Squads

[Colin]

Hey,
I was wondering if there were predefined squads like in CC2(BAR,Rifle,Assault) or will each squad just carry weapons randomly? Also if you receive resupply can you direct it to a unit that needs it? eg Give units in a hotspot more ammo than say the guys you have guarding prisoners.

------------------
"The object of war is not
to die for your country,
but to make the other
bastard die for his"
George Pat

[Big Time Software]

All weapons are according to standard TO&E, not random or user defined. Resupply only comes into play in campaign scenarios, and it is totally handled by the CM and scenario settings. Units that are cut off will get reduced or no supply.

Steve

[Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was wondering if there were predefined squads like in CC2(BAR,Rifle,Assault) or will each squad just carry weapons randomly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat Mission has lots of different squad types, especially for the Germans. CC2's types may not always be historically accurate (for example, there is no such thing as a "BAR squad"). Combat Mission's squad types are accurate and real. Here's what we have (apologies for the all-caps, this is copied straight out of a code header file):

INF_AMERICAN_SQUAD_RIFLE_44,
INF_AMERICAN_SQUAD_RIFLE_45,
INF_AMERICAN_SQUAD_PARA,
INF_AMERICAN_SQUAD_GLIDER,
INF_AMERICAN_SQUAD_ENGINEER,

INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_RIFLE,
INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_PARA,
INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_ENGINEER,

INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_RIFLE_44,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_RIFLE_45,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_PIONEER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_VOLKSGRENADIER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SMG,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_HEAVY_SMG,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_GRENADIER_PIONEER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_PZGREN_ARMORED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_PZGREN_MOTORIZED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_PZGREN_PIONEER_ARMORED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_PZGREN_PIONEER_MOTORIZED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SS_RIFLE_44,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SS_RIFLE_45,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SS_PZGREN_ARMORED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SS_PZGREN_MOTORIZED,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_FALLSCHIRMJAGER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_FALLSCHIRMJAGER_PIONEER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_FUSILIER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_FUSILIER_SMG,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_GERBIRGSJAGER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_GERBIRGSJAGER_PIONEER,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_SECURITY,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_STURMGRUPPE,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_VOLKSSTURM,
INF_GERMAN_SQUAD_ESCORT,


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also if you receive resupply can you direct it to a unit that needs it? eg Give units in a hotspot more ammo than say the guys you have guarding prisoners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Resupply is not an issue during a single Combat Mission battle which may only last 20 minutes or so. In campaigns you do need to worry about supply but it's doled about depending on the unit's location (i.e. whether the supply people can reach them and yes you can get cut off behind enemy lines) and how much they need - i.e. did they use up everything they had in the last battle.

Charles

[Rob Deans]

INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_RIFLE,
INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_PARA,
INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_ENGINEER,

Were you aware that the Airlanding Section was smaller (platoon strength of 28 in three sections, all that would fit in a Horsa)? The company kept its strength in that it had four platoons instead of three. The parachute sections were the same strength as normal rifle sections, though. A Royal Marine/Army commando sub-section (actually a section sized unit) was different too. Two assault sub sections of 12 and a support sub section of 5 and a Lt and a Sgt in the Section's HQ made up a Section. Two Sections Made a Troop and five troops and a heavy weapons troop made a Commando.

Rob Deans

[guachi]

I can only imagine that it must have been a nightmare to be a German logistics officer with all of the different unit types. Not just the infantry types but all the different vehicles.

I suspect that it will take a while to get a good feel of the capabilities of all the different squad types, especially German.

Things like remembering the size of the squad and if it is good at long range or short range.

Of course, I could just play the Allies and make things easy.

I already know that I am going to have graphs of firepower over distance; I just didn't realize there would be so many squads.

I can only imagine how large the unit database would be for a period covering the entire war. No wonder you started off concentrating on one year of the war on the western front.

Jason

[PanzerShark]

-The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his - George Pat

Hate to be a spoiler, but the correct words are:

"No man has ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it, by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his".

