CMBB on CMx2 = no more???

[Andreas]

Bagration was an operational bitchslap and a strategic "please bend over, I must warn you, this will hurt a bit" for the Wehrmacht. But tactically it was much more even, unless one would want to believe that Zhukov personally shot the 600,000 or so casualties the Red Army suffered. For balanced (or even unbalanced towards the Wehrmacht) engagements, try the 5th Panzer Division against 5th Guards Tank Army (the battles that finally got Rotmistrov sacked). Or the 12th Panzer Division counter-attacking to allow elements of 4th Army to make it out of encirclement.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Good to see our formerly German, formerly English, presently French Andreas back And oddly enough, even though he might wake up some mornings forgetting who to hate and whether to have coffee, tea, or wine with breakfast, the man is right! Tactically speaking the 1944/45 period is the most balanced on the Eastern Front. Although the Germans still had a technical edge over the Soviets, as they did against the Western Allies in most relevant areas, the gap was much narrower than it was previously.

Steve

[DavidFields]

Really, someone there has a past connection to AH? Do you have an old "Tactics II" still in some closet somewhere? Jutland? Luftwaffe?

I absolutely agree with the strategy...for the survival of Battlefront. It is the only path which will allow me to pay......$500....$1000.....for the entire Eastern Front war. (happily, and it would be a bargain) Because, that is not the current pricing scheme. You are going to give it to me in pieces.

Oh...and my guess, absoulutely a guess, that "Bagration" will not be in the title of your new game--at least not prominently. Even I, who moved around CP markers in Panzerblitz (ah...the days before Opportunity Fire) find it obscure

[Battlefront.com]

Bagration sounds cool, but you're correct we probably won't use it. I'm guessing we'll come up with some marketing sounding name like Panzerblitz did for AH. And yeah, opportunity fire was definitely missed when I played Panzerblitz as well. "I'll just zoom my entire company out in the open and to a safe spot and you can't do a thing about it, nah-nah-nah!"

Steve

[Mord]

Seeing that you guys are chucking all these awesome bones out there is there any word/thought/design laid out for the upcoming WWII stuff that will include my two biggest pet peeves/hopes...which would be Kill List and Detailed Hits? Please, oh Steve, tell me you are planning to re-implement these babies!

And touching on your discussion about TOE in the Brit thread will we be able to edit our troops like we could in CMX1? You know, adding casualties to squads while making scenarios? In a perfect world we'd be able to place them on map too!

Oh, and one last one, any thought on the ground and buildings catching fire or fire spreading, when conditions are right?

That is all.

Mord.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Both IIRC . I was kidding.

But the history of Bagration games shows that Bagration games exhibit the proverbial "East Front game" buyer's hesitation tenfold. Those wargamers that consider the Eastern Front but aren't intimate with it (aka most wargamers) automatically treat it like the treat the Syrian theater in CM:SF now: an unbalanced fight that can't be fun.

I'd be curious to know how many people here can name a particular engagement from Bagration with place and/or date, or at least have an image of one. The only reason I know anything about Bagration details is that Steven Zaloga wrong an Osprey title about it which is of course a must-consume (regardless of what it's about).

Now, myself I like attack/defense scenarios with creative defenses with lots of surprises and new challenges. A 1944 German defender in that region, if you count in the Tigers and you probably have a couple minor Jagdpanzers next to the StuGs, with Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust and automatic infantry weapons will provide such a challenge (if FoW is properly implemented).

I declined to post the reply to the "no, the CMBB demo wasn't a mistake" that I wrote a couple days ago, let's just say there is opportunity here to show the attraction of the setting, or not.

Sorry, sometimes my sense of humor detector is firmly set to the "off" position.

Well, an easy Bagration battle would be Orsha, I suppose.

I don't know if Bagration would be fun on the Germans, they really didn't stand much of a chance. They fought valiantly, but against too much.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know if Bagration would be fun on the Germans, they really didn't stand much of a chance. They fought valiantly, but against too much.

For an operational level game I think Bagration would suck. For a strategic level game that didn't go until the end of the war for the entire front, I think that would suck as well. But for a tactical game? Great stuff The Germans got ground down and overrun in Normandy too, but the tactical environment is fantastic there as well.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Bones that have probably been tossed out before, but maybe not:

Kill List and Detailed Hits? Please, oh Steve, tell me you are planning to re-implement these babies!

Yes.

And touching on your discussion about TOE in the Brit thread will we be able to edit our troops like we could in CMX1? You know, adding casualties to squads while making scenarios? In a perfect world we'd be able to place them on map too!

Yes.

Oh, and one last one, any thought on the ground and buildings catching fire or fire spreading, when conditions are right?

Probably not for terrain, probably for buildings.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

For an operational level game I think Bagration would suck. For a strategic level game that didn't go until the end of the war for the entire front, I think that would suck as well. But for a tactical game? Great stuff The Germans got ground down and overrun in Normandy too, but the tactical environment is fantastic there as well.

