Gustav Line.

[JRMC1879]

I'd rather the end man get shot than the first three or four play follow the leader into bullets. Also spotting is severely restricted currently.

Another issue with CMx2 I think is that the soldiers appear totally deaf. If they had some semblance of hearing they'd hear the shots and possible scream of the man in front..not carry on walking to their death.

But you are somewhat missing the point. Sure proper dispersal and formation whilst moving is a good thing to have. But you are talking as though they dont want to put it in. I would suggest all that is a lot of coding and there are priorities.

If they had put the effort in to code in the formation thing - you would only be here complaining about the thing they left out to get it done.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm fine with the idea of formations, although I agree with womble's point that if you are advancing into fire you are probably screwed regardless.

If it were to be an SOP checkbox wouldn't that require SOPs? I would LOVE me some SOPs, but we've been asking for those for more than a decade.

[noxnoctum]

What will the pricing be? $35?

[noxnoctum]

As opposed to the current situation where (to achieve good results against good players) you have to micromanage every advance across the open to stop your troops queueing up to be shot? If anything, it would reduce the micromanagement level, especially if the TacAI could be induced to use them sensibly.

+1 to that. At least we can split up squads into small parts, but it's a ton of micro to keep sufficiently spread out... also if you tend to plot too few waypoints they tend to still clump up and go down the same path in a single file line, necessitating frequent intermittent waypoints to prevent that.

It would reduce the micro load not increase it.

This is one of the major advantages CMx1 retains over CMx2... moving infantry units up requires about a quarter of the effort.

[noxnoctum]

Oh, I should add that our artists have been picking away at Bagration and Shock Force 2 for the last year or so. Now that Gustav Line is done (on that score) and Market Garden is nearly finished (again, speaking of artwork), the team will soon switch over full time to finish up the mountain of work both of those new theaters require.

Steve

Any chance the AT weapon rules will be changed for Market Garden (i.e. able to fire from within buildings)?

[Wodin]

I understand what everyone is saying and you all must know I am a big supporter of CMx2. I find the issue where I want to be able to use formations is say when trying to clear out woods etc. Thats where I really miss it and would find it useful.

I admit though I don't split squads enough. Something I must get into doing. I just find it's more micro management that could be done away with if we had formation even if it was just a choice between the current movement and line formation. I then could put them into line when trying to clear out woods, in a line you'd get alot more area covered and spotting would be alot better.

[Childress]

I find the issue where I want to be able to use formations is say when trying to clear out woods etc.

What kind of formations are you talking about? Using Hunt the troops will (IIRC, gaming PC's in the shop) spread with the BARs and LMGs hanging slightly back. Probably superior to line abreast for clearing a wooded area.

I'm a bit skeptical of the incidence of complex formations in WW2 given the character of the armies involved: hastily trained draftees. Perhaps some elite units.

[Michael Emrys]

...especially if the TacAI could be induced to use them sensibly.

That might be where the catch is. Steve has repeatedly alluded to difficulties in getting the AI to sensibly do things that would be quite obvious to a human. This could be one of those situations.

Michael

[womble]

I'm a bit skeptical of the incidence of complex formations in WW2 given the character of the armies involved: hastily trained draftees. Perhaps some elite units.

We're not asking for close order cadence marching, or wheel about the centre. Just a choice of aligments, with "V" and "^" angles for chevron formations. Stuff I (an untrained drill master) can get civilians to at least approximate in about 15 minutes. Not complex.

[Childress]

During the Napoleonic wars infantry units were expected to form squares- under fire- to deter cavalry penetration. It can be presumed that this option was not available to recently recruited formations. The maneuver took a great deal of experience, not to mention mind blowing sang froid, to pull off; it exposed the troops to concentrated artillery fire in the rock, paper, scissors dynamics of war in that era. Still, they had twenty years of practice to get it right.

I suspect that concepts like 'chevron formation' fly out the window when the bullets start whizzing overhead. But you may have a point. Can you cite an anecdote? You hear of 'arrowhead' formations in ww2 but these were on the Company scale.

