Bil Hardenberger

Attached is the US force workbook so you can open it explore, change the unit settings and generally get a feel for it. More to follow tomorrow. TIME 01-30 - BATTLE LOG-US Co Team.zip

The Command task is set in the workbook in the Force Command tab. The options for the Command Task (Commander's Intent) are: · Probe · Attack · Assault · Move to Contact · Defend Also on the Force Command Tab you set the current game time... this needs to be updated every turn. This is the only place you will update the game time. In this scenario there is only one Company, thus only one Company tab.. that is represented by the 3 Co. HQ

This is a playtest of my rules for applying C3 effects in CM.. myself and The_Capt, my normal sparring partner are playing through this test scenario to get a feel for the viability of these rules. We have just begun, I have created workbooks for each of us and we have both given our initial orders. The scenario is a modified version of the Roadblock training scenario.. I added a tank platoon to the German side and adjusted some of the unit settings. This should give a good appreciation of how the rules work. I will be making the scenario and the workbooks for the scenario available for all to play with and follow along if you like. The key to these rules are the workbooks... more on them to follow. I will be revealing the rules as we go, starting with the Introduction... INTRODUCTION One of the most important aspects on the battlefield is command, control, and communication (C3). While the command and control (C2) status with a superior is identified in Combat Mission (CM), the effects are not enforced or modeled past affecting morale. Communication as well is represented as will be seen in this document. The intent of these rules is to simulate the effects of battlefield C3 plus the friction normally prevalent with the communication status upon a force in battle. Communication is how units and formations are given orders; if that link does not exist then information cannot move up, down or laterally. The inspiration for this set of rules comes from this outstanding thread started by MOS:96B2P on Command and Control and information sharing. Upon reading his findings a light bulb came on and I began to think about a way to take advantage of the in-game representation of C3 in an easy to follow manner and with little record keeping by the players involved. I recommend reading the linked thread until you fully understand the concepts within. To get the full benefit of these rules the game must be played on IRON difficulty against a trusted opponent. I recommend that both players have the same level of expectations, basically both should have a passion for representing combat in the most realistic and uncompromising fashion and be more interested in the journey rather than the destination. In other words, the effect that is being represented should be more important than who wins or loses. The intent is to keep these rules simple to use and easy to understand. To that end I will be providing an Excel workbook that can be used to track Tasks and will automatically calculate when the player can change a Task or use Initiative.

Hey Bud, yes i agree that the terrain should favor my force.. I want him in close, with armor and with infantry... I do have a lot of support; MMGs, plus light and medium mortars, so my long range reach is not too insignificant either... so hopefully I can at least match his infantry's reach.

Affirmative.. no options are off the table at this point..

Very nice description of the action Carl!! Your setup is looking very good. I hope it can hold against the Tommies armour assault.

Yes I suspect the map will be a challenge.. there are few places to hide.. ...my biggest fear is of an artillery barrage on the road leading from my setup zone on turn one... that could be disastrous as it is the obvious route to the objective from my setup zone.. as Doug is a Gamey SOB I have to expect he will do just that and plan accordingly... however, he will expect me to expect him to do that because he's a Gamey SOB and I will have to plan accordingly.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

That's an obvious position Ken, you'd lose that team and the top of Kohl's house!! Obviously you want to place your HMG team in the trees next to the Guest House covering the MSR.

My Battle Report Thread

Okay, a while back Doug Williams who has a lot of tournament experience somewhere (even won one from what I understand), slapped me with a challenge.. and he plead his case well enough and with suitable humility (IOW he kissed my ass and stroked my ego ) and at last I finally relented. I insisted on an AAR game and I also reserved the right to choose sides once we had chosen a map. After looking at the map I decided to give him the Germans... I figure he'll purchase one or two elite Tigers or Elefants or something and thought it would be a nice challenge. The only other stipulation was that armor points be restricted to 1/3rd of our total available points.. We are playing a medium QB so each had 2560 points (standard rarity) to spend.. that leaves 853 for armor (tanks, SPGs, halftracks, etc.). My armor purchases look like this: So that is three Shermans and an M10 to hopefully deal with whatever giant tank he is bringing to the party. I left four points on the board... If Doug does indeed purchase Tigers then I expect him to bring two of them plus maybe one other type of tank.. STuG, Pz-IV, or Pz-III. For my infantry purchases I purchased two infantry companies (minus one platoon), plus a couple 57mm ATGs and three trucks for a gamey flag rush and plenty of mortar support: The terrain is shown below (QB map 260 I believe, May 44)... I expect the fight to be constricted, brutal, and hopefully not to the advantage of the heavy tanks... I am hoping the combat will be up close and personal. I think I have a slight terrain advantage... but will be doing my terrain analysis in a later post. Start positions (Axis SP is estimated) and the objectives (in green) are highlighted in the top map...

