Sherman IIa

[Darknight (DC)]

Which Commonwealth units in NWE were issued the Sherman IIa? I saw some reference to the Polish Armoured Division being equipped with them in 1945, but that's it.

[Dandelion]

To my knowledge that was it. Montgomery is said to have refused the model due to an already overloaded logistics system.

It was used by the UK/CW in Italy though.

Regards

Dandelion

[Darknight (DC)]

Thanks....that's the info that I've come across too.

But why the heck was this model included when other, more important, vehicles were left out (eg. Sherman IB, Staghound, Crusader AA)?

[Dandelion]

To enable Italy scenarios?

Honestly, I think that it in CMBO is identical to other Shermans, and so could be portrayed with no serious amount of extra effort. So the question to ask might be - if you already have a Sherman ploygon model in the 3D engine, why not illustrate all marks of the vehicle?

In CMBB I saw that a pornographic amount of StuG models are included, but the 3D polygon model used is a standard one not exactly portraying the various models in detail. I find this a quite satisfying solution, but of course I know people who cry when they realise a bolt is nailed in the wrong place.

This leads us to the Ib question. Were they used in NWE 44?

I rather miss the Staghound as well, but most of all I miss the PSW 222, a sore loss keenly felt, which I can see from screenshots is included in the CMBB. That annoys me.

The fights on the forum about which vehicles to include or exclude was as I recall it rather fierce. I was trembling when the "include the Maus" mafia was on the offensive, and I'm not sure how the 40 or so flame versions of the Hetzer produced for the Ardennes offensive ever got to be in the game. But all in all, I'm rather pleased with the selection finally decided in CMBO.

Of course nowadays it ought to be possible to include many more models in the game. And probably is too. But back then, space was tight as regardless of opinions on vehicles, I think we all agreed the game should work on a vanilla computer (so we didn't have to buy new ones the lot of us). Seems incredible, but it was six years ago and line computers could barely handle CMBO back then. High resolution mods had to be used with caution and weren't at all as popular as they are now - there was a reason for the issue low res bmp's.

My niche was the fight for smaller tiles. I was completely outnumbered as even halving the tiles to 10 meters would mean drastic reduction of other things such as vehicle 3D models. I wanted 2.5 meter tiles. People laughed... but I still want smaller tiles. 2 meters rather than 20 would be real nice.

Hear that Moon? I am contributing constructively again.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[JonS]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

2 meters rather than 20 would be real nice.

That, funnily enough, is exactly what I came up with. As I look around the world there are very few meaningful features that are smaller than 2m x 2m. The problem, I suppose, is that that would mean a hundred-fold increase in the amount of CPU effort dedicated to the terrain.

Another point to consider is that the infantry squads are (IIRC) treated as being rather more spread out than the graphics show them, so carefully maneauvering the infantry graphic inot that 2m wide ditch beside the road wouldn't work all that well, since the game would treat some of them as being in the open anyway. I think

BTW, Dandelion - will you be getting CMAK? I'd be interested in a PBEM, but I don't really want to go back to CMBO.

Regards

JonS

[Darknight (DC)]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

This leads us to the Ib question. Were they used in NWE 44?

[/QB]

From what I understand, the Ib was used as the close support support tank in regiments equipped with Shermans (akin to the Cromwell V/VIII in the 7th Armd Div). I think the numbers were approx 1-2 per sqdn, usually with the HQ.

[Dandelion]

Yes I will Jon. Its not released yet though is it? CMAK I mean. I'm not updated on release dates.

2 meter tiles would really reolutionise maps. I have no real concept of what it would mean in terms of CPU power. But just think of what kind of maps one could create. I could go on for hours about it. Add to this buildings of variable size - either building bloc created ones or simply a set of, say 10-20 different shapes (rather than three), with no centreofthetile placement limit. Add a third story, add ability to use roofs, cellars and maybe sewers - though I can live without sewers as its kind of a Stalingrad phenonema. Collapsing buildings creating rubble in the adjacent tiles (i.e. streets). Bob's your uncle - you'll have genuine street battles.

Squads could become a problem with small tiles, but only if limited to one tile at a time so to speak, as in ASL. One can imagine them spreading over several. I'm not keen on going to single man control, or have single control over a multiman group like in Close Combat. My vision is to have a squad abstractly represented just like in CMBO, but I'd really like to have it as a line, adjustable with formation command (vee, line, column, two columns etc - the historical squad formations used), rather than a dot. With some generic "man windows" formation whenever in buildings. You know, somewhat like the units in "Gettysburg". This to be able to regulate speed, firepower, protection and spotting in a more dynamic way, and also to cover a realistic frontage with a squad (e.g. by regulating formation density).

