OGF Keller

I've played and reviewed two in the series, and I give a lot of props to Sesam for doing this series. These are definitely worth playing, and have interesting wrinkles and the peculiarities of the Northern campaigns. Thanks to Sesam for his dedication in delivering this series to the CM community. I intend to play and review as many of these as I can over time.

Everyone, thanks for the comments, positive, negative or qualified -- or a combination of the three. As a newbie scenario designer, let me say a few things. First, I do not have the in-depth historical/theatre knowledge you see from guys like Berlichtingen, Sesam, Andreas, Rune, and other well know scenario designers. As a result, I probably won't do a truly historical scenario. Second, while I have a decent knowledge of small unit tactics, I hardly consider myself an expert. As such, I don't know whether I will EVER be able to create, on a consistent basis, scenarios that will be somehow great "tactical" challenges, or somehow so absorbing as a "game puzzle" that they will be irresistible. Instead, as a scenario designer, after my first two efforts, I think that I understand what my strengths will be. What I am inclined to do, and what I think I will be good at -- and which should, over time, set me apart somewhat in the design community -- is creating the unique atmosphere/sensations/ of a combat situation in the "abstract" world of CM. Not something that is historically precise (though it may be inspired by a real event), or an exercise in tactical gymnastics. But rather a scenario where you say to yourself "You know, this is REALLY visceral, stomach-churning stuff." In other words, I want to create "effects" but always in the context of a game with victory conditions, and a beginning and an end. When I did my first effort, "Hube's HQ Attacked," the objective was to create the sheer pandemonium that would ensue when an lightly armed HQ group is surprised by a band of AFV's. And though I got some mediocre ratings at The Depot(along with positive comments in an interesting disconnect), you know what?? I succeeded in doing EXACTLY what I set out to do. "Courtyard of Death" is COMPLETELY different than "Hube's HQ Attacked". But again, the plan was to create an entire "mini-world" of combat insanity. I am a firm believe in Truth-in-Labeling; and I think that in both cases, I followed through on that principle. So, I don't know whether I can create scenarios like "Jagermeister" where, in the end, it's a puzzle you have to solve. Those are better left to guys like Rune, who are WAY better at that sort of thing than I'll ever be. Instead, from me, I hope you'll see non-repetitive and unique ideas, where, when it's over, you will say, "Man I never thought something like THIS could happen!!" If you DO say that, then I've done a good job. [ February 02, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

A link to a more detailed OOB

Well, I am not quite sure where to put this, but for all of you CMers out there interested in these things, here it is. The USA Order of Battle for the upcoming Iraq campaign -- or, more specifically, troops under CENTCOM responsibility. Click on link below. US Forces OOB I am not sure it's such a good idea to have this stuff on the internet, but there it is, so what the heck, have a look see. GlobalSecurity.org is an amazing web site.

For those of you who like well-balanced TCP/IP or PBEM games...have a perverse fondness for close quarter urban fighting...where you can feel that your own throat is as parched as the combatants awash in the dust of crumbling buildings...where your hands shake at the prospect of disorienting combat... THIS one's for YOU!! It's called "Courtyard of Death." You can get by clicking below... Courtyard of Death at Scenario Depot Designed so the end result, no matter who wins, is high percentage casualties for both sides, along with carnage and sheer, unadulterated chaos. I'm telling you, this one is just INSANE it its brutality. The objective is to capture and hold a C-shaped, two-story heavy courtyard building, more or less in the center of the map, about a block square. Imagine it as perhaps Communist Party Headquarters – with all the inflated (yet tactically useless) prestige that winning and holding such a building would have to the respective adversaries. No artillery or air strikes (assume this has already been done); just a clash of infantry and pioneers, with a few powerful assault guns/AFVs to add some spice. Best played as two player; and with EFOW. If against AI, add +25% force balance and +1 experience bonus. Sewer movement allowed. Recommend sticking to scenario default. All units begin scenario in defilade to the enemy and organized by platoons -- so you can dive right in with little or no set up time. Thanks to playtesters Flying Cursor aka Master Dullard (who called it an "excellent game" and experienced in one turn something he had NEVER seen before, and might likely never see again) and Matti Vesanen (who said "excellent briefing. . . overall good scenario and. . . really exciting as a two-player game"). Do it...and then REVIEW IT!!! [ January 30, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

