Joachim

Question: Did the US POWs killed near Malmedy have any ammo left? Cause then you say you would have been tempted to kill them - if you were in Peipers place. I do not state that not a single German soldier raped Russians/Soviets. Of course there were rapes. I only state that rape was forbidden as such and due to "race theory" and thus doubt the numbers. I ain't indifferent to the death of anybody (well, a few exceptions, but if I had to judge them I would force myself to get rid of emotions). And it does not matter much whether there were large scale rapes or not. There were enough crimes just as worse. But I believe that one of the most important laws is that anybody has the right for a lawyer. Including freshly captured POWs. If you want to shoot them on the spot, that is plain wrong. Just as wrong as the "Kommando-Befehl" ordering to wipe out any commando troop by killing them in action. If the death penalty is "acceptable", it at least needs a neutral court. Emotions lead away from neutrality and thus are not acceptable when judging about lifes.

That's the Geneva convention. You sign it, you obey it. You break it after your country signed it - you're a criminal. Morally and legally. Pretty easy on paper. RL is another matter. But if you state that you are the Good Guy you gotta live it. If you don't live it - which right (except vae victis, of course) makes you the judge over others? Soviets did not sign the Geneva convention pre-WW2, so the eastern front (regarding SU and anybody fighting the SU) was not subject to it. No law - no crime to judge under that law. So it's hard to judge Peiper on that (legally that is, morale is another matter). Regarding naming the concentration camps - well, initially they were concentration camps for prisoners of many kinds. Just use the same name as the Brits did. A quick solution if you don't have the time to build real prisons but face lots of fresh prisoners - just like the Brits did. Somehow those concentration camps have a tendency for high death rates in many nations. But in GE some turned into "Vernichtungslager" - which means annihilation camps. But the majority remained labor camps. Death thru labor there is another matter, but not the industrial scale mass extinction. And I don't believe in 20m rapes in Russia. Torture, murder, yes. But rape would have been "Rassenschande". "Crime against race" - Aryan blood was not allowed to be mixed. One could face the death penalty for it. From a pure morale pov, I'd punish those just inventing that word. Regarding Soviet war crimes - no Geneva convention, no crime. But Soviets are not the topic I want to discuss here. Please note that I am devil's advocate here. Everybody has the right for a lawyer (though I am a mathematician). Gruß Joachim For those able to read German, there is an interesting article and further sources here: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article4541402/Neue-Studie-belegt-duestere-Wehrmachtsgeschichte.html

Himmler, Göring, Eichmann, Goebbels, ... Yes, I'd even do it myself. With my own hands if necessary. Yet after a guilty verdict that is 100% clear of any "vae victis" justice. Which in these cases is pretty easy. Peiper. Hmmm. German authorities are not allowed to examine allied war crimes. Hmm. A similar number of personnel from the LAH is sentenced than there are victims at Malmedy. Most death sentences resulting from Malmedy are turned into prison. Peipers death sentence is not carried out, turned into jail sentence in '51. Hmmm. Just wondering why. Another question: Ever heard of the "Rheinwiesen"? German ex-soldiers in early '45 dying in the open, without being feed. Thousands. They were declared "Disarmed enemy forces" to evade the Geneva convention regarding POWs. Would you kill Eisenhower for that? Can you condemn somebody from the "bad" side for something you accept from your own "good" soldiers? This is war. The first victim in a war is innocence. Judging from outside is pretty easy.

If you'd feel like that in RL, it probably wouldn't make you any better than him.

Horse mounted fire brigades where not the heart of the army. They were the troops guarding thinly manned yet fortified (as in: wall with guard towers) borders. There was no central army in the later stages of the empire. Bigger threats on one border were handled by thinning out other borders - or by persuading the invaders to become border guards. Which changed the type of the "Legion" to the fighting style of the new border guards. The Legion saw many changes from 1 AD to 450 AD Sidenote: Even Ceasar mounted a Legion (XI Equestris IIRC) after the Gauls wiped out his Cav.