I'd also appreciate another breakdown of units than halfsquads, namely into 4 man teams and machinegun teams respectively. Of course, you already get this effect with many squads in CMBO/BB, which is good.

I really miss the entrenching ability also, the men being able to create a shallow foxhole given a few minutes, if the ground is right. In-game that is. It would at least somewhat reduce the effect of incoming vertical fire.

In terms of running, I like and miss the Dash function of ASL. Having the men dash very fast a very short stretch, from cover to cover. To enrichen the already available combat jog option (Fast command). I'd also like to see the 3D sprites illustrating stance a bit more obvious. E.g. men sneaking might crouch, just to let you know they are sneaking, not taking a sunday walk.

I'd also like to see possibility of dismantling support weapons. To increase speeds of the same. I can live with the extra time needed to set them up.

And machinegun firelanes when firing sustained fire. That would be real nice. And a spraying fire option...

I'd also like to see the ambush function reinforced. I hear it works better in CMBB? Anyway, I'd like to see the ambushed party (infantry) suffering more, simply from not being prepared. Especially if fired upon from a rear angle.

Covered arc is good. I hear its in the CMBB, and that's very good.

Scrouinging is a minor but kind of enrichening detail. We already have intersquad scrounging, which is good. Scrounging weapons from fallen comrades and enemies sound like too much of a CPU hassle (tracking dropped weapons), but scrounging from vehicles sounds reasonable. The SPW series all had easily dismantled machineguns, e.g. And there is no reason why a German couldn't start and drive a captured enemy Jeep.

I'm not very fond of the "leader dies last" modelling. If a sniper fires at a command squad, he's not likely, or even probable, to snipe all 4 other members before aiming at the leader. Perhaps leaders should be separate in some way? Transferrable between squads? I don't know. I'd also like to see more realistic modelling of WWII wireless sets, both in weight and function (neither of which was anywhere near modern conditions). Also, I'd like to be able to snipe at radio operators specifically.

Re-crewing would be nice. One can read quite frequently of support weapons and antitank guns being abandoned, only to be crewed anew. Either by the crew or by somebody else close by.

Do artillery spotters have 100% chance of battery access in CMBB? If not, that's a good development, as every account I read from either side seems to have failed such contacts as a very dominant feature.

Dynamic lighting is another issue. I remember when posting that suggestion, using a friends profile, and he was upset for weeks by such a moronic suggestion appearing to come from him. But I wasn't thinking graphic beauty. I was thinking flares, and muzzle flashes in the dark. We already knew there was going to be a sound spotting function - which I thought was a really superb idea. The visual contact model had to be kept on par with the audio one. But nobody was impressed as I recall it. Except maybe by the stupidity of the suggesiton.

A tank forcing a hedgerow, e.g., will leave an opening in ASL but not in CMBO. Being no programmer, it still appears to be an easy thing to include (like a tanks path through scattered trees and bushes, etc). In fact, tank tracks have a value in themselves and might be left behind whenever a tank moves. They are rather telltale for the scouting enemy.

And why isn't it possible to deploy antitank guns in buildings? This was fairly common practice (speaking first floor at least).

Ah yes, the things I'd improve if I was a programmer.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[klapton]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

[QB] Yes I will Jon. Its not released yet though is it? CMAK I mean. I'm not updated on release dates.

It is scheduled for this year 4th quarter.

Squads could become a problem with small tiles, but only if limited to one tile at a time so to speak, as in ASL.

I don't see what is the problem. I guess the engine already works, internally, in a more refined map. The tiles are used for building the scenario and for the visual representation of the map.

I'd also like to see possibility of dismantling support weapons. To increase speeds of the same. I can live with the extra time needed to set them up.

I guess in cmbb support weapons already have to spend time to setup.

One thing gets me angry everytime I see it: Why the hell does the last man of an hmg team keep the weapon at all costs, and becoming immobilized? If subject to heavy fire, he should drop the weapon and flee.

And machinegun firelanes when firing sustained fire. That would be real nice. And a spraying fire option...

The first one I guess you can get with cover arcs. The last one would be nice too.

Especially if fired upon from a rear angle.

Isn't that already modelled?

Covered arc is good. I hear its in the CMBB, and that's very good.

Yeah.