It's not i'm attacking you, it's just that it's one of the most "interesting" speeches made by this general. And therefore should be quoted correctly.

Take care,
PanzerShark (sorry, just being a pain http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif )

[Stephen Smith]

On the squad list, I noticed that all the American and British squads are specific combat squads (I assume its the same for the Germans, I didnt' recognize all the types, and I'm including engineers here). Do you have other squads to simulate other, rear echelon troops? I am thinking that we may want to simulate an attack on a supply depot, for instance, in which the defending troops are basically supply guys manning the perimeter with rifles and perhaps a few mgs. Or in a battalion battle, if a penetration reached the bn headquarters, there would actually be an HQ company back there somewhere, again consisting of REMFs with rifles, pistols and maybe a few MGs which are poorly understood. If you think these types of situations would be adequately simulated by normal line infantry (or Volkstuurm infantry) at GREEN morale, that may work out. Just curious if any thought had been given to these situations.
Also, I assume that was a list of SQUADS only-there is actually a longer list of all infantry units, including dismounted vehicle crews, hq sections, etc. etc. Am I correct?

Steve

[guachi]

After reading the squad list again, I realized I have no idea what a German sturmgruppe or escort squad are or what formations they would be in.

Anybody fill me in?

Jason

[Herr Oberst]

Maybe we could do a scenario where US rear-line troops get assaulted. heh heh.

Yeah. And they, like, don't have any mortar tubes, you know? heh heh.

But lots and lots of boxes of mortar shells. Yeah. heh heh.

Then they could, like, pull the firing pins, whack the mortar on the ground, and throw it at the Germans? heh heh.

Wow, that'd be really cool. heh heh.

I am cornholio! heh heh

LOL http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

(sorry, just briefly insane...)

[Big Time Software]

The Escort Company was a divisional level formation designed to (I think) protect Division HQ. You don't read too much about these guys, except for 12th SS' defense of Falaise. The Escort Company was THE backbone for KG Krause:

1 x Company HQ
..1 x Rifle Platoon
...1 x Platoon HQ
....3 x Squad
.....1 x SMG
.....4 x Rifle
.....2 x LMG
.....3 x Panzerschreck Team
..1 x Heavy Machinegun Section
...2 x HMG Team
...1 x Mortar Section
...2 x 81mm Mortar Team

1 x Heavy Anti-Tank Platoon
..1 x Platoon HQ
...3 x 75mm AT
...3 x LMG Team

1 x Flak Platoon
..1 x Platoon HQ
...4 x 20mm Flak

1 x Light Recon Platoon
..? x Kübelwagens (reality it was 18 motorcycles, but we aren't doing those guys)

The Sturmkompanie is something that we included only because it is cool and we had the TO&E for it. We have NO idea if any of these formations fought on the Western Front, but there is a chance. The unit was independent and either Korps or Armee controled (don't know which). Note the size of the squad!!

1 x Company HQ
..3 x Sturm Platoons
...1 x Platoon HQ
....3 x Squad:
..... 1 x SMG
.....10 x Rifle
..... 2 x LMG

1 x Heavy Weapons Platoon
..1 x Platoon HQ
...1 x HMG Section
....2 x HMG Teams
...1 x 81mm Mortar Section
....2 x 81mm Mortar Teams

2 x AT Platoon
..1 x Platoon HQ
...3 x 75mm AT Gun
...2 x LMG Teams

Steve


[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-04-99).]

[Fionn]

Robert Deans,

I have seen differently-sized paraborne and glider borne infantry squads and platoons so yep I think those differences are modelled. The differences are very important so its important to model.

FWIW Sturmgruppe rule.. There's a huge amount of firepower there and really awesome city-fighting potential.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Colin]

Sorry about the quote PanzerShark. My friend told me it incorrectly(He had heard it on TV).

I didn't think they had a BAR squad!! Thanks for all the answers. Can't wait for the game.



[This message has been edited by Colin (edited 10-04-99).]

