Look Videos !!

[sburke]

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and funny springy RIAT's. By 44 the 2inch mortar was primarily used as a smoke projector and the sighting system had been replaced by two white lines as speed on target was seen as more important than 'accuracy'.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.

BFC leaves the soft factor to you. Experience, morale etc are all at your fingertips. If you think the US infantry are more effective than reality -as has been noted before make em green. Broadsword does a very good job using these and fitness to alter the capabilites of a unit to very good effect. I strongly suggest playing around with these till you feel the balance you expect. Even the same unit at a different time and place may want these tweaked - did they have to march all night to get into position, has their leadership changed, had they suffered a reversal the previous day and are in disarray. Leaving the units always with standard settings is missing out on a major portion of having to learn how to fight a unit.

[TheVulture]

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?

Four different infantry squad types from CMSF that behave rather differently, considering just the infantry (I'm going from memory - over a year old in some cases, so I might have some details wrong):

A) Basic US infantry squad. 9 men, 2 teams (4 & 5 men), one under-barrel grenade launcher and one SAW (squad automatic weapon) per team. Ready access to javelins makes them very strong against enemy armour.

US infantry MOUT squad. 9 men - 3x3 man teams. Being able to split in to3 teams makes them behave very differently - much more flexibility in urban terrain. Organic demo charges makes their manaouverability in towns very different too. Different availability of smoke too IIRC.

C) US Marines. 13 men in 3 teams (4, 4, and 5 men). One SAW per squad. The M32 grenade launcher alone makes a huge difference. Add in the extra firepower from the extra men, and they tend to overwhelm everything they come across. The concentration of firepower also is much more forgiving of your mistakes. Much weaker against enemy vehicles though due to lack of organic javelins at squad and platoon levels.

D) British infantry. 7 or 8 man squads (depending on whether they are mechanised or not - one guy stays with the vehicle). The 7 man squads are noticably more fragile than 8 or 9 man squads. The British assault rifle is noticable more accurate at longer ranges - you will notice (in comparison to the US infantry) less firepower close in and more effective firepower at greater ranges. Also lack javelins at the squad level.

This is before you get to the platoon level (those marine platoons are huge - with more than twice the headcount of a British platoon. The Brits meanwhile get an organic 50mm mortar with their platoon HQs which gives very different tactical capabilities) or company level (where marine and British javelin assets are assigned, and the different MG and organic off-map artillery capabilities, the snipers).

So yes, the differing headcounts, organisation and equipment, even in a purely infantry sense, make a big, big difference to how things play out. One marine platoon vs two Brit platoons vs two US infantry platoons are all very different proposition with markedly different strengths and weaknesses, and playstyles. Given the same objective, they would all have to take different approaches to dealing with it. They behave differently. And more important, they feel different.

[Vark]

Its a shame the engine can only apply one level of experience/morale to a squad, it would be nice to be able to have a varigated approach. It would also be nice to be able to show the different effects the NCO's and officers had on particular units, which could then be tweaked to represent the players perception. Two examples, the hardened NCO and couple of veterans make no2 squad a force to be reckoned with, especially in defense, but when those handful of men are lost the squad just breaks. Or the men in a platoon will bravely advance but only if their officer is nearby, thereby risking his safety (especially true of the Brits in Normandy. As somebody once said special forces are not elite they are special simply because all elements in the unit perform as they are supposed to do.

[Ranger33]

Vulture's post is spot-on, and doesn't even include the difference that the vehicles make between different forces. The Brits get a smorgasbord of light and medium vehicles, while the US Army is mostly just Strykers and HMMVs, with different variants providing flexibility. The Marines on the other hand have frakkin' LAVs as recon vehicles and big AAVs hauling around those massive squads. With the NATO module the variety gets out of hand, I don't think I've even seen all it has to offer.

I have full faith that the modules for CMBN will add just as much as the CMSF ones did and be worth every penny. I just worry about the massive amount of time between base games. With the engine pretty much stable (unlike with CMSF), I think we all expected to be playing CW and talking about Market Garden by now. Maybe that's where some the frustration is coming from?

[Vark]

Do remember that the three platoon section TOE was a War Office recommendation not a rule. Often British platoons in Europe went into battle with two sections and a gun group or two sections with as many LMG's as they could scrounge. The mission dictated the make up and a good commander would distribute his troops accordingly, with the most experienced using the most effective. Would be nice if during the pre-battle set up this could be simulated, the break into two equal fireteams only scrapes the surface of the flexibility that a commander had.

Again size of squad is only relevant if they actually make a worthwhile contribution, otherwise they just add to the target density.

[Broadsword56]

I think we all expected to be playing CW and talking about Market Garden by now. Maybe that's where some the frustration is coming from?