I'm not very fond of the "leader dies last" modelling. If a sniper fires at a command squad, he's not likely, or even probable, to snipe all 4 other members before aiming at the leader. Perhaps leaders should be separate in some way? Transferrable between squads? I don't know.

Maybe the leader is not so easy to identify. OTOH, if a squad gets panicked, broken or routed it may represent the loss of the leader.

I'd also like to see more realistic modelling of WWII wireless sets, both in weight and function (neither of which was anywhere near modern conditions).

Don't know what you are refering to.

Do artillery spotters have 100% chance of battery access in CMBB? If not, that's a good development, as every account I read from either side seems to have failed such contacts as a very dominant feature.

I guess in CMBB there is 100% chance. Certainly, the off-board arty model in ASL is more complex, and probably, realistic.

And why isn't it possible to deploy antitank guns in buildings? This was fairly common practice (speaking first floor at least).

You can do that with the scenario editor.

I would like to see water effects. Currently, water is a bit dull.

[Dandelion]

Hi there Klapton,

"I don't see what is the problem. I guess the engine already works, internally, in a more refined map. The tiles are used for building the scenario and for the visual representation of the map."

- You may be right. I was thinking that if one changes from a dot to a line, it might create a problem with the underlying tiles (which I do believe is part of the map for the game engine as well?), as a squad could then occupy more than one type of terrain simultaneously, which is not possible with the present dot.

"If subject to heavy fire, he should drop the weapon and flee."

- And then possibly return when things calm down, to see if he can get it going again.

"The first one I guess you can get with cover arcs."

- Not completely, we only have single target options for machineguns if I am not mistaken. I mean for example if you have a machinegun in the flank of an enemy advance, and fire in 90 degree angle along the frontage of several advancing squads, all units crossing the line of fire should be subject to the fire, not just the single squad targeted as it is now. This way we get the pretty vital function of machineguns to engage multiple targets and pin large forces, which is sort of absent in CMBO (CMBB?). This would also restore the reputation of the MG42, because rate of fire then becomes meaningful. It would mean, I guess, that the game engine must "know" how a swarm of bullets fly through the air and what units it passes as it goes, not just where it is fired from and whether or not it hits the intended target.

Of course, this also raises the issue of friendly fire. That would also be nice - even if I realise the possible frustration. But I mean, attacking in column, all units firing? Simply is not worthy of the fine game.

"Isn't that already modelled?"

- Er, I couldn't swear it isn't, just have the impression that there is no real difference in effect between just firing aqnd firing via ambush marker. Increased effect of flanking and rear attacks are modelled as such I believe. I'll make soem testruns and see if I'm mistaken here.

"OTOH, if a squad gets panicked, broken or routed it may represent the loss of the leader."

- True, but when they recover he is still there, with the bonuses and all (granted, not as effective as before, with the red axclamation marker on him). Conversely, we see no squadleaders or platoon NCOs shouldering the tasks of the platoon CO if he does get killed. In other wargames I have seen the example of the leader killed and replaced by a non-descript, no bonus and reduced function kind of person. A variant of this might be an interesting option? I'm not sure how it is best solved really, but would like to see improvements if possible.

"Don't know what you are refering to."

- Primarily the lack of battlefield usability, creating understanding of why wire communication was so very dominant in WWII (hopefully forcing the introduction of such communications into the game), and indeed providing a need for command tanks with more functional wreless equipment, adding dimension to the game. The CMBO FO, for example, is quite impossible until about the 60's or 70's at the very earliest. Speaking success in using equipment (it working at all, it managing to establish contact with a battery, the incoming being as fast and as accurate). I know artillery and such has been made more realistic in CMBB. Still, in any given situation in WWII, the defender had tremendous advantages just from having prepared wire communications (100% battery contact) and prepared targeting for artillery. After pre-attack bombardments, the attacker had difficulties dealing with suddenly appearing targets, as wireless didn't work very well on the move and fire-control systems were unreliable. In the Normandy battles, I know of no incident where the allies did not stop and pull back and pause in case they encountered resistance that had to be reduced by artillery. I can't find any FO's running about with a permanent 100% radiolink to divisional artillery reducing targets within ten minutes. Indeed, with such efficiency, the assault gun becomes completely obsolete, it being the answer to difficulties using artillery and air support in a running battle, which of course is the case today but not in WWII. It also makes pre-attack bombardments difficult to understand, as you can surgically remove single bunkers within ten minutes by calling in arty anyway. Etc. I think realistic wireless and wire communications in the game are key to many vital or at least interesting functions in recreating WWII battlefield dynamics.