[Stephen Smith]

It just occurred to me, but if it is so easy to take a game-given squad and remove soldiers from it (to simulate casualties), would it be so hard to make a squad from scratch? In other words, there must be a 'American rifle squad' template with (say) eleven soldiers and their equipment. If I can remove two or three or four of them, and remove any of the equipment I want (BAR or rifle as the mood strikes me), why not allow the scenario designer to ADD two or three soldiers, again with varying equipment? If I want a squad of fifteen, is there that much programming involved in allowing it? If I want to remove six rifles from an American squad and replace them with six BARs, is it possible? This would essentially allow us to create any squad out there, including the odd airborne squads mentioned earlier in this thread.

Steve

[Colin]

I called my friend and told him off. And I have changed my signature accordingly.Just hope the isn't wrong!

------------------
"I'm tired of quotes, tell me what you know"
-Mark Twain

[LT CANADA]

SO you are saying that the only Squads for Britain (Canada and commonwealth also) is Rifle, Airborne and engineers? What about platoon HQ's, Mortar teams, Machine gun teams, Sharpshooters and PIAT squads or Battalion HQ's are these units featured or are they just Rifle, Para and Engineers?
Ok now that im done with that I would like to say that it is really amazing that you mentioned the 12th SS and Kurt Meyers desprate stand at falaise. You guys have really done your homework, and maybe this will stop some people from saying that Canada was too slow in getting to Falaise.

[Moon]

I can just jump in quickly to answer that one - of course PIAT teams, sharpshooters, HQs, Vickers MG teams et al are all in. Steve's list just barely scratches the surface, really.

[LT CANADA]

Thanks Moon!

[Big Time Software]

Yup, this list is for "squads" only. No team serviced weapons were inlcuded for any nation in the list. Think about it... if we didn't list the Bren, but we also didn't list the Browning .30cal or HMG42 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I shudder at the thought of the list of all units in the game. Ugh http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

And KG Krause was backed up by two Tigers as well as misc. units from other formations. A very tough nut to crack.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-04-99).]

[dano6]

Hi, LT

Regarding Falaise, the Canadians had their work cut out for them, most definetly. Alot of Canadians died because of moronic decisions made by an English general named Monty. Falaise was a huge "blunder" by the allies in the ETO. Patton had the ability to reach Falaise many days before the Canadians and the English closed the gap. Monty's pure arrogance cost the allies an enormous victory. In its place they got a big victory. Many historians are not very critical of Monty's moronic decision because the allies scored a major victory. But the potential for an even greater victory was present at Falaise and was lost due to the arrogance of one general. If you are interested in some of the decisions made during this battle, read "Death of a Nazi Army" by William Breuer. It is quite interesting how the allied air corps and another English moron(Air Marshall) screwed up and killed many American soldiers.

dano6

[LT CANADA]

Although I agree with some of your comments Dano I dont agree that the Canadians had their work cut out for them. During the Normandy Campaign Canadians took more casualties percentage-wise than anyother allied amry there. It was 2.5 times the Britsh rate and 2 times higher than the American rate, 85% of these casualties were in the Infantry. At the end of the Normandy campaign multiple Canadian battalions had taken 100% casualties, most of them in thier first week of battle.
During operation Cobra, forces on the american first army front were as follows: 2 panzer divisions,one panzer grendier division(with only assualt guns} and no battalions of heavy tanks.
British second army front (of which 1st canadian army: Four heavy tank battalions, one company of King-tiger heavy tanks, Seven Panzer divisions (1st and 2nd SS panzer corps}. of these panzer divisions 5 and a half are east of the orne facing the Canadians!
During the faliase battles the Germans held the high ground, their Tigers and Panthers knocked out Canadian shermans from 1 and a half KM away. and once our shermans bugged out to escape annhailation our infantry would be overrun after taking the objective by SS troops and Tiger tanks. Doesnt matter how many troops they had, they had better tanks, longer range guns (88mm) and better machine guns, and better positions and seasoned officer and NCO's and Also they were SS elite troops, Canadians were never out of contact with the SS during the whole campaign!
While we Kept the enemy panzer divisions pinned down you Americans were in paris. I dont mind that the Americans got the glory, but when it comes to falaise that is a sore spot with Canada, becouse we were the ones going as fast as we could, taking obscene casualties in trying to get the gap closed and yet after all the sacrifice we were too slow, we werent but we had to contend with a batterd but still there SS panzer corp. It wasnt anyones fualt, especially Monty's who allowed his forces to get batterd and bruised so the Americans could break out. Dont say we had our work cut out for us becouse at the time of Falaise the average Canadian infantry company numbered at best 30 men out of 127. With those casualties its a wonder we got to Falaise at all!
I dont mean to sound harsh, and I Dont mean to make fun of Americans in any way becouse we all won that war, im just saying that it was the Germans that stopped us from getting to Faliase not anyone else. We took the crap in Augest 44 and the American took the crap in December 44. Were all equal and im glad that in any future war I would be fighing beside British, American, and germans troops.

