Bannon DC

You can also look at Google Earth. Modern day satellite photos. Will give you a general idea about an area. Some of the city areas have good resolution, but most of the former Russian area is lower res.

You spent 30 minutes reading "Stalin's Folly" by Constantine Pleshakov and you determined he was a Holocost denier? I think you were reading a different book entirely. I don't think the Holocost was even mentioned in this book. Truly... not even in passing. If you are using the reference to holocost denial and justifying Hitler's actions as a comparison to being able to tell if a book is credible or not, you should say so. To clarify for other readers of this thread, the book under discussion does not contain, hint at, or even breach the subject of these things. Considering the topic of the disaster that befell the Soviet Army in June 1941, Stalin deserves a heap of blame. You said so yourself. Any analytical study of the event would come to the same conclusion. You are entirely blowing out of proportion the theory of the pre-emptive attack. It is one possibility to explain the disposition of the Soviet Army that is worthy of discussion. But, perhaps any further in-depth critique of the book would be better left to those who have read it.

As I suspected -- you have not read the book and in the maybe five minutes you spent "skimming" it you have summized that the author is a revisionist and a lying hack. Must save a lot of time aquiring knowledge in this way. Good thing an open mind doesn't get in the way. Jason, you have no way of knowing the "author deliberately ignores evidence in order to make a moralizing point, as he sees it..." because you have not read the book. You don't know how the author treats evidence and whether or not he distorts it in order to make a preconceived political point. It is obvious that you approach most things from a "preconceived political point" and actually reading and considering evidence slows you down from throwing out so-called authoritative opinions, invectives and slurs. Doesn't that make you guilty of projecting your pesonal spittle into this forum? Yet you carry on with making numerous posts about a book you merely left your fingerprints on.

Bigduke -- thanks for the tips on Konev's and Rokossovsky's and other's memoirs. I did a quick search on Amazon. Konev's "Year of Victory" is available but most of the others are out of print. I'll keep and eye out for them. Bannon

Jason -- When you say you've "looked" at the book, it makes me think you actually haven't read it. I would hardly say calling Stalin an idiot because of his wild belief that events would play out exactly as he had envisioned them as "revisionist." And when they didn't he had a hard time coming to grips with reality. What is it that you are calling revisionist in this book? The only theory that the author does not support with documentation is the idea that the disposition of the Russian forces in June 1941 suggested a build up for an attack, rather than a defensive posture. This idea is not new and has been stated many times in other histories. What is hung on thin reeds and what do you think the author has fictionalized? Bannon

Is anyone familiar with these works? There are several atlases that cover specific battles. One that covers the Eastern Front, '41-'45. They are "self-published" which makes me concerned about the quality. In addition, I have seen some of the maps in Glatz books and have found some of them hard to decipher and others of poor quality (I don't blame the author... he is working from the original source many times). A list can be found here. http://battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205&Itemid=110〈=en#5 Apparently the operation is out of the "home office" run by his wife. If there is an "official" web site, please pass it on. I have also seen other atlases not on the battlefield.ru list. Thanks, Bannon

By definition, wouldn't most Russian historical works covering WWII released in the post-Soviet era be "Revisionist?" When the facts were control by a dictitorial regime that controlled all publishing and distribution from start to finish, anything published under those circumstance was exactly what the state wanted presented... truth, half-truth or outright lies. ("He who controls the past controls the present.") Now that the chains are off, writers have a chance to look at some archives and revise the past lies. The Soviet state's total control of the past has so muddied the record that I doubt a complete reconstruction of the facts is possible. I did not use the word "propaganda" but you go on to support my point of state-controlled information. If an author draws from some of these source you extol, how can the work be considered fiction? I go back to my statement that it is a matter of style which is subjective to the reader. Thanks for the link. Bannon

I had the exact same feeling. However -- he does have a 35 page section in the back of the book in which he addresses this, including: notes on sources and methodology, chapter notes in which he quotes his sources (he attributes the quotations and apparent musings), and a bibliography. His epilogue covers who lived and who died. The index is very good as well. The style of the musings and quotes did seem a little thin in a historical context, however, I think he covered himself well and it did turn out to be just a matter of style. I am suspect of any Soviet era source (as is the author)... anything printed during that time went through the machine and came out exactly how they wanted it. I just happened to have downloaded an article for the Red Army Studies web site click that included one of his sources and I could see where he pulled his quotes and musing from. It checked out. Article was "Previously Unpublished Excerpts from (General) Rokossovsky Memoirs." Supposedly stuff the Soviet censors had taken out. Rokossovsky commanded the Ninth Mech Corp near Kiev and went on to have a long career in the system. * thanks to whomever posted that Red Armies site a few days ago.

