PiggDogg

Matt & BFC, Forgive my just above post. I forgot that no political stuff should be published here. Too much Katrina aftermath. I erased my just above post. I have been a bad, bad boy. Richard

Erased by PiggDogg. Richard [ October 16, 2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Guys, I think what Jason was looking for in the way of a good company level simulation is Victory Games' Panzer Command by Eric Lee Smith, circa 1984. Here is a link to a short review by "Mircea Pauca" <mpauca@fx.ro> and a game review by Jerry Taylor I go back to the dawn of modern board wargaming in 1958-60 when I was 10-12 years old. At that time I played the only wargames available on earth, Avalon Hills' Tactics II and their original rectangular unit version of Gettysburg. In the 60s, I purchased every AH game published until I subscribed to S&T in 1969. I have nearly every S&T magazine game and SPI game released. I closely followed board wargaming until about 1995 when I went computer. In short, I've seen about as much board wargaming as anyone. From a long, long wargamer view, Panzer Command along with Eric Smith's/Victory Games' American Civil War & S&T/AH's Frederick The Great are probably among the most historically correct feeling simulations and playable of board wargames to have ever been published. Among the hundreds of games that I have played, these three are the best gems balancing historical simulation correctness and playability. Panzer Command puts one in the position of a German division commander or its Russian counterpart, set in Fall 42 to Spring 43 at the Chir River bend near Stalingrad. Among Panzer Command’s interesting elements is that the unit types had a proper feeling of relative strength. For example, a PzIII platoon was weaker than a T34 platoon in firepower, armor, and speed. However, the weaker PzIIIs could prevail against the stronger T34s because the PzIIIs’ command structure, the German division, was better than its Russian counterpart. During any time period, the weaker and slower Germans units would perform more action than similar Russian units. The Germans were given more command chits to allow their units to perform more actions than the Russians. Thus, during a time period, generally, despite PzIIIs being slower than T34s, they would move farther and could maneuver around the battlefield more than the T34s. Despite PzIIIs having less firepower than T34s, they could wear down the T34s by firing more frequently. Despite PzIIIs having weaker armor than T34s, they would recover from suppression and cohesion damage faster than T34s. Most other games usually handled weaker Germans units defeating bigger and more powerful Russian units by making the German units into super units with greater firepower, protection, and speed than the Russians. In Panzer Command, one sees that the weaker, slower, & outnumbered Germans did more with less. While the more powerful, technically faster, and numerically superior Russian force lumbered forward, the Germans bobbed, danced, and weaved. Panzer command is not perfect. However, in my long time wargame opinion, Panzer Command is one of the best (if almost the only) division command board simulations ever made. Indeed, I wish that it could be ported to the computer in a Combat Mission playable and enjoyable style. Panzer Command is a great wargame, one of the best ever made. In fact, maybe, CMx2 is bringing Panzer Command to life on the computer. If CMx2 is not doing this, it should. Cheers, Richard [ May 30, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Go to the Anthology of Useful Posts in the Tips & Tricks forum. Anthology Of Useful Posts in Tips & Tricks You will have a lot of reading and study. It will take time. However, such is just the way that life & CM go. Pay special attention to the JasonC posts and the post of a few others who post frequently & comprehensively. Hit those posts, & get to work. Cheers, Richard

The best thing to do is learn how infantry can cross open ground under fire. By far the best place to learn about all things CM is the Anthology Of Useful Posts. This is from the "Anthology" and is more directly on point. Infantry Advance. Unfortunately, the pictures are gone. As another hint, on any subject, read everything by JasonC on CM tactics or history. In all cases, you will learn a lot. It is a lot of reading, but, in order to get better in CM, it is up to you to put in the time required for reading, learning, and practicing. Cheers, Richard [ April 22, 2005, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Generally, in CM, if one has a number (at least 3 or 4) of on-map 81/82 mortars and they fire at enemy infantry in a small wooden building, the building will probably be toast within one minute. If these mortars do the same against an enemy in a small heavy/stone building, the building will possibly become toast after one minute. In all cases, even those described hereinafter, the objective is to toast the building within one minute so that the enemy in the building can't easily escape the building before it collapses. If the infantry is in any building when the building collapses, the infantry will suffer substantial casualties and possible elimination, especially if they are on upper floors during the collapse. If two or more 81/82 FOs (the more the better) target a small wooden building and the barrages start at the beginning of a minute turn, the small wooden building is probably toast within one minute. Regarding a small stone/heavey building in the same situation, the small stone/heavy building will probably last through one minute, but will be substantially damaged. Of course, while under barrage from two or more 81/82 FOs, infantry attempting escape from buildings or any terrain will suffer from the barrage while escaping. Regarding large wooden and large stone/heavy buildings, they take much more damage than their smaller counterparts. In order for these large buildings to be destroyed within one turn by 81/82 mortars, more than 3 or 4 on-map 81/82s and more than 2 81/82 FOs will be required. Generally, unless a large building is already substantially damaged, I would not waste 81/82 mortars (on-map or FOs) on large buildings. They are too hard to kill with such weak HE. Six to eight (preferably 8 or more) direct fire 75/76 HE throwers will toast even a large stone/heavy building within one turn. If there are direct fire, enemy vehicle HE thowers around, I generally don't set up on second floors of buildings. The risk is too great for death within one turn due to collapsing building parts. Regarding the attack on Foy in the fine series Band Of Brothers, it seemed that those US 60mm mortars targeted that building overly quickly and the explosions (if I remember correctly and if I am correct) seemed like 105 sized explosions. A bit earlier in that series, when E Company was under barrage in the forest outside Foy, the replication of that barrage seemed to be a superb and seemingly accurate representation of an 81 mm mortar barrage into woods. Those scenes (amongst a plethora of other seeming most accurate battle scenes in BOB) seemed to be some of the most accurate and most infrequently viewed battle scenes in war movies. Cheers, Richard [ April 21, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Please provide the citation and link for this above noted information. Such would be illuminating and informative. Cheers, Richard [ April 21, 2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

