Look Videos !!

[skelley]

Thanks Phil. I will start a thread about the spotting issues I am having.

[skelley]

I posted in xian's thread

[Battlefront.com]

As an official reminder:

Modules do nothing to the Base Game except extend the content. Fixes for the game features are free. Major extensions of, and additions to, game features come with the next release.

That's the way it has always been, it is the way it will always be. Whatever improvements are made for a Module are always available for free to someone with the Base Game. Because of this we do not promote Modules based on anything but what people are paying for... which is content, not features.

Back in the CM:SF days we had the usual, and predictable, doubters saying "new skins... big deal" with each Module released. However, this was akin to saying "I already have vanilla icecream, what's the big deal about chocolate? It's the same thing, only with a different color". If someone doesn't like chocolate icecream, then don't buy it. Nobody will think ill of you. However, it's rather silly to take a position which presupposes that chocolate had nothing different to offer over vanilla.

As with Modern Brits compared to Modern US, the WW2 Brits play entirely differently than WW2 US forces. Someone who disagrees with this point should perhaps withhold judgement until he's actually seen if that's true or not. After all, those who said there was nothing new with the CM:SF Modules was strongly disagreed with by the people who actually played them. But I understand... some people love to be negative for the sake of being negative. Pity, but I'm not in charge of the gene pool

Steve

[Macisle]

As a player who usually plays Allied, I'm looking very forward to the different style of play that British forces will require. From my understanding (and ASL), Brit squads are closer in size to German squads. That, combined with their similar use of bolt-action rifles, means that Brit to German squad firepower will be much closer than with US squads. With similar firepower and squad splitting abilities, tactics will need to change (when I switch to German now, it often seems noticeably harder to win).

The piece of equipment I'm actually looking most forward to is the Bren LMG. I've always loved it for some reason and watching those vids that someone posted (Bren vs. BAR) has left me drooling.

Oh, BTW, after watching the vids again, I want to qualify my earlier comment on the German camo. I think the problem is that the current vids and screens don't show the camo close up in full sunlight for long enough to see the detail. They tend to be night/shadow medium shots.

So, for the next vid(s), I'd love to see some extended shots of both the Brits (Bren!) and the new German camo close up and from the front. A nice firing line shot would be great!

Man...it's getting hard to wait for this module!

Macisle

[MikeyD]

Its odd how nobody's bothered to mention all the new scenarios and campaigns that are in the module, as though new battle scenarios are considered unimportant while seeing a few new flavor objects would somehow be vital. Steve mentioned CMSF. I'd judge 1/3rd the reason for purchasing a CMSF module was for the cool new equipment & forces, while 2/3rds was to get your hands on the great scenarios. Sure, all that German NATO equipment was fun but you mainly bought the module in order to play the "Die Kunst Des Kriegs" campaign.

[Macisle]

Its odd how nobody's bothered to mention all the new scenarios and campaigns that are in the module, as though new battle scenarios are considered unimportant while seeing a few new flavor objects would somehow be vital. Steve mentioned CMSF. I'd judge 1/3rd the reason for purchasing a CMSF module was for the cool new equipment & forces, while 2/3rds was to get your hands on the great scenarios. Sure, all that German NATO equipment was fun but you mainly bought the module in order to play the "Die Kunst Des Kriegs" campaign.

An excellent point!

[OrdeaL]

Yes agreed! Im looking forward to having a Firefly and new campaign!

[Vark]

Interesting to hear that the CW forces will play entirely differently to the US forces, cannot see really why. Armoured support and fire support should be similar, so does the infantry TOE make such a huge difference, or is it to do with the morale/quality of CW units? As a European I am always am quite wary of US games companies modelling CW (especially British units) as they often hash it up. Not saying BF will follow this route but a few pointers as to the unique nature of the CW forces, over the US ones might be useful. It might also soothe some posters here who think, to use your icecream analogy, that they will be getting vanilla with some chocolate sprinkles for their money!

[Pete Wenman]

so does the infantry TOE make such a huge difference

In a nutshell - yes !

Don't also forget, the 17 pdr is mounted on Fireflies and M10s, you have the heavily armoured Churchills, and Cromwells as recce units. These all play differently from US units.