Sorry I haven't followed up on this yet..money earning work has intruded. But expect e-mails from me sometime next week. KK

Remember, the key principle here is to get reviews done for scenarios that have NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED up until this point. Great scenarios that they are, we don't need another review for Hill 312 or....grrrrr....Jagermeister (I'm sorry Tim, but I give it a 10 on the MADDENING meter!!!) So, here's is my general plan: First, we will start with just scenarios. Second, I will parcel out to each platoon member scenarios against the AI ONLY. Each of you will have a group to do. If by some chance a scenario that is against the AI has been reviewed by the time you get to it, then move onto the next. Third, when we have completed the vs AI scenarios, we with then do the two player ones. We will start from small, to medium, and then, last but not least, large. I will try to host one TCP/IP game per week, trying to solicit players outside The Platoon. Fourth, we will move onto operations. That should keep us going for quite a while. To come: some "standards" for review so we have a bit of consistency. I will e-mail them to you for comment, and when we reach consensus, I will publish them in this forum.

So far I have 5 volunteers for The Review Platoon. Anyone else want to join. On Friday, I will assign scenarios to the Platoon, with some basic guidelines and some procedures for moving through each member's list of scenarios to review.

I just finished doing a CMBB review at Scenario Depot, and what is interesting to me is that a number of the CMBB scenarios have LOTs of reviews, some have just one or two, others have NONE at all. And, it addition, as a newbie scenario creator, it was a kick to see my first effort reviewed almost immediately after it was posted. So, I would like to start The Review Platoon, a loose gathering of CMBB players whose mission is to play, and review, scenarios at the Scenario Depot so that EVERY scenario gets reviewed at least once. What I would propose is that members of the Platoon commit to the following: to play and review a scenario once every one or two weeks. If we had 5 volunteers, we could get 100 scenarios reviewed in a calendar year. And the more volunteers we could get, the faster we could get scenarios reviewed, and then we could add ADDITIONAL reviews to those scenarios that have only one or two reviews. And of course, the more folks who help out, the greater the variety of our reviews, and the more useful those reviews would be. I would be happy to organize this, gear up the troops, and assign scenarios to review. So, e-mail me if you want to join The Review Platoon. Please put "The Review Platoon" in the subject line of the e-mail. Thanks.

Not 1, but a few: --Maintain Unit Cohesion -- CMBB, as in the real world, gives you props for keeping command structure intact. It's not always possible, and things happen, but the more you can keep your guys together and organized, the more powerful you can be. --Find good cover and defilade positions -- that means hull down/reverse slope positions/behind buildings for your armor. Woods, scattered trees, heavy buildings, reverse slopes for your infantry. Sneak through wheatfields. --Achieve local fire superiority on the attack. More on them than they have on you. --Find good fields of fire, enfilade positions -- you want hit the other guy from multiple angles. [ January 13, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

Tim -- I'd say the chances are 50-50 I can come. I will try to e-mail you and let you know as soon as I know. If I show up and you don't have a CD burned for me, that's OK.