What? You mean to tell me that you don't sense his presence? You don't feel his eyes on your back as you plot turns? You don't glance behind yourself while walking down an alley at night, and see a shadowy figure in an authentic WWII Canadian uniform dart behind a dumpster? You don't lie awake at night, suspecting he is under the bed, but being too scared to check? Man, you've got it easy. </font>

15 minutes is working fine in "Little Stalingrad." This ops is spread over something like 30 battles. This is well balanced with a limited number of troops in a large urban landscape. Junk and I are playing a loose version of "Play Where They Lay." Entirely re-engineering the battlefield between battles is out. Troops on the front line stay in place. Reinforcements start a respectable distance away so they must move into place during the battle -- risking detection, unseen snipers and MG42s, and the every present mortar barrage. I do not feel as if Michael Dorosh is sitting in my chair dictating how I should fight this battle. He did his job of testing and balancing the fight and has stepped out of the way. As in any scenario, one size or parameter does not fit in everycase. What works in a tight urban environment would not necessarily work in an open rural landscape. Other issues such as dropping a brigade on the front line are weaknesses of the CM engine. If you are playing the AI, at least you can expect it. If you are playing a human, playing with agreed upon rules helps to overcome the engine. There was a thread on Play where they Lay sometime ago -- the rules are not perfect, but the concept is sound. Bannon

For scenarios, check out the scenario depot. The search function works pretty well and should pull some good scenarios for you. www.the-scenario-depot.com

Welcome to the CM Forum! For opponents, go to www.the-proving-grounds.com or www.the-scenario-depot.com You can pick up new scenarios there as well. Scenarios at The Proving Grounds are under development, the ones at the Scenario Depot are in their final form. Now you will see how the game really should be played. Good luck! Bannon

I agree, ladders in any game are full of fishy people. It is great to be competitive, but many will cheat and wear false laurels. Tanks go off the board for all the reasons mentioned above. Not for some "bug" for which the game is to blame. Your opponent screwed up and in a ladder game that is too bad for him. If you have artillery in the area... then they drove off as a result of enemy action. You caused it. You won't get points for their destruction, but they won't cause you anymore harm and will lower his global moral. Even in a game among friends, that is a fishy request. Either admit "I gave them bad orders" or "I tried to pull a manuever too close to the edge and they rerouted themselves off the board." He is too blame.

To represent naval fire support, I have also seen islands at the exreme edge of the water. These either have guns or FOs. These would represent destroyers. Bigger FO batteries would be crusiers, etc. Limited ammo would be appropriate for large calibre since this would not be used in close proximity to the landing force. A few well placed rounds will shake up the defenders. Are British Kangaroos available? I think I'm thinking of CMBO (I'm not too familiar with the CMAK CW force pool).

civdiv -- thanks for the contribution. I'm reading "Stalin's Folly, the tragic first ten days of WWII on the Eastern Front." "Folly" is an appropriate word. Good look at the utter cluelessness of the Soviet High Command. Little by way of detail for company/battalion design, but inspiring for design of early war scenarios. Good companion to Guderian's "Panzer Leader" and other accounts. Reads well and is a quick page turner. Author is Constantine Pleshakov, 2005

John_d, True. TPG is a site for playtesting and designing. It kind of became the defacto place to get scenarios after the original Scenario Depot went down. You can find "finished" scenarios there because their was no other place to put them. But now with the Scenario Depot II up, people are moving their finished scenarios over there. BUT -- stamping out bad scenaios is still crucial. TPG still needs the traffic. Post your comments there in the discussion threads for the ones you remember. Speaking for only myself, getting constructive criticism on the bad aspects (crap!) of my scenarios at TPG is helpful. Getting NO response is no help. Bannon

