Poles???

[JonS]

Well, for starters, "Commonwealth" isn't inflammatory. Secondly, "21AG" is meaningless to all but a very small numer of people.

[Magpie_Oz]

Do you just love compromise?

[Sergei]

Well I have to say I'd rather be pedantic than pig headed and ignorant

How does this remind me of that old US Army slogan: "Be all you can be!"

(Nice ninja edit, though!)

[Peregrine]

I have got zero problem with Battlefront naming the second module a generic "Commonwealth" and including other armies that were not part of the Commonwealth as part of it. Names have to be simple and I am in no way suggesting that whatever the second module is called specifically mentions each nations forces. That would be dumb.

I popped into the conversation because earlier in the thread a whole host of Commonwealth nations were listed that should not be present simply because they did not participate in Normandy (on the ground). I am not backtracking to quote but I thought I read that the Poles should be included because they were Commonwealth forces which is not true. They are allies that fought in the left flank or the British or the Commonwealth flank.

I hope the Poles are in. From memory in the original CMBO interface their units emblems were the best and a couple of the scenarios that included them had a really good atmosphere to them.

[Magpie_Oz]

It isn't about what the module is called it is about the original question:

"Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles?? "

answer is no

[Peregrine]

I think this thread needs to ditch the term Commonwealth and someone with a better historical knowledge me than me to list each nationality that had at least a division fighting in Normandy in the 3 months(?) that the module subsequent to CMBN is planned to cover.

Battlefront might give us an inkling what they are planning or they might not.

PS Was Commonwealth even the generally used term? I have only one Normandy book on hand and after thumbing through it I couldn't find a single mention of Commonwealth. The landings were simply American Beaches or British Beaches.

If the book got specific it mentioned specific army groups and nationalities, when the book generalised it was simply American or British.

The divisions present were from US, Great Britain (all parts), Canadian, French and Polish from the simply summary. I didn't specifically go through the 15 page unit list to see if anyone was glossed over.

[Sergei]

BFC has put a lot of thought into this one, because it's important not to slight anyone just as it is to use accurate, all-inclusive terms. Therefore the module will be named "Foreigners With Heavy Accents" to reflect the fact that there are no Americans.

[Magpie_Oz]

I think, not sure, that the term Empire or Dominion was more common in those days, especially in Oz because we were back then (still are technically) the Commonwealth of Australia.

LOL@Sergei I just LOVE your way with words mate.

I guess this makes me the traitor

[Peregrine]

BFC has put a lot of thought into this one, because it's important not to slight anyone just as it is to use accurate, all-inclusive terms. Therefore the module will be named "Foreigners With Heavy Accents" to reflect the fact that there are no Americans.

Funny.

When I originally chipped in I thought I was clarifying an Australian's view of the units that actually fought in Normandy and an American's perspective of the Commonwealth but I think JonS said he was from New Zealand so the there is America and everywhere attitude that sometimes popped has been non-existent.

Maybe Commonwealth is being used instead of what might be the more general British term to give the Canadians credit so they don't invade while all the US forces are in the middle east.

[Magpie_Oz]

No my beef has always been that to brand a small section of the total Commonwealth forces as "all the commonwealth" belittles the efforts of those not mentioned.

You have good point tho' now there is a thought the Canucks should strike now and take over, then THEY can deal with the 11% unemployment, Afghanistan, Al Qeda and there seems to be another Bay of Pigs brewing in Libya.

[Barkhorn1x]

It isn't about what the module is called it is about the original question:

"Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles?? "

answer is no

Pardon me professor.

What I should have written was;

"Correct in assuming that the so-called "Commonwealth module" will cover all 21 AG forces including the Poles (although they were equipped and commanded by the Brits they weren't part of the "Commonwealth" you know)."

Case closed on this one for me. Sheesh.

[Magpie_Oz]

Pardon me professor.

What I should have written was;

"Correct in assuming that the so-called "Commonwealth module" will cover all 21 AG forces including the Poles (although they were equipped and commanded by the Brits they weren't part of the "Commonwealth" you know)."

Case closed on this one for me. Sheesh.

Yes mate you've got that one spot on, maybe one day we might see the rest of the Commonwealth forces represented in their own right but till then it's North West Europe for all. Can't wait to see it it on the shelves !

(I'm only a Doctor btw, I didn't go for the full Professorship)

[Michael Emrys]

Never mind.

Michael

[Ryujin]

Oh dear! They'd better go back and change Combat Mission: Normandy before it ships! God forbid they call it Combat Mission: Normandy without including every inch of Normandy! I'd hate to see them slight the contributions of all the square inches not modeled! False advertising I say!

Seriously, this a non-issue. They called it Commonwealth because, well, it's got mostly Commonwealth stuff in it. Or countries that may have used Commonwealth equipment. It's Commonwealth themed. It in no way implies all of the Commonwealth is in it.

[Magpie_Oz]

Read the original question, then read above

It's over mate. Case closed

[drtechno]

You are kidding me.. I am the only Pole on the battlefront forums ? In probably the top WW2 game out there? No way.

Listen, voice acting is not an issue. I am Polish and with my family and extended group of friends, there's tons of people I can tap. I'm also hooked into the Polish community in Boston, so there's tons of people available outside of my circle.

