oil fields. This diluted the strength and logistical support of both Army Groups. On top of that units were pulled from the operation to reinforce Army Group Center.
Historically Army Group B only got about half way to Astrakhan, stalling out at Stalingrad. Army Group A was able to take Maikop, but couldn't take Grozny. And the oil fields at Maikop had been wrecked by the Soviets before the Germans could capture them. The Germans would be forced to retreat from the Caucasus before they could repair the oil fields at Maikop.
If the Germans could somehow win Fall Blau they could resume the highly mobile warfare that brought them their early successes, and possibly defeat the Soviets. But creating a scenario in which they win Fall Blau isn't easy. The obvious steps involve keeping to the original plan, allowing each Army Group to move with full strength and support (also don't strip any units away from Fall Blau, and prioritize reinforcements to Army Groups A and B, instead of to Army Group Center). This almost certainly would have led to the Germans winning the Battle of Stalingrad, since they were so close to taking the city historically that it seems even the slightest nudge would have made the difference in that battle. But Stalingrad is only a milestone enroute to Astrakhan, and there is no guarantee that this is enough to get them all the way to Astrakhan.
If it is enough for them to take Astrakhan and dig in along the planned northern blocking line, then Army Group A has almost a free hand in the Caucasus. The Germans take Maikop, Grozny, and Baku. Of course the Soviets still wreck all of the oil fields before the Germans can capture them (like they did historically with Maikop), so the northern blocking line needs to hold long enough for the Germans to repair the oil fields. Historically the part of the line that had already formed along the Don did not hold against the Soviet Operation Uranus. Perhaps the line is stronger now that Army Group B is no longer trying to conduct offensive operations at the same time. Or perhaps Fall Blau really was doomed from the start. There is no change I can think of that will guarantee German success, only changes that give slightly better chances of success.

I don't have a new command suggestion to add, but FOLLOW does sound like a really good idea. It isn't strictly speaking essential, since it can be mimicked by tedious repetition. But it would be a massive quality of life improvement to, for example, give a complicated series of commands to only one vehicle, and then simply give all the other vehicles in a column the FOLLOW command targeting the first vehicle, or the vehicle in front of themselves.

WWII US tanks traveled maintaining 25yd distance between units in the formation. Dunno the doctrine of other nations. So, let's say that's 3 action spots (3 x 8m). In line formation the leftmost tank would be 100-125yds away from the rightmost vehicle. When stuff happens, what are you're expectations again? Let's say the formation as a whole is in LOS. Let's also assume - each vehicle is immediately aware of the situation. What conditions apply?
Repeat the exercise when flanks are out of LOS and situational awareness is not exact. What conditions apply?
How is bogging handled?
What happens when LOS is not uniform?
What happens when Hunt or Hulldown is used?
What happens when situational awareness within and without the formation is uncertain?
We seem to put a lot of effort into a "feature" that would rarely function as intended. Why clutter the panel with a command that could only ever be used and reasonably expected to WAD when traveling on a road? And, not even reliably at that.
Yes, it's tedious now. But it works by not promising anything and therefore - not breaking a player's heart when stuff happens!

In the spirit of improvement of the Combat Mission games. I thought I would ask a question similar, but narrower in scope, as the general "Engine Improvements" thread.
What new commands would you like to see added or added back to Combat Mission and why.  Also include a brief description of what the command would do.  If you see problems with a suggested command or improvements to it, feel free to add some constructive criticism. If you don't understand an aspect of the new suggested command please ask the author to explain what that aspect.
So I will start. Here is an example of the format:
COMMAND: Description & Details. Conditionals.
----------
FOLLOW: The unit is commanded to FOLLOW the selected unit at a speed that will catch it up to the unit and then maintain a reasonable distance from it so that the following unit does not have to constantly use the PAUSE command.  If the following unit is shot at, it will (stop or continue?) following.  Not sure which action would be best.  Maybe the algorithm could check the HIDE status to determine what action to take under fire. If HIDE is on then the unit seeks cover under fire.  If HIDE is off the unit continues to FOLLOW the selected unit.  If the followed unit stops the following unit stops and if the followed unit is knocked out, the following unit seeks cover.

This sounds about right. There is no composite armor in the lower front hull, so rounds should slice through it pretty easily. The composite armor in the upper front hull is pretty much immune to the M774, but there is a hole in the composite armor for the driver's optics. So I would expect the vast majority of hits to the upper front hull to fail to get through, with the occasional lucky round finding the weak point (I would have expected more than one round in 68 to find the weak point, but I suppose that's random chance for you). I would have expected some penetrations on the turret. The composite armor in the turret is also immune to the M774, but it doesn't have perfect coverage (rounds hitting high on the turret might make it over the composite armor, and only have normal steel to contend with).