SNEAK PREVIEW

[Barrold]

The LOS through doodad is one thing I forgot to check...sorry. A more enlightened source will need to provide that.

I would think that the IL-2 would be included since it was pretty common. There were a ton of loadouts available and lots of planes to pick from. I didn't see the FO for air support, but the knack for dropping a surprise on your own troops is still a very real prospect from what I was told.

BDH

[Juardis]

Alright dammit, I waded through 8 pages with very little mention of the factories. Now it's time to spill the beans on them.

Are they like 2 story buildings in CMBO, or better. How big were they and was there detail or was it abstracted. Give me bones bones bones

[Barrold]

OK OK

I thought I had posted this here, but it was in a different thread so if you didn't read it:

We had a chance to look at the factories at Rune's Sneak Peak get together and they are definitely big and unlike anything previously seen in CM:BO. It might not be a 100% translation, but the enveloping sense of enclosure reminded me of the best part of the factory fighting that happened in the 'Close Combat III' urban map.

I walked into a scenario Spanish Bombs was playing and the factory setting gave a much added boost to the urban feel of the environment as the cacophony of bullets flying and explosions going off in enclosed areas almost make you duck instinctively. The LOS in and out of the factory led me to think that the action of assaulting these buildings against proper defenses is going to be a brutal task. The added functionality of the machineguns alone will tweak the tingle of anticipation and tension upon hitting the 'GO' button.

The doodads give a much needed sense of these buildings having clutter and a real purpose outside of just being a big box. I am hoping there will be a good variety of doodad types inside the buildings but what I saw was very nice and a welcome addition to the gameplay.

BDH

I don't know exactly how these buildings were constructed so the size of each tile, I am going to pass on for the moment. Trust me though, these are big complexes and they look very nice.

BDH

[Juardis]

so first person perspective, you actually feel like you're in a factory and not a "black box"? I assume the rubbled buildings also apply to the factory's look?

[Spanish Bombs]

A few factory points, as I played about 4 turns of the Stalingrad scenario that barrold was mentioning, set in fact at the Dzerzhinsky works. First off, IIRC, I was told that the map was extremely accurate and was made using photos of the real buildings. And, these buildings are big, real big, and there were three or four buildings on the map, maybe more. This is not a fair comparison, because CMBB will kick Close Combat 3's ass, but the map was somewhat reminescent of the CC3 maps set at Stalingrad, meaning there was a series of huge buildings, and fighting through one was only going to lead to fighting through another.

Visibility was not a problem, meaning one could see within the factory just fine, and even out of the factory at the Russians between buildings. There was the use of doodads within the factories, portrayed as stacks of boxes, but not machines or the like. As for the combat within the factories, I didn't really get a chance to experience it, however, I will say that I did very quickly eliminate 2 Russian squads that were caught between factory buildings, while my Germans were still in the one building.

One moment that was really cool also happened in those few turns I played: I had a PzIVg (the same one that I mentioned in an earlier post) moving between buildings. As it moved into the open, I heard the crash of glass, and a small fire started right next to the tank. Seconds later, the PzIV was drilled by a T-34, so it took a few replays to figure out all that had transpired. The glass and small fire was a molotov cocktail attack from a Russian squad in another factory building. It may not sound like much as I write it, but the effects were all very cool when it was happening.

[Barrold]

Yes they look like factories and it's a cool effect. As far as the rubble goes, I did not see this during the scenario I saw, so I can't really comment on that with any first hand knowledge.

Edit: Yeah, what he said up there.

BDH

[ July 06, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: barrold713 ]

[Spanish Bombs]

Lest I forget - for me there was an inherent thrill to playing Combat Mission within Stalingrad, at the Dzerzhinsky Tractor works no less. It might have something to do with the fact that the first WW2 board game I ever played was the first 3 original Squad Leader scenarios which were set in the identical location. Or it might be the nature of the battle itself: all those doomed soldiers fighting in such an epic struggle. Whatever it was, the brief taste I had led me to believe that BFC had done the subject justice, and I can hardly wait to get my hands on it again.

[Barrold]

I have to echo those sentiments and memories of my early days of wargaming. Panzerblitz in the 10th grade with friend.

I have always been fascinated with many of the aspects of the GPW and watching it unfold in the brief encounter we had was a big fulfillment of my wishes in a game. It is indeed making the wait just a bit more difficult.

BDH

[LGMB]

On the topic of doodads-

As I recall doodads themselfs have no effect on the actuall mechanics of the game, only on the feel. They are soley a graphic repersentation of tiles (i.e. adding more depth to a wheat tile, graphicaly). They cannot block LOS therefore, as it is the "tile" that actually blocks LOS.

And my question to the lucky bastrards out there:

Are reload/tank acceleration sounds now in the game?

[Barrold]

I don't recall those particular sounds, but that does not mean much since what we saw was in fact a incomplete game.

I asked specifically about the doodads and penetrating smoke and got an ambiguous response (he is still evil after all) so if your recollection is that they have those properties so be it. I'm not being coy or anything so don't speculate beyond the guess that we'll have to see what the final version or perhaps the demo (if there is one) looks like.

BDH

[ July 06, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: barrold713 ]

[Sitting Duck]

To the Lucky Bastids:

What about indirect fire from vehicle mounted morters and such? Any opportunity to try that one!

[Barrold]

Sorry, I didn't have the opportunity to see any vehicle mounted mortars.

BDH

[Kanonier Reichmann]

One question for the attendees at Rune's place. Did anyone get to see/hear a Stuka attack and if so, was there that characteristic siren sound as they carried out their dive-bombing run?

That would be bloody fantastic if that was in IMHO.

Regards

Jim R.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Do vehicles slow down before they stop?