And please don't think these are the only differences

P

[TheVulture]

Interesting to hear that the CW forces will play entirely differently to the US forces, cannot see really why. Armoured support and fire support should be similar, so does the infantry TOE make such a huge difference,

Yes, it really does. In CMSF the difference between US infantry , US marines and Britis infantry (that's the base game and the first two modules). was substantial, even with no vehicles present. The different support vehicles also make a big difference, both in flavour and in capability.

[Aragorn2002]

Great videos. Hope the release of the module will be soon. And I hope a good foliage mod for the British helmets will follow very soon too. Those bald helmets look bloody awful.

[MarkEzra]

As MikeyD pointed out...

And in the "What else am I getting" catagory: A large supply of new QB Maps. By the way: I listened carefully to the forum feed back and applied suggestions where I could. When the module/patch is released I will provide details.

[tankmajor]

i agree with mickeys point i didnt just buy cw module for british units or uniforms albeit is also good but for the new scenarios etc keep it coming bfc

[Vark]

In a nutshell - yes !

Care to explain, I'm still not convinced, different, yes, that is obvious, but totally different, how so? If you cite TOE reasons, which you have, what in particular are the major factors? If there are differences surely they should be soft factors, such as morale, training and concepts of leadership? If that is the case what were the main areas of divergence and how will BF simulate it?

[Pete Wenman]

so does the infantry TOE make such a huge difference

In a nutshell - yes !

I'm still not convinced, different, yes, that is obvious, but totally different

Well let's not get in a fight over how different ! Unless that's what you want

You have different weapons, with their own specfic ranges and attributes at squad and team level. You then have different TOE at company and battalion levels. The impact of this is you have to play to each TOE's strengths.

I'm pretty sure that Steve has said they do not model Nationality traits within the soft factors. That's up to the scenario designers. So British units are no better or worse in defence than US and German units, but they do have different weapons and organisation.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, it really does. In CMSF the difference between US infantry , US marines and Britis infantry (that's the base game and the first two modules). was substantial, even with no vehicles present. The different support vehicles also make a big difference, both in flavour and in capability.

Vark, the above answer is spot on.

Even US Marines, which have almost the same equipment as US Army, played very differently because of the TO&E and subtle weaponry differences. If you think TO&E and equipment differences don't really matter, then you must also think the US and Germans play the same?

The big difference for Commonwealth forces is the Rifle Section (Squad). It's sorta the worst of both US and German types.

The US Rifle Squads have inadequate full automatic firepower, but make up for it with more men and everybody having at least semi-auto weapons. The Germans, on the other hand, have the shortcoming of bolt action rifles and fewer men made up for by the huge fire output of the MG34/42. The Brits, on the other hand, are mostly made up of bolt action rifles and about the same headcount as the Germans, yet have full automatic firepower that isn't much better than what the Americans have.

Again, if you don't think this has an impact on tactics and feel... you need to rethink playing tactical wargames. Either that or withhold judgement, play the Demo, and then see if maybe your perception is a bit off

Steve

[wokelly]

The Brits can be expected to play differently in Infantry and Armour than the US, indirect fire will likely be similar.

Some basics: British Battalion vs US Battalion

Brits:

-1 Battalion HQ unit with 50 men

--1 Bren Gun Carrier

--Assortment of other carriers, trucks and jeeps

-1 HQ company with 95 men

--3 Additional Brens

--4 Additional Piats

--Assortment of Trucks, Jeeps and Motorcycles (no carriers)

-4 Infantry companies with ~120 men each

--Each with 3 rifle platoons with 3 sections each

--1 2 inch mortar and 1 PIAT per platoon

--One HQ platoon, with a spare Bren and 2 inch mortar

--A few unarmed carriers, trucks and jeeps

-1 support company with ~192 men

--6 x 57mm guns (with HE shells)

--6 x 3 inch mortars

--13 Bren Gun Carriers (with Brens)

--6 spare Brens

--7 spare PIATs

--10 spare 2 inch mortars

--Large assortment of additional Carries (Almost 30 unarmed Universal and Loyd Carriers), trucks and jeeps etc