Ian, as a newbie scenario creator (two in the last couple of montbs), what I've done is started a thread on the Scenario Talk board, talking up my battle and asking if anyone is willing to take a test drive. Then arrange for a fast e-mail delivery. I have had some good responses and some good feedback. But you have to sell what you've done...make it appealing. I've actually posted some screen shots to whet the appetitie. Some folks will take a stab at it. Heck, I will. It is important to get your scenarios play-tested if you can. For example, one tester told me that an AFV I selected in my Courtyard of Death scenario, while technically still around in '42, was for all intents and purposes so rare it was effectively unavailable. So I made the change. Meanwhile, if you are doing a historical or semi-historical scenario, getting your OOB correct is really important. There are many knowledgable folks around here who will willingly give you good information in this area. For my Hube's HQ Attacked scenario, Dan "Berlichtingen" Brown gave me a very detailed rundown of the typical Panzer Division HQ group --which, by the way, included two busses!! No busses in CMBB's unit selector unfortunately, but I am sure the purists out there will cut me a bit of slack on that one. But I did learn that if the HQ group did have a command tank, it was usually a III with no gun. So when I put the III in there, it had 0 ammo load out, equivalent to no gun. These are the sort of realistic touches that make the game more than just a tactic simulator. Do get you scenarios playtested. Even if you get just one or two folks to playtest, you will be better off than if you you just post it to the Depot or somewhere else. [ January 09, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

Crossing Dvina (Scenario Depot) is a nice attack Axis vs the AI -- smallish, but challenging. No armor to handle, just a couple of PSWS here -- you get to learn how to move your infantry. Move to Contact is a good movement order to experiment with, and you need to get good flanking vectors going with your infantry. Hill 312 has a similar feel to it..in both these scenarios, unit cohesion and concentrated firepower are key. Jagermeister is a larger more combined arms scenario -- Russians against the AI. Very challenging, but again, you here you need to use key commands at your disposal, this time for Armor -- shoot and scoot, etc. A number of lively threads on this one, worth looking at. Don't go by the manual tutorial. Berezina River is another excellent combined arms scenario -- this time Germans against the AI. Very hard to win this one. All of these in my view are great "skill building" scenarios that are worth replaying a number of times so that you really get a feel for troop movements, unit cohesion issues, and the uniqe command structure of CMBB. Victory in these is not easy to achieve, so in that sense they will force you to get better in the "no pain, no gain" mode. [ January 09, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

Just played a few scenarios where had some Stalin Organs and my disposal, and, as the scenario briefing advised, used them in preparatory barrages. Well, the random pattern of rocktet falling, though it made for an awesome sight and sound, seemed pretty useless as a tactical weapon. And forget about doing it close in!! The infantry will get spooked and it takes them two turns at least to clean their diapers and get a move on. I dunno...anybody have thoughts on this one?

Yes, it's a landmark day...my first scenario up on The Scenario Depot...Hube's HQ Attacked!! Thanks to the Admiral and the crew for getting it up! And already a review!! A positive one too. It's meant for Axis against the AI. Thanks to Kingfish and Martin Rapier for OOB info, and to Bruceov for an interesting TCP/IP playtest, and to General Tactius, MrSpkr, and Wyatt "WWB" Barnett for playtesting and comments. Special thanks to Dan "Berlichtingen" Brown for a detailed OOB for a Panzer Divisional HQ--a large contingent of vehicles and men.

I am REALLY beginning to hate this scenario. Now the 4th time through, and I thought I was doing well. Through the 15th turn I had --good morale, --first flag won with minimal casualties (with a platoon hiding in the building rubble) --nice flanking vectors, --good unit coherence, --a sizable contingent of organized infantry(including pioneers) in the woods ready to assault the town, --company commanders close to the troops, --tanks lined up nicely on the reverse slope in the appropriate fashion, --assault guns over the hills down into the road below, but still in defilade. The perfect setting for a total victory....NOT!! AAAAAAARGGGGGG!!!! Here's what happened. --I lost EVERY one of my reverse slope tanks, despite doing shoot-and-scoot with tight time delay alternatives! Took out two Panthers, but the Tigers survived and rumbled toward the village. My tanks were hulks. --Could get only ONE of my assault guns in defilade insinde the town. There it did considerable damage in support of my infantry assault. The other three, including the flamethrower tank, were picked off. --On my right flank the combined force ran into a dug in gun and got nowhere. --On my left flank, I managed to get my combined force far down the road, and then up over the hill to the main road. But by that time, a Tiger and a Panther had unfurled their claws and were standing off and creaming me. End result? Tactical defeat. Two flags won -- hill building and church -- and two contested, though the near flag on the road changed hands twice. I am sorry, I did everything right, but STILL lost. This is maddening. C'est la guerre!

