Bil Hardenberger

Glenn, Try *bil*, with one L and see if that works for ya. Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>can some one tell me the name of the operation that features Mr. Wittman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Operation you are referring to is called Villers-Bocage. It is an excellent Op designed by Los. He did an outstanding job in capturing the feeling of that day. Bil

Unless things have changed, isn't Sunken Lane included with the game? Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>how do YOU go about advancing in heavily forested areas? Split a squad, send `em in on point to check out the ground or go in mob-handed in case you trigger a defence line?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My advice, avoid woods if at all possible! If not, then lead with half squad scouts, uncover his locations, then assault his flank in force. Works for me, but I still try to avoid going through woods... also, if you suspect that there may be enemy units in a wood line, hit it with mortar/arty before sending any scouts in... that will wake em up! Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the AAR, I haven't kept up on the last 3 turns or so, but damn, how is Bil letting himself get an ass-kicking with two companies of reinforcements against Fionn's beat up troops??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As Fionn has stated many times this battle was fought many months ago... I believe it was our third PBEM game. We have played about a dozen or more since then, and never have I lost like this again. In fact, now I win as many as he does, and most often our games end in a well fought draw. I admit that this was not my best day, however, I learned a lot from this battle, and it was in that spirit that I agreed to let Fionn post the AAR with me identified, he offered to keep his opponent anonymous.. I wanted to be identified. This AAR's purpose is a learning tool, approach it as such and you will be enriched. I know I have been. Bil

Gaffertape said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's a pretty grievous error... (a sherman tank in a camo pattern) Don't think I've ever seen that before. They should have done the panther in olive drab to make it even.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sherman's were painted camo by the Brits and by the Americans, especially in Italy. Maximus said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I for one, don't recall ever seeing any such vehicles in any documented resources of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am looking at just such a photo, it is from "Sherman in Action", from Squadron/Signal. It is a photo of a Dragon Wagon(M-26) recovering a Sherman KOed near Bastogne in December 1944. Bil

Work in Annapolis and live on the Eastern Shore just a few minutes from the Cheasapeake Bay... ahhhh.... Just moved and loving it No promises, but when's the party? Bil

Fionn, CC me too please. I am happy to learn from my mistakes, and knowing what was going through your mind helps my development (tactically)tremendously. Bil

Just to chime in hear with my two cents... for what that's worth... This particular PBEM game was a terrific learning experience for me. All the things Fionn mentions about me doing wrong, are correct. He is not condescending to me at all. I did screw up quite a bit, but at least I learned from my mistakes, and Fionn can attest to the fact that I have never repeated them in all of our e-mail games that followed. I believe that his recounting of the events of that PBEM game day are truthful and honest. I couldn't expect better. Bil

You guys seem very impatient to watch my troops die at the hands of that dog Fionn... Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have been following this AAR more than any other since the Alpha AAR. But did I miss something or is Bill not posting his side?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Fionn is doing an admirable job on this battle's AAR, and any comments from me would be like adding a mustache to the Mona Lisa Seriously, I expect I will comment on this forum as the AAR plays out. Bil

The only problem with that would be that then you would also have black Germans running around... now, if that doesn't bother your sense of reality, go for it. Both sides use the same face textures. Bil

I would wait until I saw this feature in action before I ran out and cancelled my order. Wait until you see it in Fionn's newest AAR, you will really get a taste for how it works. I was an early opponent of the dead body feature, but after playing with it for months, it really is absolutely necessary, and it is not disgusting or morbid either. In fact, in less you are really looking, it is tough sometimes to even see the bodies, especially if you always play at realistic zoom, like I do (with bases on)... the dead bodies will not have bases (just like KOed tanks)so they will not clutter the battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I get the feeling that if Fionn was on the defense, outnumbered, and completely surrounded the first thing he'd say would be, "Ah, they have me right where I want them!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see that Fionn's propaganda is working.