Complain away... will any good come of it? If you want to make your opinions worthwhile, head over to www.the-proving-grounds.com (TPG). Most of you know this already; TPG is a site dedicated to playtesting CM scenarios and operations. To rid the world of untested and half-baked scenarios, all scenario designers are encouraged to first post their creations at TPG. Let someone give them a run through. Non-designers can test at will. No expertise is needed. Just play the scenario and let the designer know how it worked. If you are uncomfortable giving critiques and recommendations, just give an AAR (After Action Report). It is helpful to designers to know how battles played out and the approaches players used to solve the tactical problems. John d, just curious... do you playtest at TPG? Frankly, TPG needs more playtesters. Gripe away if you will, but follow it up with a positive action and do something that will help address the topic of this thread. Bannon

Ever notice a proportionality problem in JasonC's posts? Here he is stoning a member of the community for the perceived social crime of being an inferior scenario designer: And, here, witness his vigilence in chasing the ghosts of Nazi goons and Soviet thugs to the gate of hell itself: -- From the Prokhorovka anniversary!!! thread, Summer 2005 So which is worse? Nazi goons and Soviet thugs who slaughtered people by the millions... or scenario designers who use an obscure vehicle from the force pool obviously ignoring the "rarity" scale for their own vain pleasure? Make a choice, Jason. Make a choice. Because it can't be both! This is not a time of moral ambiguity. Someone has to be the villian in this situation. There is no middle path. No hemming and hawing about degrees of gray. Since I have put the question to you, I think it is only fair to answer the question myself. On a scale of 10 to 10 with 10 being the "most hated," here is how I think things should rank: 10. Nazi Goons and Soviet Thugs 10. Poor Scenario Designers 10. Puppies and Kittens (their presumptions of cuteness makes me sick!) 10. Babies (Innocence? Ever hear of "Original Sin?" They've got it by the diaper load and it chaps my ass!)

Ampulomets are also very effective against crewed weapons. Good chance of getting them to abandon a gun or getting mortar and MG crews to panic and try to pull out of the area.

[/QB]

A tip for using bazookas against infantry and other out of the ordinary targets for a 'zooka is to target the ground near the enemy unit. Normally bazookas will not fire at infantry units even if given the command. I'm not sure if they will fire at guns. I spent many a frustrated turn targeting and retargeting infantry units. I finally discovered that you have to area target the ground or the building instead of targeting the enemy infantry directly. If 'zookas will not fire at guns, try the same thing. Also -- becareful when firing 'zookas from inside buildings. There is a good chance they will catch the building they are in on fire. Don't fire bazookas from any building where you have set up a strong point unless absolutely necessary.

Cheese power-ups are soooooo unrealistic. Why couldn't they make them apples or carrots. Even sugar cubes would have been better. And the skins for the ponies are so common. I hope someone is working on some rad pony skins.

Bumping -- Still looking for a few playtests. If you are looking for something light-hearted and plays fast -- give "Charge of the Light Brigade" a run. It is not meant to be anything more than fun and it is winnable. Not just a turkey shoot. If anyone is playing "Bridges at Kalorama Heights" solo or 2 player... please give me an update. I'm testing this one against an opponent playing as the Americans and making changes as I go. Additional input helpful. (email me or use the scenario discussion thread at TPG). Roll on. :cool:

Posted a new one... Bad Harvest at Stubienka CMBB. Semi-historical. This is an an early-war infantry battle. June 1941 - Germans are advancing across the vastness of the Ukraine. Difficult open terrain fighting. Russian line is anchored on a small hill barely 10m high which offers superior spotting. UPDATE: Version 1.1 posted. Thanks for comments, Simovich. This is in beta -- *additional comments appreciated. [ August 30, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Bannon DC ]

Pzman -- How did the battle go? Drop me an AAR at TPG or by email if you could (spoilers OK at TPG). I'm interested to know which bridge(s) you crossed and how far you got. Also curious if the American AI used any of its tanks against you, etc. I'm making changes to the map and the units bit by bit as I get feedback and based on a PBEM game I'm involved in. (I'm having fun straffing my opponent's column of Tigers and Elephants near the zoo with my .50 cal. Jeep -- it's only fun until somebody gets blown up.) Same for the rest of you too! Thanks, Bannon