[johnnymo]

FYI Lt Canada, to have your "work cut out for you" means that you have a tough job to do, not the opposite. I'm sure dano6 was not putting down the efforts of our neighbors up north, eh. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Rob Deans]

INF_BRITISH_SQUAD_RIFLE,

Is this the way that the game will describe these units? In the "menu" screen that is. Could you please post the orbat of a British/Commonwealth rifle platoon if it's not too much trouble?

Thanks,

Rob Deans

[LT CANADA]

Actually i was defending Monty but I actually think that Falaise was a very interesting battle. I actually didnt mean to attack Dano I just wanted to talk about falaise, I really am too proud of my army, and if it sounds like I am making fun of another army than I apoligize becouse each army had its strenghts and weaknesses. I meant nothing against Dano, just was talking of a controversial battle a long time ago.
Sorry Dano http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I meant nothing against you or anyone else.
Thanks for the FYI JhonnyMo.

[Big Time Software]

There were plenty of mistakes, both tactical and strategic around closing the gap. Plenty of blame to go around http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Here is a pic of what a Commonwealth Platoon looks like in the editor purchase screen (costs are on the right):

http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/uk_toe.jpg

As for the makeup of a squad:

7 Enfields
2 Stens
1 Bren

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-04-99).]

[Rob Deans]

I like it, looks good. I don't suppose you could change the name to "section" rather than "squad", could you?

Thanks,
Rob Deans

[Big Time Software]

Actually, we don't want to. All nationalies, including Germans, use the same conventions so as to not create confusion.

Steve

[SimonFox]

Yes LtCanada Falaise was an intersting battle and I think the Poles were in there as well with the Canadians. Dano6 I think your assessment of the battle and Monty are a little simplistic. There is plenty of debate among historians about the relative merits of the decisions made and the tardiness in "closing the pocket" but it wasn't all up to Monty, other allied commanders (Bradley for one) weren't exactly eager either. Anyway if you want to have a discussion about it I am sure that their are plenty of people around here happy to oblige.

[dano6]

LT
I in no way meant that the canadians faced an inferior force or that they performed poorly. What I meant is that they faced a tough assignment in trying to get to Falaise. My main complaint is the political postering that went on during this time. Just as your talk of the US taking the glory by going to Paris. What should have been done was closing the gap as soon as possible. Monty under no circumstances was going to allow anybody other than his forces close the gap no matter how long it took and how many German forces escaped. Bradley knew this and did not allow Patton to push past Argentan to Falaise. Patton could have easily closed to Falaise and probably farther north on August 13-14, 1944. What I see here is the useless loss of allied life due to the arrogance of a commander. The Canandians and Polish pushed against the Germans at Caen and paid a heavy price. An alternate plan could have been formed with the break through of the US 5th armored to Argentan. Monty could have swallowed his pride and allowed a link up of forces farther north. This would have cost less lives in mine and many others opinions. LT CANADA I in no way feel the Canadians and for that matter the Polish failed in any way what-so-ever, their commander failed to see an alternative that cost many lives and a complete victory. I know you have your historical view of the conflict and feel the US had it easy. Remember the useless loss of life for no real purpose is just murder. Monty either refused to see an alternative or he refused to swallow his pride and accept an alternative solution to a set plan. This in my opinion is terrible judgement and not worth any type of excuse. You might feel that Monty was a great leader, but you cannot change my opinion of this leader. He was a big part of one of the biggest blunders of WW2 due to what I see a pure pride. Remember that Pattons 5th armored was within 6 miles of Falaise on the 13th of August and could have kept driving to close the gap north past Falaise. Isn't fighting to win the war just that, not fighting to say my country did better than yours.