We can start talking about Market Garden now, and that in itself can be fun.

I, for one, am expecting a whole new learning curve for being able to map Holland authentically. There's an old thread from last spring about that -- maybe I'll bump it and see if we can learn anything together...

[Vark]

Need to get the armoured spotting, especially whilst buttoned sorted out, otherwise the Arnhem/Oosterbeck battles will be over pretty quick as the Para AT guns survived longer than two shots!

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Riiiight... yet you keep saying that the equipment and the TO&E doesn't make any difference. Please make up your mind.

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.

Popycock

Balderdash

Piffl

Utter tosh

What rot

etc.

This sort of national pride crap is what makes simulations horrid. Get a German in here and he'll say the same about what made the German units so great. Get an American in here and he'll say the same about his nation's forces. Same with Canadians, Poles, and Free French. And if each person cherry picks his examples, he can "prove" it pretty easily. So which "my nation is better than yours because it's my nation" line of reasoning should we adopt?

What is REALLY true is the individual units of all nations varied in quality on any given day. Good units had bad days, bad units had good days. Depending on the particular battle area focused on some nations tended to have more good units than bad, or more bad units than good. It had far less to do with national affiliation than simple battlefield variation based on factors well outside the scope of the individual man.

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.

Hmmm... so first you're arguing that the superior quality of the individual British rifleman gives them some sort of intrinsic advantage, then you say CM values individual riflemen too much? Kinda contradictory logic, don't you think?

When soft factors are even and engagements are varied over a wide range of situations, why wouldn't a 12 man squad all armed with full or semi-auto weapons have an edge against a 9 man squad mostly armed with single shot rifles? And why would a 10 man Rifle Squad, mostly armed with rifles and not armed with a rapid belt fed MG, somehow be better than both?

In the end it doesn't matter. We've made a game and you're welcome to try it and poo-poo it if you like. Personally, I think if you don't like it that might be an indicator that we did a really good job simply because I think the belief system you're using to judge historical accuracy is flawed.

Steve

[Sarge]

Personally, I think if you don't like it that might be an indicator that we did a really good job simply because I think the belief system you're using to judge historical accuracy is flawed.Steve

couldn't agree more Steve - well stated.

[thejetset]

Hear Hear Steve! Well put!

[BadgerDog]

Need to get the armoured spotting, especially whilst buttoned sorted out, otherwise the Arnhem/Oosterbeck battles will be over pretty quick as the Para AT guns survived longer than two shots!

+1

When buttoned up in an M4 Sherman, it's virtually impossible to see a PanzerShrek/Bazooka hunkered down behind bushes or laying prone in grass...

The quality of the cupola and periscope glass combined with view angles in using them, meant that anything under 25-50 yards was darn near impossible to see. It was so bad, we used to try and keep the cupola popped open a crack to view 360 over the glass.

It's the primary reason that we never moved in close quarters without infantry screening ...

Anyway, it is a great game and I've learned to work round this issue, although it does suspend realism for me in doing it.

Regards,

Doug

[ricroma]

Let's try reverse psychology...

Bha, those videos are so bad, BF, you can release the module right now, nobody will ever buy it anyway...

[Holien]

+1

When buttoned up in an M4 Sherman, it's virtually impossible to see a PanzerShrek/Bazooka hunkered down behind bushes or laying prone in grass...

The quality of the cupola and periscope glass combined with view angles in using them, meant that anything under 25-50 yards was darn near impossible to see. It was so bad, we used to try and keep the cupola popped open a crack to view 360 over the glass.

It's the primary reason that we never moved in close quarters without infantry screening ...

Anyway, it is a great game and I've learned to work round this issue, although it does suspend realism for me in doing it.

Regards,

Doug

+100 The spotting of tanks vs Inf. (A Sherman in my current game is fantastic despite smoke and trying to sneak up on it for grenades and fausts it sees it destroys... It has no Inf support and is immobile but I can not seem to get close enough to frag it with out being spotted.)

[wokelly]

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.

When soft factors are even and engagements are varied over a wide range of situations, why wouldn't a 12 man squad all armed with full or semi-auto weapons have an edge against a 9 man squad mostly armed with single shot rifles? And why would a 10 man Rifle Squad, mostly armed with rifles and not armed with a rapid belt fed MG, somehow be better than both?

I am starting to get the impression the Brit infantry may be to be lousy in this module, between the videos and these two comments. Admittingly the Brits did not have a great deal of firepower but in CMAK for example the 1944 Brit squad was generally competitive with the 1944 German infantry and 1944 US squads (US had suerpior close range firepower over the Brits (40 and 100m), the Brits had better close range over the Germans (40m), and the Germans had better long range firepower (250m and greater). It was the PanzerGrenadier/SS and German Airborne units that tended to really stand out.