[John Kettler]

Any word on the status in CMBB of indirect fire capabilities for HMGs which historically could do this?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Barrold]

I did not get any info on these last few.

Sorry

BDH

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pillar:

I only hear about indirect fire with machine guns in the following context:

Usually, a company or so of machine guns are rounded up and given specific timetables and areas to fire on. The targets are usually far enough off that the machine gunner cannot see what he is hitting, but he can see the terrain he is aiming for.

The barrel elevation is usually no more than 30 degrees, if that. The idea isn't to have the bullets drop from the sky, but to pepper the ground on their descent arc. This means they could not pepper reverse slopes, but only relatively level ground (not just flat). If there was an elevation to be overcome, it would only work out if the target was on the forward slope of the subsequent relief.

All of this is very possible in CM as is, and will work as per historic example in CMBB thanks to the MG tweaks already mentioned. You are talking about area firing with a group of machine guns at extreme ranges. The effect is suppression and some casualties. It is not a tool of physical attrition, but a tool of maneuver through suppression.

This is my understanding anyhow.

Adam

I believe MGs were in fact also used to fire on reverse slopes - (EDIT - or at the least, on targets out of direct line of sight of the firer - which you seem to exclude, no?) check out Operation Veritable and the use of MGs to thicken "pepperpots."

Indirect use of MGs was pioneered in WW I to interdict trench lines and covered routes used to move food, ammunition, reinforcements etc. to the front line trenches.

The machine guns of the 2nd and 47th Division fired an indirect barrage over the heads of their advancing infantry, and behind the German trenches (in other words, this was an interdiction barrage, to stop German attempts to reinforce or re-supply their front, during the Battle of Loos, on 25th September 1915. This was possibly the first time an indirect fire tactic was borrowed from the artillery.

From www.1914-1918.net

Only relatively new barrels with no more than 8000 rounds were used in the indirect fire role. This helped to minimize the spread or drift of shots within the target area and reduced the danger of friendly fire. The standard Mk VII ball ammunition used in the Enfield rifles and the Bren light machine guns performed poorly in long-range fire, and was replaced with Mk VIIIz ball ammunition for this type of firing.

...Throughout the war the Vickers was used effectively in the indirect fire role. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to its use in this way was the support of the infantry units they were attached to. With the rapid expansion in the wartime army many officers were not exposed to the use of the machine gun firing from behind their positions as either a support for attacks or for defensive coverage. This tended to make them cautious of their employment. (Emphasis added)

One late-war development in pre-assault bombardment was termed the 'pepperpot' method. The idea was to use the combined power of the machine gun battalions with all of the by then relatively unused anti-tank and anti-aircraft units. These, along with mortars and direct tank cannon fire, were all used together to blanket a target area with fire. This provided for a type of 'close-support' bombardment that could be used to supplement the normal artillery bombardment.

The well-developed practices of indirect fire and the high level of training for the crews made the Vickers a unique battlefield weapon. Its flexibility and power let it play a number of roles, and it proved itself a valuable asset to the infantryman in both the attack and in defense.

http://www.nwha.org/news_2Q2001/news_page4.html

[ July 07, 2002, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Phantom Captain]

Sorry everyone,

Was out of town for the last three days, but am back now and will try to impart my impressions again as I remember them.

Concerning the covering arcs, one other thing I remember but don't think anyone has posted, you can plot the distance as close or as far as you want, to be used way more like an ambush. ex. you can plot your first point out 25m if you want or pull it all the way out to 250m, etc. This way your guns will not open up until someone or something moves into your arc. Way cool.

[Spanish Bombs]

A couple of points about covered arcs that I recall: 1) they were easy to set, basically just clicking and dragging into whatever size/shape/distance you wanted to make and 2) for AT weapons, you could do a covered arc for armor only. In other words, a covered arc area in which infantry would be ignored, but armor would be fired on if it entered the area.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Why is everyone trying to be convinced that CMBB will be a good game, just give it to us!

[MajorTaktik]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

A couple of points about covered arcs that I recall: 1) they were easy to set, basically just clicking and dragging into whatever size/shape/distance you wanted to make and 2) for AT weapons, you could do a covered arc for armor only. In other words, a covered arc area in which infantry would be ignored, but armor would be fired on if it entered the area.

AT weapons, meaning ATGs only or other anti-tank capable weapon-systems? Are engagement priority procedures finally available? That is to say, will the hypothetical TD sitting on a hilltop waiting for an enemy tank about to round a grove of trees 200 meters away hold its fire and not engage a squad of infantry running in the distance 1000 meters away? From what I have heard, CAs only limit the area a unit will engage targets, not limit what types of targets it will engage.

[Juardis]

Thank you gentlemen. I eagerly await combat in Dzershyinski (sp?).

[Phantom Captain]

AT weapons, meaning ATGs only or other anti-tank capable weapon-systems? Are engagement priority procedures finally available? That is to say, will the hypothetical TD sitting on a hilltop waiting for an enemy tank about to round a grove of trees 200 meters away hold its fire and not engage a squad of infantry running in the distance 1000 meters away? From what I have heard, CAs only limit the area a unit will engage targets, not limit what types of targets it will engage.

Major Taktik

There is a cover arc command, and a covered arc armor command. This does mean your AT systems will hold their fire on infantry if in a covered arc armor. They wait for only armor targets and will not engage infantry.

[Frenchy]

To you sneak peekers - has the surrender option been changed? Right now it's all or nothing...has a "withdrawal from battle" been added to reflect that one must give up the field yet live to fight another day? It's still a defeat but not as bad as a surrender.

[rune]

If you want to withdraw, fight your way to a map edge. You can always cease fire if the other side agrees.

Rune