dano6
No offense meant, just my view.

[dano6]

Actually Simon my views are not "simplistic" but my short explanation is. What you are referring to as to Bradley not wanting to close the gap along with Eisenhower is a political decision that has to do with Patton winning the war. At that time Patton was under a press blackout and his sudden pressence closing the Falaise pocket would have enraged the British and had the Americans in an uproar. This is again political posturing at the strategic level. If Monty had agreed to allow Patton to move farther north to Falaise past Carentan, I'm sure that Bradley would have agreed. Patton even asked Monty(his aide actually) for permission to push to Falaise. Monty denied this request and took another 5 days to close the gap. If Monty had swallowed his pride then that might have went down in history as one of the best decisions of WW2. Instead his decision allowed many thousands of German troops to escape ruining what could have been a crushing victory. As for my simplistic view of things, I don't believe that they are. I have a very good grasp on what was not done at Falaise and the reasons why. I would love to have a discusion of this battle.

dano6

[Big Time Software]

Hey, this discussion is dull. Let's spice it up a bit:

Mark Clark was one of the best Allied generals of the war.

Discuss amongst yourselves http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Steve

P.S. I am kidding!!!!!!!

[guachi]

Last year I watched a show on The History Chanel called, I think, 'Up the Deadly Boot' which was about the Italian campaign. I believe it was a two-part show.

Good show. It gave me new respect for the difficulties Clark faced.

Steve, thanks for the info on the sturmgruppe and escort companies. I wasn't quite expecting a complete TO&E. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Also, thanks for the screenshot of the Commonwealth company. I gather that red is for HQ, but why is the mortar team in yellow?

Jason

[dano6]

Mark Clark huh? Don't even get me going. Talk about murdering his own men for glory!!

I guess it has gotten dull, sorry for the rant.

dano6

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark Clark huh? Don't even get me going. Talk about murdering his own men for glory!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For some reason whenever I ponder the skills of Clark,MacArthur also springs to mind-wonder why that is? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Mike

[LT CANADA]

First of all I agree with Dano about Clark he was a glory seeker. But during Falaise it was also Bradleys opinion that Patton could not hold falaise and Trun. The Germans would have bashed through his roadblock and coused the deaths of lots of Americans. Monty decided that it would be better for a strong mobile corps to close the gap than a dangerously overstretched armoured battlegroup! Monty was also slow becouse the politics affected him to. Britain,Canada and Poland had very little replacements left after the Normandy campaign. Monty's job was to get that gap closed in the quickest possible time with the least amount of casualties. Anyway thats my opinion, I did however forget to mention the 1st Polish armoured division that was in the 2nd Canadian corps, the 1st Polish division took many casualties in getting that gap closed. I felt I had to address that.

[dano6]

One last post on the subject:

