Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Noba: Michael, I know it's off thread but could a more 'concentrated' front by the western allies resulted in a faster approach to Berlin, i.e. before christmas and thus complicated the political perception that the Russians were to be the first to Berlin ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What would have been the point of reaching Berlin first? The Soviets lost 100,000 men taking Berlin.The division of Germany was decided at the Yalta Conference, and the Allies actualy had to give back some areas they had taken in Czechoslovakia. Patton loudly proclaimed his wish to kick the Soviets all the way back to Moscow, but Eisenhower wisely sacked him to avoid a conflict that the US Congress would not have tolerated. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Henri, is that the same book that has carried the title Strategy? Or did the name get changed because it was re-edited or something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's the same book, but the newer versions have new chapters on the Israeli-Arab wars. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: The ultimate AAR is the alpha AAR. It sold me on CM, and I still go back and look at that sometimes.. Where is that scenario, Fionn????? Hurry!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn's alpha AAR is in the archives section on the CM HQ site. I remember that in the old days, some wargaming magazines used to have AARs written by professional writers. I really enjoyed these, even when I didn't have the game Henri

Quebec City, part of Canada (for the time being at least...) Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg: So my questions are: 1.Do you read AAR's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read every one I can get may hands on. I would rather read AARs than play the game! I like to write them too, I guess I must be a frustrated writer <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.Why do you read them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because it's like reading a short story. A good AAR is really a good story. Not to mention that one can learn a lot by reading AARs from good players. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3.How would you describe the ULTIMATE AAR?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe there is no such thing, just as there is no single model of an ideal woman; my criteria for a good AAR are the same as for a good story: it should be well-written, full of suspense, informative, and like a good story, build up to a climax. AARs can be funny , dramatic , informative , tragic and so on. Perhaps the best styles for AARs are either documentary or personal, which leaves a lot of room for creativity. I can never get enough, c'mon guys, write 'em up and sharpen up your analytical an creative writing skills! Henri

I have said this before, but just for balance, here it is again: the first thing I did when 1.03 came out was to replay the Wittmann senario, and I noticed that the "tiger firing on crew" problem was much improved. To some extent, it depends on how you play the scenario; the PO does not know the disposition of the enemy nor how many there are nor where they will come from.Clearly if you drive Wittmann's tank into the middle of the enemy position (following the historical deed), his tank will be eventually attacked from all sides and the PO will be unable to decide on the optimum cannon orientation. It has been said by the designers that the confusion and disorganization of the British in the historical battle is impossible to duplicate well in the scenario, since among other things in CM the British crews are initially with their vehicles. One should also remember that some of the British infantry units are Piat units, just as dangerous as an enemy tank at close range, and that other infantry units have AT capability if they get close enough. In my game (I tried a few with 1.03), I had no instances of Wittmann's Tiger shooting at British crews, and very few unjustified instances of shooting at infantry. You will find the Tiger vs infantry problem much less severe if you don't let your tank get between enemy infantry and enemy tanks, which may have been justified in the historical situation due to disorganization, but is assured suicide in the CM scenario, in addition to using the slow traversing Tiger turret in its worst possible situation. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kelly: T If you've played it, tell me what you think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I posted a long multi-part AAR as the British with this scenario on the Usenet war-historical forum. If you can't find them, i can mail them to you.A very exciting scenario, but it would be a lot easier if there were easier commands to follow roads. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt.Sanders fan: I am always having problems taking out German Tanks. I usally play the Americans with my Shermans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You got a lot of good advice, here is a bit more. Tanks are not good at city fighting; in cities, infantry has the edge. NEVER send tanks into a town without infantry unless you KNOW that there is no nearby enemy infantry.If there is enemyinfantry, your own infantry should lead the way, supported by the armor.Artillery and smoke might be necessary if the enemy is numerous. Tigers are good, but they are not invulnerable. Depending on which Sherman you have, you could or could not stand up to a Tiger. I have had Tigers killed on the first frontal shot from a Sherman firefly. The Jumbo is an equal match to a Tiger: in one case, my Tiger and a Jumbo bounced a half dozen shells off each other before one was killed. Most newbies don't realize that the gun of the Panther is more deadly at long range than the 88 of a Tiger Avoid engaging Panthers at long range with ANY allied tank, you will almost always lose. If you have the chance for a hull-down position, the trick is to "hunt" to the top of the hill, ending with a "hide" command; the tank should position itself in a hull-down position. Although it is not a bad idea to spread out your armor in order to catch the enemy tanks on the flanks, be aware that this could lead to situations where your tanks will enter the battle piecemeal and be taken out by ones and twos. I speak from experience . always remember that the one who can concentrate more firepower will usually kill the enemy (assuming that the firepower available is suitable for the job -attacking two tanks with five halftracks is not what I consider concentration of fire . Coordinating flank attacks requires good timing. Here is some priceless info: newbies (and sometimes the AI) tend to be impatient and are rattled by unresolved situations. Sometimes just waiting will cause the enemy to make a serious mistake. You gotta know when to be bold and you gotta know when to fold Although having a good field of fire is important, remember that it also gives the enemy many directinos fromwhich to shoot. when on the defensive, it is usually better to have your tanks concealed with good narrow interlocking fields of fire through probable areas of enemy advance. Then if you are lucky, you can pick off his armor one at a time. A good example is to have a tank in the woods beyond a curve in a road; as enemy tanks rumble around the curve, your tank can pick them off one at a time. I once destroyed 8 enemy tanks in a row this way . Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: If it isn't observed fire it isn't worth calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find it worth calling down unobserved HE when I can see only a few of the enemy, but I strongly suspect that there are a lot of them dispersed in them woods, but I can't see them . In such cases, I usually see a number of enemy symbols indicating suspected enemies. In such cases, I have found that dropping area fire HE can decimate the enemy . Being unobserved causes no harm, since I want the shots to be scattered, having no clear idea of where the enemy is (or will be when the HE arrives in three or four minutes). Such situations often arise when the enemy is on the offensive and is bringing his infantry forward through concealed pathways. If you can hit him just before he reaches his line of departure, you can sometimes cause heavy casualties. Playing against the AI, I have had reinforcements decimated by the AI artillery before they had time to move , and other times, the AI kept lobbing artillery behind my advancing units . In both cases, I guessed that the AI was shooting at unobserved targets . Henri

