Bil Hardenberger

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

Sounds fun Sly and I love the concept.. sort of an interactive Tactical Decision Game. Best idea for a tournament I've heard, so kudos. Too bad I never play tournaments... just don't have the time unfortunately, but I'm sure it'll be a success for you. I will be watching the results. Bil

If you have CMFB then you already have the Germans at their best equipped... their issues were beyond the tactical battlefield (as mentioned below) but the tactical battlefield was severely impacted by those factors. It isn't what force you command though that makes this game amazing... and everybody likes commanding the Germans, even though by the end of the war the US probably had the most efficient Army (my opinion), the Russians the most feared, and the Germans had been outclassed in doctrine, training, logistics, replacement process, intelligence, and small unit capability. A few sc

By the way @Holien Figure 50 of that document includes the ranges for each radio type in kilometers. Have fun. Bil

I think the main German advantage was the fact that they had radios in every tank..(or most tanks) so tank platoons and tank companies were far more flexible then their counterparts. However I still think comms between companies would probably have been a no-no. German (leg) infantry "might" have a radio at the rifle platoon level, but early war? Maybe not... I wouldn't bet on it. They seemed to be mainly well equipped re: radios in mobile formations. That being said, even the radios they did have may have been receive only below the tank leader's tank/AC, etc. I don't know f