If not only Vista speaks German but CMBB, too, then it is "Combat Mission BB Voreinst". At least in my German XP with German BB. Gruß Joachim

They were in longest. They had the longest serving vets (it's the conscripts that die quickly). Their training focussed on the responsibility and decison making of each individual (contrary to fascism) yet emphasized the necessity of teamwork. Most importantly: They had lost the last war - but had found some good tactics at the end of WW1. Lessons learned. The good ideas were not unique - but the good ideas got heard by those in power. Lazy market leader vs hungry 2nd place. Add: Marian Reforms around 100 BC when they changed to professional soldiers. Imperial army looked different again. Lots of aux troops - any time, but around 100 BC the former aux became Romans and other people (Tribes) became aux. Late empire Aux became mainstay. The use of missile troops increased over time. Defense of the limes was done by a light screen and mounted troops in reserve - pretty much like the German armored fire brigades. Those mounted troops bear little resemblance to the classic legion. The Legion did change.

At least in CMBB the terrain can get dry. In CMAK I guess it will dry, too.

'39: 44-47 men in a standard plt (TOE) '45: 31-33 men in a standard plt (TOE) Yet the firepower and AT-capabilities are higher in '45. The 2nd LMG adds tactical variants for certain plt types. VG Fuesilier and Grenadier, Volkssturm and Sturmkompanie arrive - with different tactics. Certain inf company types vanish. On the company level, 5cm mortars are dropped, Schrecks added, etc. OTOH the legions dropped the triarii, added much more missile troops and even used mechanical arty. Plus organizational changes reflecting newer tactics, too. But that took decades or even centuries.

CMBB, Mar' 45. Vet/Crack Soviets vs Reg/Vet/Crack GE. Soviets do have a few ATRs, some DSHk 12.7mm, many MMGs, some 37mm preferring remaining stealthy. a few RPGs with AT teams, some sappers, some SMG troops. 2 M17s. 82mm, 120mm FOs. 76mm IG, 57mm ATG. T34/85 and ISU 122 are mostly kept turret down due to 6-10 JPzIV/70 in perfect overwatch position. HTs were a PITA. They drove to within 50m of Soviet inf and usually survived. But there were more HTs than weapons that could kill them while remaining stealthy and thus alive. Read: HTs with Übertanks in overwatch do work. Other battles saw a) HTs and Armor in village vs Soviet tanks in overwatch on front and flank. HTs die like flies. HTs dropping inf near woods with a few SMG halfsquads and T34s in pursuit. PzGren die like flies. HTs are faster in reverse than T34 on hunt. Here HTs did not work. So it really depends on how you use HTs.

@Vark The "Print" or "PrintScreen" button works for me (WinXP). On my keyboard it is just to the right of F12. It copies the screen, then you can paste it into Paint, IrfanView, whatever graphics progam you like. Even into Word. Right click? Hm... that does not work with me

Use the "Go advanced"-Button instead of "Quick reply". Then there is a "Manage Attachments"-link just below the where you type your post. Follow instructions from there. Smoke is the only useful thing for small caliber arty if you neither get treebursts nor the target is in the open. Anybody tried moving the tank behind the Co HQ? IIRC units suffer a morale penalty when armor is behind them. Gruß Joachim

You need good planning to get a city that looks realistic but still fits your intentions. Use different quarters on different heights. Small dispersed bldgs as suburbs on slopes and mostly flat terrain for the large stone bldgs. If you need slopes in the city center: Slopes in backyards or parks, maybe cemetaries. Using a road along the slope might work - but road traffic is slow then

You can't place buildings on/near slopes. The most annoying thing is "near" slopes, as you won't see them on the 2d map. Once the 3D-map creates a slight slope on the construction ground, the building vanishes. Gruß Joachim

@John Depends on which side you play But yes, for Tux it would be awful.