On August 13, the 5th US armored and the 2nd French armored division reached Carentan and went beyond to within six miles of Falaise. They met very light resistance nearing Falaise. They could have easily went into Falaise and closed the trap. With the 5th and 2nd on the south jaw of the trap. Meyers Hitler youth would have to let up on the Canadians to protect their rear. Monty could have taken advantage and moved all of his forces forward blocking any escape. With the trap shut all German forces would flee into a huge amount of armored forces. Remember at the southern jaw of the trap, only the FR 2nd armored and 80th and 90th infantry held at Carentan on the 17th and 18th of August while the Germans attacked to keep the escape route open. With the 5th and 2nd armored in Falaise and the 3rd to the south, holding would have been much easier, especially with the canadians, poles and english all attacking against fleeing units on the 13th or 14th of August. Also remember that that moron Hitler did not authorize a pull out until the 17th. With the 5th, 3rd and 2nd also in the picture instead Pattons 3rd corps racing toward the Orleans I think the trap would have remained shut and captured more of the German army. Remember once the trap was shut all hell would have broke loose in the German units trying to escape. Everyone would have been trying to get out at the same time. Would have been interesting to see what would have been the outcome if political pressures and posturing would have been left at the dinner table and true tactics would have taken over. Bradley felt the US had done their jobs by getting to Argentan, Monty wanted the glory for closing the gap for the British. Eisenhower let Bradley talk him into not closing the gap. And Monty pissed both off both Bradley and Eisenhower by suggesting an offensive to Germany with the British in the lead even before he closed the Falaise Gap. Both felt that Monty hadn't done his job. If all of these egos could have worked together and seen the possibilities at Falaise then the war might have ended earlier or at least Falaise might have been the ultimate victory due to a little help from Hitler himself.

These are just my opinions and no offense is meant by them

dano6

[Big Time Software]

Jason, you got full TO&E's because I had them in a text file within easy reach. The Brit stuff isn't in front of me, so a game shot proved to kill two questions with one stone http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif Major unit types are color coded in the editor so you can better see what is what. Artillery is yellow for example.

Steve

[Rob Deans]

"Artillery is yellow for example"

Does this mean that the 2" mortar is classified as artillery? Can it shoot indirectly in the game?

Thanks,
Rob Deans

[jim crowley]

Just a small point of detail, but I believe that the make-up of a standard British section (squad) was:

Section Leader; 1 Sten
Rifle Group; 6x Rifle
Bren Group; 1 Bren, 2x rifle.

Cheers

Jim

[Big Time Software]

Jim, this is the "official" TO&E. However, the British made 2million Sten guns. Someone had to use 'em http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif In practice there were as many as 4 per squad, but we standardized on an "average" of 2.

Rob, the grouping is solely for visual purposes in the editor. For example, all tanks and AFVs are colored the same. Has no impact of bearing on the game itself. Off map mortars can fire indirectly, on map ones can not. The difference is that on map mortars are considdered to be their own spotters, while off map stuff has a FO team.

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

Can on map mortars fire blind? The accuracy might be horrid, but I assume they could at least lob shells in the right general direction...

[Rob Deans]

"on map ones <mortars> can not"

Thank you. As it should be for the 2". Then again you guys seem to have your sh*t wired tight so this comes as no suprise. Is this wise, though, for larger calibres of mortars, 3", 81mm, etc which I asume can be represented as on board assets. Will the "mortar platoons" (ie battalion level mortars) will be represented by an off board asset? (I'm talking 3" and 81mm here not 4.2" or 120mm, etc)

Thanks

Rob Deans

[Big Time Software]

Rob, we do have lots of wire, don't we? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

As for firing blind and spotting, on map stuff can fire blind (I think they can http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif). I don't do this sort of thing much because ammo is limited so I would rather use it when I know I can hit something. Plus, the size of a 60mm round isn't something that is good for blind firing. The chance of an accidental hit is not very good.

The biggest on map mortar is the 81, but it is optional. US 60mm, UK 2", and Ger 50mm (obsolete, but in service) are all on map only. The largest on map stuff is generally in the form of SP artillery, but up to a German IG 150mm can be found on map.

Steve

[Big Time Software]

OK, how does this look?

http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/airborne.jpg

Note there is a small texture mapping problem on the indside thigh that we will fix. Also, these boys need some jump boots!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-08-99).]

[R Cunningham]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Note there is a small texture mapping problem on the indside thigh that we will fix. Also, these boys need some jump boots!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, combat low quarters were dropped in the Feb 41 version of AR 670-1. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif And those boots should be brown.

I just noticed, perhaps because this is the closest shot I've seen of the Infantry, that those weapons look really good.