Wow! Lotsa soldiers here God, I feel so unexperienced... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: What is the best Operational Strategy game? Or, because this is wargaming, I guess I should say what are the relative strengths and weakness' of the various Operational wargames available right now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say HPS Smolensk 41, fun and not too complex.The Operational Art of War is a much more complex game and maybe not suitable for a beginner. For grand strategy, I would say War in Russia, Clash of Steel and Third Reich (unless you are a player of the boardgame of the latter, in which case you will nitpick the game to death because it doesn't model Spain entering the War as the board game does and such things) Oh yeah, I forgot to mention The Ardennes Offensive, and it is free from SSG. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-06-2000).]

Look, the essence of good tactics/strategy is to do the unexpected; if the attacker is forced to follow the expected axis of advance, all games are condemned to be bloody slugfests and the small amount of maneuver warfare afforded by the game is destroyed. Don't touch it; it is the defender's responsibility to adjust to any attacker tqctics, fair or not. Winning battles is inherently unfair. Besides, as pointed out by someone else, on the scale of CM, it was not rare for mobile armies to temporarily have open flanks for a couple of hours. Armies did not advance and retreat in a stright line a hundred miles wide Henri Henri

A book applicable at all levels, is Liddell-Hart's "Stategy of the Indirect Approach", available at most bookstores and a online places like Amazon.com. The ideas are modernized versions of Sun Tzu's book to a great extent, but with many concrete examples. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Thanks for the responses. Mainly, the reason I want the flails in is because one can't accurately model this particular battle without them. They were integral to the tactical execution of the operation as a whole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are right; the standard British method for laying a bridge across a river protected by mines required flail tanks. Henri

I believe that Kevin didn't say WHY he was leaving because he din't want to start a big thread. Well, now that this has failed, maybe he could come back and tell us. I don't think that this forum is bad, it is much better than most. But the bad news is that it is probably going to get worse, with the influx of new menbers to be expected from the good reviews in mainstream magazines. We're going to get people from forums dealing with RTS games, space sim games, and so on; and many of these people are going to be people with little or no previous experience with WW2 games. My suggestion to keep the noise level down is to be tolerant of newcomers and off-topic posts (and leave the latter to the moderators), and to ignore trolls and idiots whose greatest satisfaction is getting attention to themselves. Nothing is as frustrating to a troublemaker than to find himself all alone in a room . Some people are understandably thin-skinned due to having been the targets of attacks, and I guess that we ahould all try to keep our cool...WHADDAYAMEAN I'M A POINTYHEADED IDIOT?...errr where was I?... I have given up trying to read every post after doing it to the exclusion of everything else for a week. And I'm taking a plane in a few hours and I won't be able to read this forum for a week . Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-29-2000).]