Just do me a favor, don't use some cheesey-a$$ American that took one semester of Polish in Colllege for the voice acting. Last time a game did that, the accent and voice acting was soooo bad that I couldn't play with the sound on. T

There's a huge Polish population in the US and UK. At the very least, knowing that a WW2 game is in the works you could -easily- get dozens of volunteers if you put a simple ad in the right places.

[DaveyJJ]

You are kidding me.. I am the only Pole on the battlefront forums ? In probably the top WW2 game out there? No way.

Does being married to a Pole count? Or having one's late father-in-law be a highly decorated II Polish Corps veteran?

[drtechno]

Heh Cool.

Well they can't say they didn't have any volunteers to help them with their voice work

[ASL Veteran]

Magpie_Oz is right of course. The module should not be named "Combat Mission Commonwealth Forces" or something silly like that because obviously all Commonwealth forces are not included so the name of the module would be misleading. It would be a stain on the honor of Australians and New Zealanders everywhere to name the module the "Commonwealth" module because that implies that the entire Commonwealth is comprised of Wales, Scotland, England, Ireland, Canada, SS formations, and Fallshirmjagers.

I think a more appropriate name for the module would be "Combat Mission: Nazi Fanatics" because the SS and Paras are included and I think that about covers all Nazi Fanatic formations so it should be considered an all inclusive name for the module. Due to their inclusion in the module, some might make the error of assuming that Canadians are Nazi Fanatics as well but that can't really be helped. Fortunately by their exclusion, at least Australians can't be mistaken for Nazi Fanatics and that's what's really important here.

[JonS]

I think a more appropriate name for the module would be "Combat Mission: Nazi Fanatics" because the SS and Paras are included and I think that about covers all Nazi Fanatic formations so it should be considered an all inclusive name for the module.

Idiot.

Not all SS and Luftwaffe units fought in Normandy, therefore naming the module "Nazi Fanatics" would be fundamentally flawed. For instance, the Croatian Legion only fought on the Eastern Front, there was a Fallschirmjager division just north of Cassino, and several SS divisions were also on the Eastern Front and never fought in Normandy. Too, as far as I know there won't be any Kreigsmarine representation.

As I said, fundamentally flawed.

Heck, even calling it "British" would clearly be wrong, since there were obviously other British divisions in Italy and Burmna at the time who of course never fought in Normandy.

Clearly the best, the only, thing to do is to leave the module unnamed, less some precious Australian flower feel slighted in any way. therefore the next module must be named "Combat Mission". I suppose that'll be confusing for pretty much everyone, but at least the precious flowers won't feel the need to wilt.

[Magpie_Oz]

As I have said previously the issue is not the name, it is the answer to the question as to whether the assumption that the module contains all of the Commonwealth forces is correct, which appeared to me to be asking if the module was going to be like CMAK and as we have seen it is not.

A similar question would be "Does CM:Normandy contain all of the American forces" answer is of course no.

[ASL Veteran]

As I have said previously the issue is not the name, it is the answer to the question as to whether the assumption that the module contains all of the Commonwealth forces is correct and as we have seen it is not.

A similar question would be "Does CM:Normandy contain all of the American forces" answer is of course no.

I don't think anyone but you was assuming that every formation of every Commonwealth nation was represented in the module. As an Australian surely you would know that Australian formations were primarily fighting in the PTO during the time frame that Combat Mission Battle for Normandy covers. Naturally since there are no plans to include any Japanese forces in either Combat Mission Battle for Normandy and Combat Mission Commonwealth forces is just an add on to the Normandy title it would probably be a waste of resources to spend time on Australian TO&E - surely we can agree on that? So really I'm not sure why you are surprised that there are no Australians in the Commonwealth module or, given the geographical location of the game topic, that you would assume they were represented in the first place. As far as "Commonwealth" forces serving in the Normandy area from June until August it seems like referring to the Canadian and British participation in Norman operations as the contributions of the "Commonwealth" forces to the liberation of France would be appropriate.

Are you making an assumption that British and Canadian forces are not members of the "Commonwealth" unless Australian forces are also fighting alongside them? If so, then what would you refer to the Canadian and British forces fighting in Normandy since they can't be properly referred to as Commonwealth forces in the absence of an Australian presence? The British in the absence of the Canadians could be "British" and the Canadians in the absence of the British could be "Canadians" but what would be the proper way to refer to both British and Canadians as a group?

[Magpie_Oz]

The original question:

"Correct in assuming that the first module will cover all Commonwealth forces including the Poles??"

Later amended to :

"What I should have written was;

Correct in assuming that the so-called "Commonwealth module" will cover all 21 AG forces including the Poles"

I have never assumed anything in fact right from the start I was stating that the other Commonwelath nations were not in the module, as it seemed the original post was asking.

- yawn - Are we there yet ?

Move on guys.

[rune]

Actually not that simple. The British themselves called the Poles Commonwealth Forces, since they WERE based in Scotland. Add into the picture that after the war, the majority stayed in the UK.

Add to the mix, it is none other then the Commonwealth Graves Service that maintains the graves of the Poles in Scotland.

So no, it is not as clear cut as that.

Rune

No Aussies were hurt in Normandy during the typing of this reply.

[Michael Emrys]

No Aussies were hurt in Normandy during the typing of this reply.

Well, there was a Mr. Brian Haverstock of Melbourne who sprained his ankle near Caen just as you were reaching the middle of your second sentence. You could at least send him some flowers.

Michael