Steve

Yeah, good point.

I don't know how early in the game this is (probably too early...) but are you guys planning some way of handling tank riders? The Soviets had guys specifically tasked with riding on tanks to protect them from infantry; and during the time period you're talking about, the Germans had begun to copy this idea. Are tank riders going to be about the same as previous games, or can they have the possibility of taking another role?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, tank riders are critically important. In CMx1 the passengers couldn't fire from within or ontop of a vehicle. CMx2 allows that behavior. So tank riders will have an expanded role in CMx2 compared to CMx1.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Steve, that is awesome news. It's been some time since I played SF, so I forgot passengers could fire their weapons. I think finding the balance between the tank riders staying on task (and on the tank!) and jumping from the vehicle will be the hard part.

[TempV]

But tactically it was much more even, unless one would want to believe that Zhukov personally shot the 600,000 or so casualties the Red Army suffered.

What a nonsense, Red Army lost about 180000 KIA's and MIA's during Bagration.:mad:

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Andreas is probably counting WIA as well.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

To Yair Iny and Battlefront

Thanx for the explanation, i was worried you don't want to do Eastern front at all, but now i understand, that you just don't want to do this HUGE concept again but you are going to create Eastern Front again. Sorry, i was not informed well, but now i know all what i need. Hurrrraaa!

Now all i need is just to wait and play other games coming before CM Bagration

[Andreas]

What a nonsense, Red Army lost about 180000 KIA's and MIA's during Bagration.:mad:

Ah, so nobody got wounded then?

Next time before getting mad, read what someone writes, and before calling it nonsense, try to understand it.

All the best

Andreas

[TempV]

Ah, so nobody got wounded then?

Next time before getting mad, read what someone writes, and before calling it nonsense, try to understand it.

All the best

Andreas

Next time try to write so someone could understand your thoughts well. Your "joke" sounds as 600K dead. Oh, and humor was really dumb.

[Clavicula_Nox]

He said "casualties" which is WIA, KIA, and MIA. Not a joke, take it easy, okay? No need for all the anger.

[Battlefront.com]

It could be a language issue. It can also be a standard misunderstanding I see here all the time... casualties are often mistaken to mean dead. As has been pointed out, a casualty is someone who is taken out of the fight for any number of reasons. Those reasons include non-combat issues such as frostbite, friendly fire, you name it.

In any case, nobody should be getting upset about this at all. If someone posts a bit of information you find disagreeable, ask for clarification and/or sources. That tends to sort out simple misunderstandings without problems and focus future discussion if there is genuine disagreement. And genuine disagreement is almost the rule when talking about this sort of stuff

Steve

[Andreas]

He said "casualties" which is WIA, KIA, and MIA. Not a joke, take it easy, okay? No need for all the anger.

Yep.

All the best

Andreas

[Sergei]

Will there be an Italian and Romanian sea food module? I'm not particularly interested in a Finnish sea food module. The Finnish crabs will be too uber.

I too hope there won't be such module, as Finnish cuisine is known better for its use of lake fish. This is more like it - Savonian Fish Cock, or a bread filled with fish and bacon.

[Pvt. Ryan]

a casualty is someone who is taken out of the fight for any number of reasons. Those reasons include non-combat issues such as frostbite, friendly fire, you name it.

Will frostbite be modeled in the Bulge game? Just like you now have an ! for troops that go insane, you could have a little icicle for troops that lose fingers or toes.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe.. that would be funny to see

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

It could be a language issue. It can also be a standard misunderstanding I see here all the time... casualties are often mistaken to mean dead. As has been pointed out, a casualty is someone who is taken out of the fight for any number of reasons. Those reasons include non-combat issues such as frostbite, friendly fire, you name it.

In any case, nobody should be getting upset about this at all. If someone posts a bit of information you find disagreeable, ask for clarification and/or sources. That tends to sort out simple misunderstandings without problems and focus future discussion if there is genuine disagreement. And genuine disagreement is almost the rule when talking about this sort of stuff

Steve

True. We have term 'total casualties' (=kokonaistappiot as is said in Finnish), which tells us number of WIA, MIA, KIA. Casualties (=tappiot) are just KIA and MIA. I wouldn't be surprised if Russian's would have similar system.

Overall both figures seems to be alright. about 180 000 x 3 = bit less than 600 000. I believe 1:3 figure ('KIA+MIA compared to casualties overall'-rule) stands here as Soviets this time were on offense. Eh?

[Andreas]

Total Red Army casualties were actually not that far off 800,000, but that included sick.I went with 600,000 on the basis of the 1:3 rule, which you indicated.

As a public service: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11835&dict=CALD

In German the Wehrmacht used the term "Blutige Verluste" (bloody losses), which has the advantage of not lacking in clarity at all, at least in German.

All the best

Andreas

[Sergei]

So which is it? Just KIA, or also WIA (as the wounded usually are a bloody mess)? Also, wouldn't female soldiers unable to participate in fighting due to their periods also be 'Blutige Verluste'?