Bil Hardenberger

Appreciate the kind words Zloba. Unfortunately those scenarios are all I have actually ever posted on the blog. It never became the Tactical Problem repository I had initially envisioned.. instead it went a different direction and became a warehouse for tactical techniques, and AARs. Good luck in your exploration of these games, and let me know how you get on! Bil

Sounds like you are ready to rewrite Sun Tzu. Seriously, attacking an enemy’s weakness often forces him to react and get behind you in the OODA loop decision cycle. I’ve seen it work too many times to think that massing against strength is ever a good idea.

Some very good posts in this thread! Kudos to all who contributed, you guys know your stuff. @Flibby I HIGHLY recommend Combat-Man's tutorial posted above.. it is simply the best thread on the topic I have seen. For more on applying real world tactics check out my Battle Drill blog, especially the tactical Toolbox on the left hand side. My personal battle planning philosophy relies on: Maintaining flexibility Identifying the enemy formation (order of battle) Identifying the enemy defenses and/or movements Identifying the enemy intent Then app

I have to say that I started watching this with some skepticism.. but I have to admit that I was surprised at how much I liked it. Episode 3 in particular was outstanding.. but that last episode... wow. If you haven't read the book (and I had not) you will be taken by surprise at the way it finishes. Well done.. even though I had some issues with some of the art decisions, overall it really is a beautiful show and well worth watching. Bil

Enjoyed that, thank you for posting!

It's the only way to play the game... I have used it in my AARs ever since it was first introduced.

What’s your commission rate on these John?

In the CMBS BETA AAR I was actually going up against a professional soldier.. my opponent was a US Army Lt. Colonel (Armor). Professional soldiers are my favorite opponents actually... I seek them out. Re: the presentation... damn fine job @ChrisND and @Battlefront.com , I especially liked Steve's play-by-play analysis ... I hope it brings in a ton of new CM players but also more Government customers. Good luck guys. Bil

Don't worry Chris, I know you are a skillful player, hell you took our AAR game to the very last minute, what a roller-coaster that one was... so I won't really be giving you a critique, I know these sorts of demos are not the best way to display skill and finesse. Bil

It can be viewed at this link I'll critique Chris's play once I get a chance to watch it myself.

Congrats on this arrangement Steve. This is no small deal. Best, Bil

FYI the name is Bil Hardenberger... appreciate the mention though.

Sorry about that, those links have been updated and work again. Bil

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

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 us