Regards

Dandelion

[klapton]

"as a squad could then occupy more than one type of terrain simultaneously, which is not possible with the present dot."

Certainly it would be difficult to model a system in which the squad can be in two types of terrain.

I would like to be able to change the base layer of tiles. Currently it is always open terrain. If it could also be pavement, wheat, brush etc, maps would be much more realistic.

"Not completely, we only have single target options for machineguns if I am not mistaken"

I get it. However, somehow mg may engage multiple targets. I have seen a mg, facing a platoon on the attack, fire at one squad, then when it hits ground, switch to fire the next one, and so on, until the attack was stopped (I was in the receiving end, btw). Certainly, you are dependant on the TacAI to do so. OTOH, there is a possibility of nearby enemy units being hit, even though they are not targeted. In a pbem game, one of my squads killed two jeeps with one single shot.

"Er, I couldn't swear it isn't, just have the impression that there is no real difference in effect between just firing aqnd firing via ambush marker."

I was referring to flank and rear shots. To my knowledge there is no difference on being ambushed.

"In other wargames I have seen the example of the leader killed and replaced by a non-descript, no bonus and reduced function kind of person. A variant of this might be an interesting option?"

It would really be interesting in an operation. If you lose the platoon hq, but still have the squads, you should get a replacement for the next battle. For what I have read, things in cmbb have become worse, because tanks also need an hq; if you lose the hq tank, you are screwed.

Somehow, we hijacked Darknight's thread, but the discussion is quite interesting.

[Dandelion]

Yes it is, and I'm not sure we hijacked it, as Darknight enters the subject of what is in and not in the game, and why. Still with us Darknight?

Continuing the list, I'd really like the opportunity to turn tank engines off - even at the price or risking breakdown when starting up again etc. We have sound contact modelling, so we should have a chance to avoid it as well. Having the other end of options, that of speeding to a point where breakdown is risked, would also be neat (as in the excessive speed breakdown function of ASL).

Speaking of which, is mechanical breakdown modelled? I have a notion that it is, but thinking back, I can't say I ever saw engine breakdown in the game.

Do tanks give cover? I mean, if they are also dots in the eyes of the game engine, can then a hull act protection for a squad in the game? Can't recall trying it.

Neat thing in ASL that vehicles can assist eachother in attempts to un-bog a vehicle. Would have been kind of nice to have in the game as well. And for some reason I'd also like to be able to abandon a vehicle if I want to, by exiting the crew. Of course, as long as the vehicle is in effect destroyed by this action (as an abandoned vehicle cannot be recrewed), one will be less inclined to do so. But the attachement of drivers to vehicles would be interesting to not have, i.e. enabling unmanned vehicles to be manned and used by any group.

I hear tank crews get suppressed in CMBB, and may abandon the tank even if fired on only by machineguns. This is very good. Do they also become stunned now? As when a 75mm shell bounces off the glacis, creating a 130 phone noise inside and creating violent shock, I suspect the crew inside will at least spend a second trying to find out where they are again. Is this in CMBB?

Returning to multiple targets, it struck me that we might have at least one case. If one fires at a tank with riders on it, one can engage the riders as well right? That's a sort of multiple target direct fire, discounting collateral and HE damage.

I'd really like to see some sort of chart detailing the effects on fire and spotting of movement and fatuigue, so that one really knew what affected what and to what extent. And the fanatics - how much more resistant do they become? Is it a significant factor in a scenario to have them, or just a spice for flavour?

Would be nice to be able to interact with the map a bit more. Not only by destroying houses and setting fire to things. Breaking up holes in hedges has been mentioned, and clearing rubble, mines and wires (I know engineers can some of this) would be real nice. Knocking holes in buildings to create assault entries would be nice also, but of course meaningful only if the building system is changed. As it is, you can enter anywhere anyway. Setting demolition charges and deploying booby traps would also be neat. Its within the scope of the game I feel.

And unloading passengers should take longer, and result in some temporary decrease of function for the unloaded unit, I feel.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Darknight (DC)]

I'm still following along.....albeit in a silent fashion....

As to the thread being 'hijacked'....

I got the answers I needed in the first few posts, so it's all yours guys.....

[Kammak]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

- The CMBO FO, for example, is quite impossible until about the 60's or 70's at the very earliest.

That is an inaccurate statement. Forward observers and forward air controllers could split into two teams, with the forward team carrying the "lightweight" backpack radio, while the rear team would stay back in either a jeep or a 4-man team with the heavier set which would relay the forward team's comm traffic to the fire control entity. This was used in WWII and Korea extensively.