I just finished one called "Courtyard of Death" a fictional meeting engagment in Stalingrad. Mostly infantry, but a few AFVs thrown in. No artillery or air power -- assume it's already done. I am going to post it soon at Scenario Depot. Most of the playtesters had a blast, even though they did it vs. AI. This is actually designed for two players, particularly TCP, since its a medium sized with some fairly close in fighting. If you like carnage, flamethrower ambushes, and high casualty rates, this one is for you.

Yep, Stoffel and I played, it was an unstoppable onslaught. Kudos to him, though, for picking off my tanks...I ALWAYS seem to make the mistake of poor unit cohesion. I sent Stalin Organ an e-mail on it... This scenario really underscores a scenario designer's dilemma... When you assemble historical ones, how "accurate" do you want to be, versus how much do you want to make a good (read: balanced and challenging) game? Historically accurate games can simply be no challenge at all, especially for reasonable skilled CM players,and especially on the Eastern Front, where sometimes one side totally dominates. So, there you have it.

Send it along...I will give it a test.

Interesting that you say this. In Max Hastings' book Overlord, some of his research suggested that many of the German participants in Normandy who had Ost Front experience thought it was equally as intense. Though I do recall in his book a German east front veteran,trapped in Falaise, thought his fellow soldiers were kind of weenies, since they escaped tougher Kessels in Russia. Also, Hastings said that Montgomery's headquarters staff had to add another category to their casualty charts. They went into the campaign with "Intense" as the highest level; after a few weeks, they added another category: "Double Intense."

Franko's operation is actually in December, and it's about the Germans abortive attempt to relieve the pocket. The one I want to do occurs in November, as the Romanian and Germans are fleeing the onslaught of 26th Tank Corps, which vectored to the Don south/SW via Perelazovsky/Ostrov/Kalach, while 4th Tank Corps vectored to the Don south and almost due west via Gromsky/Suchanov/Golubinsky, where 6th Army headquarters was located. My plan is to do a semi-historical scenario, tentatively titled, "Escape to Annihilation" where a chaotic stream of Germans/Romanians are desperately trying to get across the Don River, in the horrid early winter conditions of wind and snow. The scenario will have exit zones for the Axis to the EAST(!)while the Russians are bearing down on them, destroying columns of men and material, while rag tag bands of Axis troops form ad hoc combat commands to hold them off as best they can. Lots of destruction, death, and a race against the clock.

For a scenario I am contemplating designing, I wonder if anyone out there has information or sources for information related to two facts: 1. What is the width, on average, of the Don River? 2. Where, exactly is the Akimovsky Bridge over the Don located? (This was one of the many bridges used by Germans/Romanians retreating to the east(!!) in November 1942 in the face of the Russian onslaught encircling 6th Army).

Tim, I live in the Northern Burbs. Let me know via e-mail about the get together.

Well, one of my testers, a very experienced player, came back with some comments and I may tweak things a bit. But here's what he said: "The scenario is well balanced for TCP/IP play... . . .The briefing was excellent. . . . Overall good scenario and probably really exciting as a two player game." [ December 19, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

On the Russian front?? All too common. And that's not all. In Stalingrad, commanders who has soliders desert under their watch, whether they knew it was going to happen or not, were ALSO shot and, in some cases when they DID know, and DID turn them in, were themselves shot for not shooting the intended deserters on the spot INSTEAD of turning them in. Anthony Beevor in his book on Stalingrad told a story of a battalion commander who had a group under his command desert. He gathered up his troops, went down the line, and shot every 10th guy in the fashion of a Roman legion. Guys who were missing for days and trapped but eventually "rescued" were ALSO shot as deserters, the reasoning been if you somehow managed to survive you must have been deserting or, even worse, gone over to the enemy who allowed you to stay alive. Insanity, pure and simple.