All told:

-845 officers and men

-45 Bren Guns

-18 Bren Carriers with Brens

-26 2 inch mortars

-23 PIATs

-6 3-inch mortars

-6 57mm guns

US Battalion:

-HQ Company with 126 men

--2 .50 cal MGs

--8 Bazooka's

--3x 57mm guns

--Assortment of Jeeps and trucks

Heavy Weapons Company:

--8 Tripod water cooled .30 cals

--1 .50 cal

--6 81mm mortars

--6 additional bazooka's

--Assortment of softskinned transport

Three Rifle Companies with 193 men each

--3 rifle platoons with 3 sections, 1 weapons platoon

--9 BARs

--2 M1919 .30 cals

--1 .50 cal

--3 60mm mortars

--5 Bazooka's

In total:

-871 officers and men

-27 BARs

-6 M1919 .30 Cals

-8 M1917 .30 Cals (water cooled)

-6 .50 cals

-9 60mm mortars

-6 81mm mortars

-29 Bazooka's

-3 57mm ATGs

NOTE - Shortly after Normandy it was realize more firepower was needed, the TO&E was amended, 6 additional M1919's were given to the Battalion HQ company, and 18 additional BARs (6 per company) were issued. I do not think this is in game however, perhaps a future module of the late 1944 campaigns?

Some observations:

-The biggest difference between the Brits and US is the Universal Carrier, both armed and not. Armed it can be a mobile bunker (to a degree) or mobile reverser, as well as a small troop transport to move important units around the map (can't fit a full squad protected) with some armor protection. It should be interesting to use these in game, as well as the unarmed ones as armoured resupply vehicles if they are available.

-The British Battalion has more Machine Guns (especially if you don't count the BAR as one), but none of them are belt fed or tripod mounted. In general 4 vickers were parceled out to each Battalion from Division but this still compares poorly with US and German use of tripod mounted MGs. I relied a lot on the .30 cals (both 1917 and 1919 types) for fire support, it will be interesting to see how well the additional Bren teams can manage.

-The Brits have more 57mms than the US (and they have HE so they can be used against soft targets, and APDS for use against heavy tanks), but marginally less PIATs than the US has Bazooka's. Also the British infantry squad has no anti-tank rifle grenades like the US Squad does, so British squads are more vulnerable if German tanks break into their position. German tanks will be a more common threat in this module, so it may hurt having to rely on the PIAT which was found to be quite inaccurate past 50 meters.

-Most of the British Battalions firepower is in its support company. British rifle companies have no weapons platoon so on their own are not that heavily armed. This probably explains why most British actions in Normandy and beyond were generally Battalion sized at least, with the support company and HQ company spreading its additional weapons across its companies. For scenario builders this is important, a lot of people like company sized engagements, but the fact is the British company does not have as much going for it as the US or German companies (especially panzer grenadier units). If you do make company sized engagements, add on some support company and HQ company assets.

-The Brits have 3x the number of light mortars the US do, but the US 60mm is a much superior weapon with a much larger charge than the 2-inch despite only 10mm in difference, and a significantly longer range (~2000m for the 60mm, ~500m for the 2-inch). The 2-inch can be used for knocking out positions like the 60mm, but it was mainly a smoke weapon for platoon maneuvering. I do wonder how useful it will be.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm pretty sure that Steve has said they do not model Nationality traits within the soft factors. That's up to the scenario designers. So British units are no better or worse in defence than US and German units, but they do have different weapons and organisation.

Absolutely true! There are no enforced Tea Breaks in Commonwealth Forces

Incidentally, this is why the Waffen SS units aren't all that different to play with than the current Heer. Yes, there are some TO&E differences and they have more automatic weapons at the Squad Level on average (there is variability, of course). Heck, even the new big bad-boy German AFVs are Heer only since the Waffen SS didn't have any at the time.

