Jump to content

Bil Hardenberger

Members
  • Content Count

    4,295
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    42

Bil Hardenberger last won the day on March 3

Bil Hardenberger had the most liked content!

About Bil Hardenberger

  • Rank
    Beta Tester since 1999

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Virginia Beach, Virginia

Converted

  • Location
    Richmond, VA
  • Occupation
    Computer Animator

Recent Profile Visitors

7,358 profile views
  1. I will be the dissenting voice here.. WW1 combat at the CM level was not all about static trench warfare and trench raids with a few tanks thrown in for flavor. In the opening phases it was a war of maneuver, punch and counterpunch,.. I highly recommend you look up the Battle of the Frontiers. Also warfare on the east, in Romania, and in Italy was more about maneuver than static combat. I have read Rommel's Infantry Attacks several times and it definitely does not illustrate a static war... although I can also see where trench raids etc. would be very interesting at this scale too (and yes there are a few of those in Rommel's work). I also have no problem with it being primarily an infantry focused game (though tanks were not all the large slow lumbering behemoths you picture).. it would be a unique and little gamed period that was the birthplace (or the re-birth IMO) of modern infantry tactics. Very interesting and rich period that I would love to see represented in CM someday. Sign me on. Bil
  2. All good points.. however re: the Gulf War, it also took the planners in the US Army by surprise, as all wargaming predicted around 30,000 Coalition casualties during Desert Storm.. so even the professional wargame algorithms were miles off from reality even in the early 90s. In my opinion Fulda would have been a Warsaw Pact blood bath (after 1983 anyway), and the North German Plain would not have been much better with all of the river crossings and village sized strongpoints the WP would have had to cross... fascinating subject though. I also seriously doubt nukes would have been used, not at least until one side or the other was on the ropes.. but biological weapons? Oh yeah, those would have been used by the WP (Soviets mainly) and they were the one big trump-card the WP would have had in their toolbox that could really hurt the western allies... but would it have been enough? Doubtful, though the cost in western military and civilian casualties would have been astronomical. Bil
  3. Sounds fun Sly and I love the concept.. sort of an interactive Tactical Decision Game. Best idea for a tournament I've heard, so kudos. Too bad I never play tournaments... just don't have the time unfortunately, but I'm sure it'll be a success for you. I will be watching the results. Bil
  4. If you have CMFB then you already have the Germans at their best equipped... their issues were beyond the tactical battlefield (as mentioned below) but the tactical battlefield was severely impacted by those factors. It isn't what force you command though that makes this game amazing... and everybody likes commanding the Germans, even though by the end of the war the US probably had the most efficient Army (my opinion), the Russians the most feared, and the Germans had been outclassed in doctrine, training, logistics, replacement process, intelligence, and small unit capability. A few scattered shiny Tigers could never make up for those shortcomings... occasionally they made a difference at the lowest level of course.. but there were too many other issues compounding the German's tactical finesse and capability in the negative. CMFI is more of a challenge as there is more parity in armor and infantry. So.. if you are looking for parity between the forces go for any of the West front games especially CMFI, but CMFB, or CMBN as well. You can set any small battle up to be as balanced or as realistically unbalanced as you like regardless of the actual game family. If you are looking for historical accuracy though, by the end of the war the German Army was "challenged" to be kind. Bil
  5. By the way @Holien Figure 50 of that document includes the ranges for each radio type in kilometers. Have fun. Bil
  6. I think the main German advantage was the fact that they had radios in every tank..(or most tanks) so tank platoons and tank companies were far more flexible then their counterparts. However I still think comms between companies would probably have been a no-no. German (leg) infantry "might" have a radio at the rifle platoon level, but early war? Maybe not... I wouldn't bet on it. They seemed to be mainly well equipped re: radios in mobile formations. That being said, even the radios they did have may have been receive only below the tank leader's tank/AC, etc. I don't know for sure, but early war all of this was new, so I am sure it wasn't as prevalent as you may think. I would bet there is a US Army study available somewhere that lays this all out. By the way the Handbook on German Military Forces has great detail on German radio sets. I'm sure it's available online.. even tells you which sets were used at what echelon. Bil
  7. Doubt ranges would be very long but I don't have the information handy. Comms between Companies... are you sure that was even possible? I am not sure how the different radio nets were set up, but I don't know if that is a common link. They may only be able to communicate with Battalion during the early war, and then have communications relayed.. but I wonder how coordinated different Companies were, regardless of the nationality in the early war. Bil
  8. I haven't been successful since the first week... I wonder if paying customers have the same issues. Bil
  9. @Holien Fascinating. So it was more of a Free Kriegspiel type game. I guess these games planned for groups of individuals who are expecting something else entirely are a shot in the dark.. still I like the idea of using games to teach a lesson.. how many of the participants actually "got it" I wonder. Very interesting post, thanks for sharing. Bil
  10. I would love to hear more about your game with Paddy... this kind of wargaming history fascinates me. Much like the invasion of Fulda wargame (late 70s I think) where General's Balck and von Mellenthin commanded the NATO forces defending against a Soviet invasion. You're making me wish I lived in Oxford. There are no wargame organizations like that near me sadly. Bil
  11. Very interesting @Erwin.. thanks for posting the link. Bil
  12. @BletchleyGeek and @Splinty, modify the rules anyway you want. I doubt though that a Company CO would send a valuable mortar crew on a scouting mission even if their tube was unusable. Bil
  13. Yep, he was using my map.. but he also said he didn't have it when I asked him about it early in CMSF 2 development.
  14. Made the edit to fix the error that @Sgt.Squarehead pointed out... ...also made a tweak to Rule 4.c.ii and what constitutes a scout team. I got to thinking that not just any team can fill that role, and to keep players from using things like dismounted mortar or vehicle crews as scouts. Let me know what you think. Hard-Cat Rules PDF Link Also updated the images and the link in the original post. Bil
×
×
  • Create New...