BTW, shouldn't this have gone in the new screenshots thread?

[Bobb]

Things are looking in the appearance of the
troopers. Their faces don't look quite so pink and freshly polished. They do seem to have somewhat receeding chin lines.

Only improvement in general that I could recommend is that their helmets look more like bowls. They more resemble the Soviet job than the US helmet.

It does look like the heads are more in porportion to the body rather than too large as they seemed to me previously. Hope this is not due to the close up view but something more fundimental.

[Big Time Software]

Correct! Wrong thread! Ooops http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif I'll leave it here though just because.

Yup, brown boots. Got a pair of them myself. Size 7 doesn't fit on a size 10 foot very well though!

Yeah, the weapons do look cool. A long time ago they were just colored polygons. I said "hey Charles, how about putting in some textures instead". He said, "cooooool, let's do it". Thankfully we both like guns so we had plenty of materials to draw from http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

I see the jaw problem. Easy fix. Helmets are going to stay the way they are. To make them look better would require too many polygons. Next version http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Also, keep in mind that normally you don't get this up and personal with your men.

Steve

[Bobb]

Steve, you did not make any comment on the head porportion observation. In all other shots the heads seemed to me to be too large and contributed to a doll like appearance. Am I wrong in thinking that there has been an adjustment there? You also did not take up the thing about their face color. Here I see 5 o'clock shadow as you would expect of men living in the field, (unless they are Patton's troops). I had always before noted the guys looked too clean faced. Is this improvement just a matter of seeing them from up close or is it an actual improvement?

Ain't it a wonderful thing to be picking on such nit details rather than having spotting or something else fundimental screwed? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Rook]

Couldn't agree more. I'd rather complain about adherance to dress code than whether or not it is realistic for a shot up infantry squad to take out a Panzer in an open field just because the computer damage model says it's possible (civ players should remember things like this happening) Not that I would really complain too loudly about such niggling little details when the computerized lead starts flying http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Brian

[Fionn]

The old faces had 5 o'clock shadow too but we didn't get up close and personal with them much previously.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Big Time Software]

Bobb, this is a completely new face/head texture. As Fionn said, the other one did have a 5 o'clock shadow, but it really didn't show up too well. As for the head thing... dunno, but we made no code changes so far as I know.

Angle and closeness have a lot to do with perceptions of proportions in 3D games, as with real life. I think you just notice it much more in the game since your eyes are looking for flaws. I mean everybody's eyes, even mine. When you are presented with a simulation of reality, in whatever form, your brain works overtime to pick it apart to prove that it is not reality. That is just how our brains work http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif A simulation of reality (painting, game, whatever) is just a trick to fool your brain into recognizing things as identifiable reality.

Steve

[Bobb]

Steve, well, it is true that an above the head view makes the head look larger in porportion. So as you say it is likely the view. I attempted to count the number of head lengths it takes to take the measure of the soldier's body. It appears about 6 and 1/2.
best I can tell which is in the ballpark. I think I recall an art teacher mentioning 7 as appropriate, but I can't be sure my memeory is correct. At any rate dirtier faces is a distinct improvement. True what you say about the eye. I had always been drawn to focus on those damned pink shining faces in an untoward and jarring manner.

About the helmets, I would suppose you guys have already worked them to a fair-the-well, so I am probably spinning wheels uselessly; could they be slightly reconfigured in their present polygons so that they would be more flattened on top and flair less at the bottoms? The US helmets had rather more vertical sides when viewed from the front. These would not be too bad for Soviet helmets. But what the hell, A good soldier can fight as well in a Soviet helmet as a US one.

Picking on cosmetics is a good sign. But, not necessarily one to be taken too seriously if it delays productivity.

[Los]

Hey while you are gussying up paratroopers don't forget them fallschirmjaeger. Their combat smocks (bone sacks)need to go down to around mid-thigh!