How do the Brits compare in this one?

[Childress]

+1

When buttoned up in an M4 Sherman, it's virtually impossible to see a PanzerShrek/Bazooka hunkered down behind bushes or laying prone in grass...

Anyway, it is a great game and I've learned to work round this issue, although it does suspend realism for me in doing it.

Regards,

Doug

Yeah, right... Who appointed you the resident expert on Shermans anyway?

[Battlefront.com]

I am starting to get the impression the Brit infantry may be to be lousy in this module, between the videos and these two comments. Admittingly the Brits did not have a great deal of firepower but in CMAK for example the 1944 Brit squad was generally competitive with the 1944 German infantry and 1944 US squads (US had suerpior close range firepower over the Brits (40 and 100m), the Brits had better close range over the Germans (40m), and the Germans had better long range firepower (250m and greater). It was the PanzerGrenadier/SS and German Airborne units that tended to really stand out.

How do the Brits compare in this one?

Since I haven't played, or even looked at, CMx1 in about 7 years... I have no idea

Combat always comes down to mix of factors. Poor leadership, for example, generally means poor performance no matter what the units are like. Really good units might be able to compensate for poor leadership here and there, but that's about it. Conversely, good leadership can overcome unit deficiencies. Well, provided the other player doesn't have good leadership and good units!

Remember that each national force has it's own quirky pros/cons on the battlefield. Branches within each have their own quirky pros/cons. Formations within each Branch have their own pros/cons. Generalizations aren't really easy to make, especially because stance, terrain, supporting arms, etc. have such a huge impact.

GENERALLY SPEAKING Commonwealth infantry battles need to be fought with a heavy reliance on maneuver and supporting arms. If a Commonwealth player thinks he can storm German positions with unsupported infantry... well, I'd not wager even a thruppence on the British side coming out on top Though to be fair, unsupported infantry charges pretty usually go badly against relatively light defense no matter which force we're talking about.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

BTW... it should be remembered that all the major players had their own way of doing things that by ’44 were more or less equally effective.

As we are concerned here with Commonwealth forces it is worth mentioning that they had both the best AT guns/artillery of WWII and the best indirect fire artillery.

British 6 pounder ammunition was of higher quality than US 57mm AT ammunition. (The US 57mm AT gun being an Americanised version of the 6 pounder.) At 100mm this resulted in the 6 pounder having a penetration of around 103mm to the US 57mm around 93mm. Given that head-on the 57mm/6 pounder started to strain against the MarkIVs’ front hull and StugIII hull at over 500m this bonus for the 6 pounder did no harm. The 17 pounder AT gun was far superior to even the later 90mm US gun and for a bonus again used superior quality ammunition. I am not referring the tungsten rounds but the standard APCBC AT rounds. (British tungsten rounds were also in fact a generation ahead of US designs. But rare in both armies.)

When we come to indirect fire artillery the British used the 88mm/25 pounder the US the 105mm gun. But the Commonwealth forces had twice the number per division. Added to which they had made more realistic assumptions about ammunition expenditure than US forces and never had the server artillery ammunition shortages experienced by the US forces in NWE.

However the Commonwealth artillery “system” also gave it an advantage. Commonwealth FO came closest to having a contemporary networked system. A Commonwealth FO directing the fire of an eight gun battery, note eight guns not four per battery;), could request, live, a regiment or even division or corps be assigned for support. Then swing the fire around. US FO had to call for a “time on target....” a more cumbersome procedure if they wished for additional support. I am not sure either what the exact difference between the two is, but people who know are clear which system was the more flexible . (A few months ago I did some research to try and discover “exactly...” how artillery was called in WWII and you can download a number of rather dry but very informative books on the subject for not a fortune from Amazon/Kindle.)

BTW... the books I read were clear that the Germans had the weakest artillery system of the all players by late war having neglected to reform their system throughout the conflict.

As 70% of casualties in WWII were from artillery this stuff matters.

All interesting stuff...

We are lucky to have CM... Generations ahead of the competition...

All the best,

Kip.

[OrdeaL]

Good read there Kip, nice to know about the Commonwealth arty. Cheers

[Vark]

Wow, such an acerbic and defensive reaction Steve, both insulting, condescending and, given my apparent national pride, I might suggest a damn bad show old sport! Please show me one statement, made by me, extolling the British way of warfare over another nation, I used words such a strengths and weaknesses and different, but never suggest national superiority. The very fact that such balanced words are taken to mean that, is indicative, to say the least.

I could refute each point, but cannot be bothered, I'll just go back to reading Frank Ledwidge's excellent "Losing Small Wars: British military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan". Pip pip old bean, must dash orf and ave me evenin nosebag.