Now for the tactics: I wouldn't move the IS. Killing those inf that fire at yours, maybe some smoke to cover your inf advance. The IS has an awesome ROF. Tiger gets 1st, 3rd and 4th shot. Odds: Odds in a duel, Tiger vs IS at short ranges. I guestimate both have the same kill chance on that range. Tiger hits better, but IS kills better when it hits 25% for a first shot kill of the IS (1-25%)*25% for the death of the Tiger (1-25%)*(1-25%)*25% for the death of the IS (1-25%)^3*25% for the death of the IS The sum is clearly in favor of the Tiger. So if that flag doesn't mean everything, the gain ain't worth the risk. Result if you kill the Tiger: Lots of points. But you still don't own the flag. Even inf can kill your IS closing in towards the flag. Still a solid win, as each Tiger is worth a flag. Plus you lost time better spent on suppressing the inf that stops your inf advance. Result if you lose the IS: Sound loss. Result if you just kill the inf in reach and try to advance your inf You risk a few points in inf, but should score some kills, too. Maybe mylgas does something stupid with his Tiger to keep the flag. He needs points, too. If not much happens, you should get a marginal victory. If you manage to contest the flag with your inf, you should score better. If you go for the duel, you will most likely loose.

@Tux: Thanks for the good and enjoyable work! (Well, enjoyable for the readers )

Attacking is a disadvantage because the defender is usually hidden, in prepared positions and can chose when to open up (compare it to Clausewitz statement of the defender having the initiative). From carefully pre-selected places with LOS checked while setting up, units positioned to support each other etc. Attacking an enemy that has moved, is usually spotted and not in mutually supporting positions means attacking an enemy that gave up all of these advantages. That's why German doctrine urged to counter-attack instead of waiting for reinforcements Thus in a ME the side stopping earlier with no LOS established yet is more like the "actual defender" as it is mostly unseen, can open up on favorable terms and could deploy without incoming, which usually means according to plan. Having lots of intel about the enemy helps avoiding risks. It lets you calculate your chances better and you need less reserves to cope with yet unseen enemies, thus you can use a larger part of your force in the initial exchange of fire - thus increase the odds. An example is Tux' 57mm ATG. Once located it is most likely dead. The only problem is that deploying too far back means you won't get a chance to open up - so choose the location carefully. You must destroy enough enemy forces to achieve attacker odds near the flag.

Some people do not calculate their risks and chances but hope on luck. Whenever there is an opportunity for a duel, they grab it.

Luck is important. I had a JPzIV/70 hit the front of a ISU122 causing no damage while the return round gave a partial pen, forcing the JPzs crew to bail (hit chance: 10%, kill chance: none). That happened over 1200m distance and saved my right flank (the ISU was on the left flank). It is a game based on random numbers. Even though in the long run luck will be equally distributed a single battle usually does not have enough (30+) deciding incidents to eliminate luck. But do not overestimate luck. If you always blame losing on bad luck, you might be a gambler that takes any chance without considering the involved risks. Remember that even in poker luck ain't everything.

Reviewing would be easy if you would take notes on where you got it. Or if the authers would put those notes into the briefing. I guess many even do that. If you really select such odd forces, then well... it ain't rushing but not knowing when to abandon your objective. You know that you have to do it sometimes. But you don't always do it when it must be done. Inexperienced forces are terrible. Try them as early war Soviets and they are even worse

Fiction or movie star. Hull reminds me of T34 - but some details (bow MG) are missing. Same for a Panther. The tracks would also reach further above the nose for both. Turret is pretty much forward like on the T34 - but both T34 and Panther have a bigger gun shield, so none of their turrets. The muzzle brake looks like 88L56, but not the barrel.

Make sure you win the field Apart from that: There is a setting in the parameters. IIRC vehicles re-appear in the morning - if they re-appear at all.

If all of the results were total victories, you'd be good. But given the total losses, it looks like you play "all or nothing", probably bunch up, maybe rush. Try a more realistic approach. Even losing "just" 10% of your force means your force is gone after a few weeks - which is the an outlier, like Stalingrad. So whenever you defend, make sure you have got a way out for your troops. An when attacking, make sure you have the firepower to bail out your point and advance cautiously. If you play QBs anyway, try RobO's campaign. You've got a core force that you take thru many battles. Saving them for another day is more important than winning there.

The problem with quick battles is that you can very much guestimate the enemy force as you know the allowed points. this takes much of the uncertainty about your force. So just as you can calculate what his points allow him besides his Tigers, he can do with yours.