Los

[MikeO]

Any idea where 'Ack-pack' flamethrowers would be found in the British/Commonwealth TOE? I've got a pretty detailed book on organisation and equipment called 'The British Soldier 1944-45, Vol.2' by J. Bouchery but it doesn't indicate who used them. In fact it doesn't show an infantry div. as having any in its equipment list. Para divs are shown as having a theoretical total of 38 but no further details. I assumed engineers would be the likely candidates but the section in the book on the Royal Engineers doesn't seem to indicate any concept of 'assault engineers' apart from the specialist armour of the 79th.

Something I did find interesting was that although a para div only had about 2/3 the manpower of an inf div it had almost twice as many 2inch mortars and a far higher proportion of stens.

Will British Commando squads be in the game or is their use too limited?

Cheers,
Mike

[Big Time Software]

No British Commando units. As for flamethrowers, they are tricky. Not sure about the Brits off hand, but the German and US had lots of them. The thing is the team was not a dedicated one. In other words 2 "lucky" soles from a normal Engineer squad would be "volunteer" to use them when needed. Otherwise they walked around with a rifle instead. The problem for CM is that the 2 men have to come from somewhere, but making a partially depleted squad presented problems for us. So what we did istead was cut the number of FTs in half and gave them 4 men for "free". Seeing as it is unlikely that all FTs would be available for action at the same time, this isn't an unrealsitic compromise.

Steve

[Thomm]

Excellent job on those faces !! Thanks, BTS !

Next issue: The guys are not really kneeling, but in a (rather tense) position on the tip of their toes ! Maybe you could bend the knee a little bit until it touches the ground ?! Just a thought ...

Regards,
Thomm

[tgra]

I've come to realise that I was beginning to get blase about CM.
When I first saw the Battlefront site, I thought WOW. Then I downloaded the movies and read the LOS article and nearly wet myself.
After a few months of posts stating "This is in, this is out, this is how this works" etc I began taking it all for granted.

Seeing the texture on those weapons has just blown me out of the water again. If I remember correctly the battlefield is a couple of miles square, in full 3D, with true LOS and FOW.... and the chaps are putting textures on each bloody gun???? Absolutely amazing.

Oh yeah!!! that texture on the inside of the right thigh really needs to be tidied up........Do you chaps iron your underpants as well...

[Apocal]

I have also been wondering if Flamethrowers are going into CM. It would be cool to lay down suppresive fire on a bunker, then rush up Assault Engineers equipped with Flamethrowers and demolition charges to take it out of action.

BTW, does anyone know of a good online source for TO&Es? Ive been having a bit of trouble finding them.

apocal@wa.freei.net
ICQ: #45055966

Thanks in advance.

------------------
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."
Sir Winston Churchill

[Moon]

This seems to be a good source:

http://slightning.thegamers.net/whatsnew.html

[Fionn]

Flamethrowers are in. Read the AARS.. I had two flamethrowers...

There are even more in the new build so I hear *chuckle*.. I love FTs..



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Big Time Software]

Thomm, optical illusion. The knees are touching the ground. But without shadows it is hard to tell that, especially on the white ground. Pespective might also have something to do with it.

Yup, FTs are very much in. Hardly usefull if you aren't VERY carefull with them (right Fionn? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif).

We just put in the British Crocodile. Nasty bugger!

Steve

[Bamse]

Great job on those GI's but.....

I get scared that you put too much time in grafik and to little in AI.

Grafik wont matter if the game isn't great !

I don't want another Braveheart ! Please...

[Thomm]

Dear Steve !

You said that the knees do touch the ground.
With all respect, but I do not think this is possible with the current 90 degrees (or so they appear) joint angles.
But: I can very well be true that the knee touches the ground (I realized this when I considered only the front leg/foot and the knee) but if so, the FOOT of the kneeling leg would penetrate the ground. So maybe you should rotate this foot or bend the kneeling leg a little bit. Actually very easy to find out yourself, if you do not mind to "go on your knee" for the sake of the game http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif. In any case I keep insisting that the current kneeling posture looks artificial and too much like a Yoga exercise ! Too many right angles ! But it seems that we have identified the problem, namely the back foot !

Regards,
Thomm

[This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 10-12-99).]