The four man team was required to carry the disassembled radio by foot, or it could be mounted and used on a jeep.

In CMBO terms, I just imagine the rear team is off-map.

But this was very do-able technology in mid-1940s and all through the 1950s.

[Kammak]

The backpack radio (no idea what the actual ID was) was also used for terminal control of air support once the a/c was within LOS of the FAC. The controller on the ground would talk the pilot straight onto the target (if the pilot was Navy or Marine Corps) or direct him a couple hills over if Air Force/Army Air Corps (to reduce fratricide)!

Again, this is during both WWII and Korea.

[Dandelion]

I wouldn't know about the US Marines.

The Germans used as standard infantry field pack, portable by two persons, the Feldfu.b (the most modern model, using the 1936 tube types - they had several other models of less performance). It weighed only 12 kilo's or so. Known issues was power supply. Dry batteries - which rarely worked up to standards - did not allow power enough to transmit a meaningful signal. They tended to bring along hand-driven generators (there were gasoline generators too, but they didn't work at all, since you has to shut the generator down when transmitting, due to the interference with the signal). This is why they were often three or four, as one or two people had to lie down working with the generators, to amount to any power of transmit, which might reach 30 watts or so. The receiver worked on lower power of course, and the batteries could deal with that, but these early types of receivers drifted in frequencies to the extent that even if contact was achieved - a rare feat - it was likely to be lost within a few seconds anyway, and the longer the distance the greater the problem. The antenna to this piece was only about half a meter. Like all radio's of the era, the tubes broke all the time, as they were extremely sensitive.

Artillery observers used a more powerful piece, called Torn.Fu.c (they could also use the SE469A of less powers). This piece also weighed some 12 kilo's or so and could also be carried by two people with all equipment. While more powerful, it suffered all the problems of every other German set, including failing power, the problem of providing live power while transmitting (it only had a 2 volt battery for the receiver, transmit relied on live power), breaking tubes, drifting frequencing and very weak signal. This one could use wet batteries, which were more powerful of course but also highly unsuited to travel and storage. It had a 4 meter rod, or used a 15 meter wire on the ground, wich along with a converter enabled a powerful signal (all things being relative), reaching a theoretical 35. It was popular because it was easy to repair, reflecting the fact that it broke all the time.

The Germans used field relay stations as well of course, to reinforce signals. The main issue with these (apart from the abovementioned) was that they suffered very heavily from what the Germans call "self wavering", which I don't know how to translate correctly. But it was the spools of the generator changing speeds, interfering with the signal in a very detrimental way.

All sets also had their own package of set-specific problems. Problems of design and other kinds of problems which one does not immediately think of just from seeing stats. The German army museum has a special section on signal equipment.

The weak signals of any of these pieces would only reach theoretical ranges on the steppes of the Ukraine, as even gentle slopes and forests would cut it short or weaken it enough to garble it. Funkers had a set of tricks they used to reinforce signals. Being no signaller myself, I don't really get it even after reading about it.

That all leaving normal battlefield interference as well as artillery fire and control performance aside.

Because of these problems, the Germans relied heavily on wire communication throughout the war, and heliographs were commonplace up until 41.

Of course, all of these might have been German issues, with the Germans technologically retarded in the signals area. As the UK also used heliographs and wire communications - both rather obsolete with the introduction of the 1958-60 generation of wrieless sets - we must assume they were also having problems in this field. We could thus reduce FO efficiency for at least German and UK forces to reality standards in subsequent games.

Regards

Dandelion

[Kammak]

Perhaps you are right about the Germans and Brits having inferior comm gear, I wouldn't know. But the USMC created JASCO teams in WWII, which later became ANGLICO during Korea (and are still present today).

ANGLICO = Air Naval Gunfire Liason Company

They also controlled artillery despite not being in the acronym. Usually the teams were attached at the battalion level and would go with the forward company to provide fire support in the assault.

The large radio was hand-cranked, and the backpack radio used large batteries that were very finicky in cold weather (like in the mountains of North Korea).

As far as signal loss or freq drift, that is not a problem I recall hearing about...usually the biggest complaint was humping spare batteries and having them take forever to warm up in the cold weather. Or having to hump the large set (4-5 Marines) when there were no roads for the jeep mounted unit.

All JASCO/ANGLICO fire was immediate fire too - they called in strikes with a TOT of five minutes ago . I can't imagine that Army artillery was that much less responsive but perhaps it was.

I just don't see anything in CMBO that would require a 15 or 20 year time warp to be do-able.