Bil Hardenberger

I checked this out in CMBN and it works great. The bright coloring though puts me off.. I have also opened the file and I don't think it'll be too tough to play around with these settings to get something closer to what I like. Thanks for this BarbaricCo, its a great addition.

I too think this has a lot of potential.. you are going to have to give us tips on how to modify the settings ourselves. I like the contrast but not the coloring (I prefer a more subdued appearance). Looking forward to playing with what you have done.

Regardless, the strategic examples don't really help us with the tactical reality that is present in CM. They are good as far as analogies go, but really are off topic as far as this discussion goes. As shift8 stated above, every tactical commander needs to account for all elements in METT-T (I have deleted the civilian component as it has no place in these games). You cannot concentrate on just one element of METT-T... that is the bottom line point that most of us have been trying to get across.

I argue that Hitler's insistence of weakening the drive on Moscow in order to reduce the Russian forces in the Smolensk pocket was a war losing move. The delay thus incurred and the losses they suffered, can be directly blamed for the German failure to capture the rail hub that was Moscow (in my opinion the key to the war in the East). He had target fixation and was keyed in to capturing or destroying as many enemy soldiers and as much enemy material as he could, without concentrating on the one terrain objective that really mattered. I am far from an East Front grog so hesitate to use these historical anecdotes, but in this case, as in many others it does not take a rocket scientist to know that concentrating on killing the enemy force is rarely the most efficient or even the correct way to go.

Jason, nobody is arguing that stretching the rules and fighting in an unconventional manner isn't desired. Always look for a unique and unexpected approach, of course I agree with that. Your contention that ignoring the terrain objectives and simply going after the enemy's force is what has raised hackles. I contend that it is never so simple and you should use those objectives and the designer's briefing to drive your recon plan and orient your force on his when you can determine the most efficient way to attack him, and most of the time that means attacking where he is weakest.. Often that is also terrain driven, if it means capturing a piece of high ground that provides better visibility or a piece of ground to his rear which will force him to reposition. You can't simply say "kill the enemy nothing else matters", that is nonsense.

Luke, it'll never happen. From reading Jason's stuff I bet he has never played a human opponent. Oh and what theories? There are no theories here, only an over simplification of an end state, "kill the enemy". No $hit, that is always the goal, but as Shift8 stated, ignore the other aspects of the battlefield including time and terrain, etc. at your peril. Rarely is it so simple to just go out and kill the other force, unless you always play with a far superior numerical or firepower advantage.

Good job. Exactly the same number of casualties, that's interesting.

... And a target order within 30 meters will have your infantry toss grenades.

I agree, I also don't have the time.. Doug, you versus Jason would be very interesting to watch.

Good stuff Ian!

Somehow I doubt you are "a fairly middling player" .. someday we are going to have to see for ourselves.

Dare I say it? Your plan appears to have survived first contact. Seriously, good job on this... though I think you are taking too many casualties

The condescending tone is nice, thanks for that. So your plan is to: "Murder" the enemy Read the briefing for your intel and force estimates Once you "murder" the enemy read the victory conditions Number 1 is not always so simple.. I suppose you never play H2H? Number 2 -- hey whattaya know; this will use the "idiot" scenario designer's objectives and his scenario briefing, etc.. Number 3 - only after you "murder" the enemy will you check the victory conditions? Personally I think knowing the conditions during pre-planning helps some... because it is not always possible to simply destroy the enemy force. If you can do that in every game, even against the AI I would like to see an AAR from you.

I am all for making the enemy force the main objective, however you cannot ignore the terrain objectives completely, in fact they should be used to help you focus your efforts and analysis, and will be your guide on helping to find the enemy positions. So though you can say things like "ignore the victory conditions" it is a bit simplistic and not really realistic.

Bud, the circumstances in the CMRT AAR game were unique. Of course the depth of the Deep Attack is going to depend on the situation and what the enemy gives you. Though penetration of the enemy line is not the ultimate goal, it cannot be discounted either if the possibility exists. Drive as deep as you can and still feel relatively secure. Though it isn't necessary to penetrate the enemy line for a Deep Attack to be effective, if the possibility exists then why not take the chance?

Just posted: The Deep Attack Excerpt: Enjoy!

..umm, isn't this taking place on the Eastern front already?

Too bad about your losses in this last turn... but as you say, they aren't serious yet and now you should be able to suppress that HMG now that you know it's there. Have plans to assault it? I only see you mention suppressing it.

There is a lot of wisdom in those haikus however. Jason, do you have a cite for those?

LOL, be careful what you ask for I suppose.

I love how you illustrate the action with the inset graphics.. great way to keep us oriented. Regarding the contact and your MG fire doing nothing.. I wouldn't be so sure of that.. the fact that you spotted it immediately after you stopped the MG fire tells me they might have been suppressed, and moved a bit once the fire let up, making spotting easier.. so I would say your recon by fire did what it was supposed to do. It's a possibility anyway. Looking good so far, great presentation.. and so far, one of the best AARs I have read.

Jason, I wouldn't worry too much about combatintman understanding tactical concepts.. I think he has a good grasp of what they are. He is a Combat Infantryman after all and deserves some respect. Regarding your post, sure its long, but I find a lot of familiar concepts in there that can be applied to CM, and I actually try to apply this same sort of doctrine to my battles as I think can be seen in my numerous AARs... recon pull and mission based tactics can be devastating, but they do require a lot of patience, reconnaissance, and tactical flexibility coupled with instant analytical and decision making skills. Tackling one enemy position at a time with overwhelming force is also a trademark of my style of play.. so yes there are some useful and applicable concepts in your post, things I try to preach on my Blog and when explaining my process in the AARs. Good stuff... however, would be better in bite size chunks, easier to digest and understand that way. Question for you, which method do you tend to emulate when you play?

Are you advancing mounted or dismounted? You have not advanced very far in these ten minutes, and it looks like only around 150 meters (or so) in the last five... The one team you show in the images is dismounted and appears to be on Move orders? I don't think I actually saw a scheme of maneuver, from the assault platoon's point of view, as to how they were going to advance (I am of course especially interested in your assault element). I would have thought that speed would be important with this risky COA... yet I sense an almost calm stroll across the fields.. could be wrong, but that's how I read your first 10 minutes of action have played out. I would have my assault element rolling across those fields at speed, led by one or two halftracks to scout for hidden enemy positions, with another on the left for flank protection. With this slow pace, and if you were playing against a human opponent you are giving the enemy time to shift his combat power to block your movement, easy for him with his internal lines.

Regarding tank riders.. tanks with riders on them should be in reserve at this stage of the battle... only after you have a good feel for the enemy situation and can discern a possible weakness should you send them through on a wild ride. In my RT AAR game as referenced by Bulletpoint my deep attack happened very late in the game, and my tank riders on the T34/85s had seen no action to that point and were never threatened as yours seem to be.

Bud, you seem to be losing a lot of SMGers on the way up, do be careful, I have a feeling you will need every SMG when you meet his main line of resistance... this is just the outskirts, and should be tackled with minimum combat power, or alternately overwhelm it quickly, but if you are doing that, use everything you can spare from more than one direction and make it quick and violent... will be much easier on your infantry in the end.