This might be a small bit of an exaggeration, but it is not too far off point. "Flamethrower teams are only good for killing guys who are going to die anyway." Cheers, Richard [ March 02, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

First, look up some of the halftrack threads in the Anthology Of Useful Posts. Especially, look up posts from JasonC (number 5490) Second, the short answer regarding CM halfie use is as follows. Do not expose halfies to any enemy MGs at ranges below 500 meters. 50 cals and AT rifles will slaughter halfies. Hvy MG42s will kill Allied halfies if given enough time, 2, 3, 4 turns. :eek: Give the halfies narrow keyhole fire lanes if they must fire. Generally, save halfies to the later stages of the battle when the enemy AT assets have been neutralized. Hope that this helps. Cheers, Richard

Nacht, Thanks. I used "generally" because in some situations, full squads might be better than 1/2 squads. For over 4 years, I have played the CMs well enough to compete most well and at least break even with the best in the world who play CM. During that time, I have played the CMs without using 1/2 squads except for skirmish lines and scouts. I guess that now I shall adjust my tactics to reflect the latest CM technology. Now, the real excitement and fun occurs by having to move approximately 40% more units and by keeping track of 1/2 squads of the same squad in order to keep them far enough apart from each other so that they do not recombine into full squads. :mad: One must change with the times. Thanks. Cheers, Richard [ February 26, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Ok, ok. CM half squads are the discussion. CM half squads has some relationship to real life. However, CM is the game which is being played. Let's cut to the quick. Question: in terms of CM the game only, ignoring gaminess, & ignoring real life, in each of the CMs (a. BO & b. BB & AK), are half squads generally better than whole squads? :confused: Cheers, Richard [ February 25, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Harry, Thanks, quite nice. Cheers, Richard

Vulture, Nice tourney. A great bit of fun. Cheers, Richard

Securityguard, The best arty for clearing trenches is lots of direct fire HE. Usually the best source of direct fire HE is tanks with at least 75 mm guns. Guns less than 75 will have difficulty being effective. Also, don't use just one tank beating a trench. Use 2, 3, 4, 5, or more tanks to clear a trench. :eek: Few things clear a small stretch of trench like 4, 6, or 8 T34s or PzIVs whacking the daylights out of a squad or two in a trench. :eek: Don't be afraid to use area fire into the trench because those infantry in the trench will have a tendency to go an unspotted icon after a bit of whacking. Cheers, Richard

Canuckgd, 88's has given you the best source of CM tactics info. If you read, learn, & apply, you will get better at CM. Richard

Canuckgd, 88's has given you the best source of CM tactics info. If you read, learn, & apply, you will get better at CM. Richard

No sneaky maneuvers have ever been used on me by human opponents. When they did something that I had not previously seen and it work against me, those tactics were lessons that I learned. :eek: Then, I used it in the next CM game. Cheers, Richard

I don't think that CMBO has trenches. Trenches were introduced in CMBB. Cheers, Richard

Generally, snipers will not fire at anything under 100 meters. While in good covering terrain, they are more likely to fire and be most effective between 200 and 500 meters. Also, one can order a sniper to fire at a particular target. However, they generally do a pretty fair job of choosing the juiciest and most lucrative targets on their own. This fact should be considered. An elite sniper firing at the proper range, 200 to 500 meters, should be quite effective on infantry crews (AT teams, mg crews, mortar crews) and tank commanders. In fact, he is so good that he may fire away his ammo too quickly. You may have to have him hide or restrict his line of fire to the shorter ranges in the 200 to 500 meter zone. Cheers, Richard

I've been running CMBO on Windows XP Professional since July 2002 with any problem or hiccup. Cheers, Richard

Send enemies that you captured into hiding far to your rear. Cheers, Richard

Very cool. I'd like to buy one. Cheers, Richard

Laggy Thorne, Yes, the great 1941 battles of encirclement are well known to students of WWII. It was never stated that you were "trying to put down the great Battle of [the] Bulge." As stated earlier, the great 1941 battles of encirclement are well known to students of WWII. I asked how the Battle of the Bulge was an encirclement battle. Also, I stated that it might be a bit of an overstatement to set forth that in terms of men & equipment that the Bulge was "nothing compared to those big encirclement battles throughout WWII" on the East Front. Despite being American and not to denigrate the Western Allies' contribution to WWII, I am well aware that the brave Russian peoples primarily ground Germany to a pulp and set Germany up for defeat by their massive sacrifices and by the gargantuan butcher bill that they paid. In my opinion, barring US nuclear weapons, it is doubtful that the western Allies could have paid or would have been willing to pay the butcher bill required to defeat Germany. Richard [ December 19, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

On offense, infantry FT teams are only good for killing enemies who are going to die anyway. On offense, if you apply this axiom and other enemies don't have a line of sight to the FT team, you might actually use the FT teams to some effect. An exception is when on defense, infantry FT teams are placed directly behind a line of friendly infantry. The enemy infantry becomes busy shooting at the friendly infantry just in front of the infantry FT teams. While this shooting goes on, the FT teams shoot over the heads of their infantry protectors and burns the enemy infantry to a cinder :eek: ... hopefully. Cheers, Richard

Maybe that zook was a really bad shot. I have seldomly, if ever have seen infantry AT teams passing up shooting at the closest enemy AFV. It is doubtful that your zook shot at an enemy AFV to which the zook did not have a line of sight. Cheers, Richard