Actually you can do that in Premiere. I just ran a test, and I must say, it looks pretty good. Really sets the mood. Releasing a version like this though would require Steve and Charles' permission. Bil

The current set of textures in the game were specifically designed to help the player "see" the terrain better. It is very easy now to see elevations in CM. You can easily pick out hills and depressions, no matter how subtle. Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Still, my reserve force surprised the hell out of his flanking force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What makes you think they were surprised? It isn't like you ambushed them and wiped me out... far from it, and now those same "reserves" are in trouble... Ahhh.... those IG's are 150s Bil

IMO there were two key points that really cost the Germans the war. First: Dunkirk. If Hitler had allowed the Panzer Divisions a free hand in eliminating the troops holed up in Dunkirk, England would have been taken out of the war. With the meat of their army gone, England would have been forced to sue for peace. Second: Smolensk. When Hitler stopped the drive on Moscow (in August I believe) and sent Army Group Center south to isolate the Smolensk pocket, he missed the chance to capture Moscow. It was almost undefended and at their mercy. By the time AG Center got back on track and pointed towards Moscow, it was too late. The Russians had fortified the city and were able to hold, and then winter hit. If Moscow had been taken it would have been the end of Russia. Moscow was not just a token prize as it had been for Napolean. Bil

What are the old and new ratings if you have new players? Can you give us an example, perhaps using one of our completed games as an example? Here are the stats: Axis (Fionn): 2296 points, Attacker, Score:45 Allies (Me) : 2969 points, Defender, Score 55 Perhaps that will help us all understand it better...

Eridani <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do all woods have the same color base, or does it differ based on the type of wood<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The color of the woods base are indeed slightly different for different types, and you can now tell at a glance whether you are are looking at woods, or scattered trees. Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey. In one of the screenshots in the GamesDomain preview of CM there is an orders menu with the 'target next' command. This may be what you are looking for, though I don't recall any discussion on this board explaining it in detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Target next just cycles through the available targets for that selected unit. It is not what you guys are looking for. Bil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree, trying to get better and better scores in particular scenarios is kinda missing the point...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Exactly my point John. In this game the point scores are not always indicative of the results achieved. It is for this reason that I will probably never participate in a tourney where results are based on your score alone. When I finish a battle I look at whether my forces accomplished their mission, then I ask myself if they are in any shape to fight on the next day if needed. That is how I measure success. I guess it goes back to my military days. A 55 to 45 draw is fine, but if one side is totally wrecked as a fighting formation, and the other still has some teeth, then the second formation is in the superior position, and in an operation, would probably pursue and annihalate the retreating unit. If you play an Operation, or better, in the CMMC, then you better concentrate on mission accomplishment, rather than how many points you scored. Bil

Lorak, No that is the way to do it. Your primary task in that situation is to find the enemy, to do that you want to risk as few troops as possible. Here is what FM 7-8 says about it: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a. Movement to Contact. A movement to contact is an offensive action that seeks (to gain or regain contact with the enemy. Usually, a unit moving to contact lacks detailed information about the enemy. Upon making contact, a unit identifies the enemy strengths and weaknesses as it develops the situation. A platoon conducts a movement to contact as part of a company. Considerations for planning and conducting movements to contact include-- -Make enemy contact with the smallest element possible. -Prevent detection of elements not in contact until they are in the assault. -Maintain 360-degree security at all times. -Report all information quickly and accurately. -Maintain contact once it is gained. -Generate combat power rapidly upon contact. -Fight through at the lowest level possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bil

TO&E = Table of Organization and Equipment

Personally I think there is way too much emphasis on points in CM. If you can accomplish your objective with minimal losses, or even with massive losses if the situation warrants; and if you can do this and keep your opponent from accomplishing his objectives, then you win. No matter what the score is. I have made a few scenarios in CM that you are supposed to lose, they are just to test tactics in a certain situation (i.e. withdrawing under fire, etc.) I just finished a PBEM game that ended up a draw (55-45), but I held on to all the objectives, and virtually destroyed his force. Of course my force was in pretty sad shape also, hence the draw, but I accomplished my mission, my opponent failed at his. Too me the point scores don't mean diddly. I was succesful, my opponent was not. That is success in my book. In the perfect game, I won by being careful and not trying anything risky. The standout thing about that game was not that I had a perfect score, but that I had ZERO casualties. That is how you should measure success, IMO. Bil