The primary tactical differences between Heer and SS come from how the units are portrayed in terms of "soft factors". The atmospheric differences, however, come from the 2D/3D artwork. While grogs tend to poo-poo atmosphere as unimportant, I also note they are usually the first to complain when there's a trivial uniform texture issue. So me thinks they care a lot more than they wishes us to believe

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, let's not forget the Commonwealth infantry relied upon the PIAT for antitank defense. Anybody think that's not going to have an impact on outcome when tanks are around? Or does someone here think that spring loaded AT weapons were superior to rocket fired ones and that they should still be in use today?

As with most things there's no one thing to point to and say "AH-HA!!! That's what's going to make it play completely different!". Just like if you look at the content of what ASL has and what CM has there's no big glaring reason to think the two games will play differently from each other. Yet they do, don't they?

Steve

[sfhand]

...

Or does someone here think that spring loaded AT weapons were superior to rocket fired ones and that they should still be in use today?

...

Steve

Which brings up a quick question, hopefully not a repeat, are piats going to be able to fire from within buildings?

[Sergei]

Yeah, let's not forget the Commonwealth infantry relied upon the PIAT for antitank defense. Anybody think that's not going to have an impact on outcome when tanks are around? Or does someone here think that spring loaded AT weapons were superior to rocket fired ones and that they should still be in use today?

Just to be clear, PIAT is a spigot mortar, all the spring does is detonate the firing charge and then take the recoil to reload itself. It's spring loaded in the same way that a Bazooka is electric loaded.

[akd]

The Brits can be expected to play differently in Infantry and Armour than the US, indirect fire will likely be similar.

Even in the area of indirect fire, there are important differences, particulary when comparing an 8-gun 25 pdr. battery to a 4-gun 105mm battery. Each individual shell has less effect, but rate of fire is significantly higher.

[Holien]

Yeah, let's not forget the Commonwealth infantry relied upon the PIAT for antitank defense. Anybody think that's not going to have an impact on outcome when tanks are around? Or does someone here think that spring loaded AT weapons were superior to rocket fired ones and that they should still be in use today?

As with most things there's no one thing to point to and say "AH-HA!!! That's what's going to make it play completely different!". Just like if you look at the content of what ASL has and what CM has there's no big glaring reason to think the two games will play differently from each other. Yet they do, don't they?

Steve

Nice to see Steve is back....

And we all know what that means!!!!

Looking forward to an announcement soon..... (well soon ish)....

If there are some more great scenarios to play it will be worth it for that.

Just FYI - For those doubters, the way the business model works you have to pay the developers because they need to live and long enough to give us all some new improvements such as fire....

You can not just jump to perfection in one easy jump, it takes incremental steps and lessons are learnt along the way. So for me I am happy to pay for the content so in the future I get more game crack to feed my habit.

I paid for CMSF but hardly played it, I saw that as an investment to get me to today where I am really enjoying CMBN.

[Vark]

Can you fire a Bazooka from inside a building, or use it as a mortar? Oh dear, same stereotypes being trotted out, silly Brits with their tea and bolt action rifles and funny springy RIAT's. By 44 the 2inch mortar was primarily used as a smoke projector and the sighting system had been replaced by two white lines as speed on target was seen as more important than 'accuracy'.

I've played more tactical games than I care to think about and prefer the soft factors to make the real difference, comparing the Bren to the BAR and the MG-42 is an apples to oranges to lemons comparison. The British army was different to the US but not really because of the weapons but the men behind them, any cursory research will show that, especially the strengths and weaknesses of the regimental system. Seems to me the US infantry are far more effective in this game than reality, the over-estimation of the importance of the individual rifleman seriously short changes the Germans and will impact negatively on the Brits.

[sburke]

Yes, there are issues fixed by the module, AND the free patch that will come out around the time the module does. We don't introduce major *features* in modules, but we do our best to fix the bugs we know about with every release. That's why we release free patches alongside paid module releases.

I've been fairly good about mentioning which issues have been fixed, in the threads they've been brought up in. If you have some specific problems you'd like to ask about, please do.

OOps you asked....

Do not need excessive detail, but the folks I PBEM against are really hoping the issues we have seen with PBEM turn generation get resolved and of course the Hotel California Fuhrer Festung Bunkers. In Steve's analogy, that would be like getting Chocolate ice cream with hot fudge... and maybe even whipped cream.