I believe that Kevin didn't say WHY he was leaving because he din't want to start a big thread. Well, now that this has failed, maybe he could come back and tell uss. I dn't think that this forum is bad, it is much better than most. But the bad news is that it is probably going to get worse, with the influx of new menbers to be expected from the good reviews in mainstream magazines. We're going to get people from forums dealing with RTS games, space sim games, and so on; and many of these people are going to be people with little or no previous experience with WW2 games. My suggestion to keep the noise level down is to be tolerant of newcomers and off-topic posts (and leave the latter to the moderators), and to ignore trolls and idiots whose greatest satisfaction is getting attention to themselves. Nothing is as frustrating to a troublemaker than to find himself all alone in a room . Some people are understandably thin-skinned due to having been the targets of attacks, and I guess that we ahould all try to keep our cool...WHADDAYAMEAN I'M A POINTYHEADED IDIOT?...errr where was I?... I have given up trying to read every post after doing it to the exclusion of everything else for a week. And I'm taking a plane in a few hours and I won't be able to read this forum for a week . Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phil the Dill: All you have to do is charge teh tiger from 2 sides and while the lumbering lumox tries to turn its turret to target you, at least one of your Stuarts is behind him and taking rear shots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's like grabbing a real tiger by the tail; it works great if you can do it, but the problem is getting behind the tiger Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22: If you want CM on a strategic level, there was a game in develpment called "Road To Moscow" (RTM).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I got a review copy of the Alpha or Beta and wrote a review of the game for Gamesdomain. It was in a rough state (pretty much unplayable) but very promising. Unfortunately I have not heard nor seen any concrete progress since that time. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zaffod: This has probably been done already.. in fact, it may even be a ascenerio that came with the game... but i was thinking it would be a good idea to make a scenerio depicting the German attempt to breakthrough at Falaise. Zaff'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hate to nitpick, but it was a breakout.well it was more of a sneakout, since most Germans got out without their equipment through the "Falaise gap" that the Allies failed to close for three days. It's probably too big for CM, but specific actions like Panzermeyer's sneaking out after he lost his unit could make tense scenarios. Henri

I find that the proper use of mortars requires patience; I tend to use them only when I find a nice big concentration of enemy infantry. Of course there are exceptions, but one needs to resist the temptation to use them as soon as possible, because when the big juicy situation comes up and one is out of ammo... . I have had mortars change the tide of battle Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kevin Peltz: I had told myself that when version 1.03 was released, I would stop coming to this forum, as lately it has at times taken directions that have upset me greatly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I presume that you are referring to the postings about WW2 atrocities,or maybe some of the trolls. But if that is the case, no one is forced to contiknue reading such threads when it becomes obvious what the subject is. Henri

Amateurs generally don't like unresolved situations;strong chessplayers exploit this by creating unstable situations, which the amateur feels obliged to resolve by making bad moves. The same is true in war. Of course, it works better against humans... So it's not usually a question of caution versus audacity, but rather a question of knowing when to call and knowing when to run Henri

Playing this scenario led to my first defeat against the AI (not counting Villers-Bocage... I was doing pretty well as the Germans, having hidden a platoon of soldiers ahead of the front line, who took out two tanks and a number of US infantry before heading for Valhella; but darn, my tigers couldn't hit the side of a barn, and when by accident one of their shells DID hit, it usually bounced off whereas the Americans (all of them called Hawkeye, I guess) hit my tanks dead on every time. The worst moment was when my King Tiger crew abandoned their undamaged tank after one shell from a Pershing bounced off . When my last Tiger was cremated by a bazooka on move 20, I abandoned the game . Ah well, you can't win 'em all... Henri

The first thing I did after installing the 1.03 patch was to start the Wittmann scenario, where the problem of tanks pinging away at crews was the most obvious. I sent Wittmann's Tiger up the road towards the flag; on the way, he shot up a number of halftracks and Stuarts, machinegunned some infantry, and took special care to hammer a Piat that was nearby.When he reached the flag, he exchanged fire with a Cromwell and destroyed him. Then I backed him up and advanced into the church courtyard, from where he destroyed other vehicles and another tank . A Stuart ran by right in front of Wittmann, but he couldn't traverse fast enough to follow him. Then I backed him up to the intersection , where he was attacked from two sides by British tanks , who did him in. The good news is that not once did he ping away at escaping crews, although he did reverse his turret to shoot at infantry behind him. Looks good. Henri