Only one: up to 33% allowable (853 points for a medium ME) for armor (tanks, SPGs, halftracks, etc)... anything else goes I will be playing the US while Doug will be the Germans.

FYI Doug and I are just starting up this game... the ongoing battle reports (not really an AAR and I refuse to use DAR) will be posted in the CMFI forum. Should be interesting, Doug is a tournament champion and comes highly recommended so I expect this to be a hard fought battle in the mountains of Italy. Initial pre-battle analysis and unit purchasing is going on right now.

Nah, mine has canvas sides and I use grease pencils on acetate overlays Good job Pat O, you are definitely not weird for concentrating on planning, I think many of us love the game for the simple fact that taking this kind of care with our planning and analysis can really pay dividends in the game.

Jason, have total respect for you, but I have to disagree here. At least for me I find the CMx2 "sweetspot" to be reinforced Company scale... that's my favorite scale to play and I can manage it just fine. I can also play Battalion-plus sized battles, i actually find that this scale seems to unfold the most realistically. It really is a personal thing I think, everybody is different and I know many people do not like getting into the weeds like I do when I play. You only need to read my numerous AARs to see the game played successfully at the Battalion-plus scale... I think only the CMBN BETA AAR featured a Company sized force. Like Holien said though I can also only handle one or two games at a time.. which is fine by me to be honest. Even with the CMx1 games I only played one or two at a time.

Don't ind me if you see me wandering through this thread.. I had to pull out of the Axis side of this campaign so I am not here gathering intelligence. Very interesting little fight.. you did well versus the ATGs... looking forward to the fight for the town.

You are doing a fine job!!

I think I took it the same way you did.

The main gun on a tank takes up a lot of the visible real estate when looking at a hull down turret from the front... it makes sense to me that a penetration from the front would have a high chance of damaging or taking the main gun out of action. I wouldn't read too much into it or think of it as a bug, fortunes of war I'm afraid.. best solution? Don't set your tanks up where they can get hit. That last bit sounds snarky, but I don't mean it that way.. you have to try to engage the enemy from angles where they cannot easily engage you, keyhole positions, enfilade positions, etc. Good luck and keep playing!

I am scratching my head trying to figure out how you managed to get such a reputation in such a short time. You must an amazing fellow. I've got my eye on you. Oh, and of course I agree with everything else you said.. actually, the period from October though the end of January 1945 is my favorite period in the ETO. Looking beyond the first title in the Bulge family, the potential for some very interesting follow on modules gets me very excited about what's to come.

I'm currently playing a Bulge PBEM and I can say that it is going to be worth every penny. Unfortunately that's all I can say about it.

Don't forget that time counts down in CM Indeed they will. They effect unit flexibility.

FYI, I am finishing up my own set of C2 rules (calling them COMMAND FRICTION). Just need to do some tidying up and run through a test or two, then I'll post it all on my blog, complete with an example play through of several turns using the system. I did not read Peregrine's rules in full until today.. he has some interesting concepts in there, but I think you will find that mine will be different though it appears our goals are the same. I applaud him for what he has done, and to do it with no note taking too!. That part eluded me.. for mine I created an Excel workbook for keeping track of unit orders and to track when they can be changed. I tried to automate as much of that as possible. Here is a teaser:

Well I don't think an entire plan needs to be laid out and adhered too... what I envision is perhaps giving a unit or formation a task, for example, "Bound to treeline A" that unit would then be stuck within the confines of that task and could not exercise individual initiative in order to react to an enemy contact unless that contact has been identified by the unit. Though I do agree that an overall intent, at least in phases should be written down and maintained until enemy contacts allow a reaction. That would keep the process relatively simple and doable I think. But I do think maintaining a log of orders and spelling out intent for each unit or formation (as required) would be important and is why I suggested an AAR game as that would help keep the players from straying and would give them a place to maintain an orders log or matrix of some sort.

Absolutely agree Vanir. No more roaming the battlefield listening for mortar sounds etc. It would have to be two players who trust each other and have the same goals.. namely as realistic a portrayal of battle as is possible. Maybe The_Capt will be interested in playing this way.. I'll shoot him a line. Players would really have to keep a close eye on their C2 links and plan for the use of runners etc. to relay information. I expect games would really unfold a lot slower as well.