[womble]

Can you cite an anecdote?

I can point you to a US WW2 infantry drill manual.

http://archive.org/details/Fm22-5

I draw your attention to Chapter 10, paragraph 258, figure 72 "squad wedge". In CM, I can see this being achieved either by having a "squad wedge" formation for an unsplit squad, or by combining a left-obliqued team, a "chevron"ed team and a right-oblique team.

The drill manual doesn't go into techniques for setting ambushes, but I gather from years of reading that a V formation with the centre furthest from the enemy and on his axis of approach is a favoured way of setting up in order to trap the foe. Not that this kind of ambush happens very often in CM games.

Sure, formations go out the window when troops start grabbing cover, but there is some point in having them shaken out to start with.

[Childress]

I can point you to a US WW2 infantry drill manual.

Bad example, Womble. Who cares what some bureaucrats from the DoD back in Washington cooked up in their spare time? The manual from our DMV states that driver and passengers must be buckled up when the car is parked in the driveway idling. We need an anecdote from the 'battlefield'. I'll even settle for a photo. You're familiar with the expression 'honored in the breach'?

[Chek]

I'm a bit skeptical of the incidence of complex formations in WW2 given the character of the armies involved: hastily trained draftees. Perhaps some elite units.

More common sense than complex me thinks.

There will be somebody there shaking the noobs out into formation, usually the sergeants and corporals and once the formation takes shape and firepower superiority or a line of withdrawal is established, then the common sense becomes obvious. If not one way or another you don't come back.

[womble]

Bad example, Womble. Who cares what some bureaucrats from the DoD back in Washington cooked up in their spare time? The manual from our DMV states that driver and passengers must be buckled up when the car is parked in the driveway idling. We need an anecdote from the 'battlefield'. I'll even settle for a photo. You're familiar with the expression 'honored in the breach'?

Pretty sure drill manuals got used in training. So the troops were trained to have "squad wedge" as part of their "repertoire". You were talking about training and its impact on formation-adoption. Forming square on the parade ground isn't hard. It's the "under fire" (or at least in the face of the enemy) part that needed the "sang froid", and they still did it, at least the Brits did.

I would be quite surprised if there's actually any account that says "we formed squad wedge and advanced", since that sort of formation will organically form, especially if that's how the recriuts were drilled.

[Childress]

Yes, 'under fire' is the key. This poster remains a skeptic (sceptic for you ,Womble ). But am willing to be converted- given hard data not derived from manuals and basic training.

[Chek]

Not quite sure what you're saying here Childress-surely you're not implying that due to the stress of combat tactics were ignored and it became an every man for himself affair, when the only way to survive on a battlefield is to work as a team and apply proven tactical doctrine.

[Childress]

Of course, you're right. Who can argue with that?

[satan]

Nice to see antiaircraft guns but is this restricted to halftracks?

What about units like PSW222 or 250/9?

[Michael Emrys]

Not quite sure what you're saying here Childress-surely you're not implying that due to the stress of combat tactics were ignored and it became an every man for himself affair, when the only way to survive on a battlefield is to work as a team and apply proven tactical doctrine.

Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation.

All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.

Michael

[Sequoia]

Nice to see antiaircraft guns but is this restricted to halftracks?

What about units like PSW222 or 250/9?

Well I'm sure you know the 250/9 is a halftrack but it's a good question. I've asked about the sdkfz 10/4 myself.

[Sublime]

Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation.

All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.

Michael

Now we're onto something. I wonder if the game already accounts for experience and the spacing more experienced troops would use? Perhaps a percentage chance of hit? Even if its not visually represented...

[noxnoctum]

What is the ETA on this module? Like a month away or so?

[phil stanbridge]

I believe they want it finished as soon as possible

[Lt Belenko]

5 weeks since the announcement...just saying.

Actually, just saying : How much longer???

[Michael Emrys]

"How long, oh Lord, how long!?"

Michael