Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: The Cavalry AAR is an interesting example of how to conduct a retrograde movement and to trade space for time. It seems that a lot of people have trouble with retrograding in CM and so I thought it would be useful to post...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As one who started a thread on the difficulties of executing a fighting retreat, followed by a successful turning of the tables on the PO thanks to advice from you and others on this forum, I find such articles extremely useful. Another kind of realted article I would really like to see are pedagogical articles of the kind that one used to find in magazines like `Campaign`, or in books like `Tank tactics 1939-45`, I have an article in the latter of how to carry out an assault on a defended river line, and in the former one on how an advance recon group can open up a road crossing a bridge for a division following a few miles behind and in a hurry. Seems to me that CM is well adapted to this kind of article. The idea is a bit like `case studies`. For example, one week, the `problem`could be posed, and the next week, the `solution`could be given. During the week, readers would post their own `solutions`, then the `professional`would post their own after the appointed time. If a week is too short, it could be a month like in the magazines. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: I believe he not only pissed in the Rhine, he didn't go that morning so he would have plenty of ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He was lucky some eagle-eyed German sniper didn`t shoot it off Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS Peiper: Hey Dick Reece I know I had somthing in common with you(battle scars)!! I'm a veteran also on my 3rd <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Geez, I feel so inexperienced , having only one marriage over the past 35 years . The good news is we`ve had plenty of time to adjust... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Sorry Henri, that came over completely in the wrong way, after half a bottle of wine, major lack of sleep and a bad cold. Note to self - stop posting under those circumstances. I do apologise. Really like your use of smiley & Co.! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are a true gentleman, sir! BTW, I enjoy reading your posts; you are one of the reasons I have spent most of the past week reading this forum instead of working Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Toad: I am genuinely interested in hearing from anyone who can describe how WWII era tankers hit moving targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With a lot of luck Seriously though, a game like the Steel Beasts demo and other tank games have instructions on how to use the gun sights to shoot at moving targets, but it has been a while and I don't remember the specifics. Here are my own instuctions: line up the target, calculate the tangent of the angle between the line of sight of the target and the direction of his movement vector, divide by the age of the driver, close your eyes, pull on the trigger and hope for the best Henri "...Grab them by the nose and kick them in the ass!..." (Patton) Now that is not logical: if you can kick somone human in the ass, you have to be behind him, and it is not convenient to grab him by the nose from such a position; on the other hand, if you can grab him by the nose, rather than kick him in the ass, it is probably more efficient to kick him in the balls!... (Spock)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Andreas is right - it's best to play it safe and put a spoiler or possible spoiler warning in the title of ANY thread in which you discuss a specific scenario. We can afford the bandwidth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I`ll try to do it , although it is beyond me why anyone who comes to a forum whose subtitle says `...about scenario specifics, like how a battle played out or its balance...` would be surprised to find scenario-specific information in the messages Henri WARNING: The above message may contain smilies unrelated to the accompanying text! [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-21-2000).]

I posted my AAR on this scenario on the war-historical Usenet forum about a week ago . Despite getting my ass kicked early on, I managed to pull a victory out of the bag at the end, no doubt due to my good leaders. I didn`t remember the name, soif you can`t find it and want to read it, I`ll email it to you. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Henri, your use of smiley and relatives cracks me up - it seems to have very little to do with the actual text... Thanks for the backhand ... I am too tired to engage in a discussion like the above, and I believe it is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the effort. Opinion noted. Henri One of the most important things in life is to be able to tell the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the ass

Tell her that you have considered the options, and that playing computer games is cheaper than playing golf or gambling, less harmful to health and cheaper than drinking, and cheaper and less morally objectionable than chasing other women. If she is not convinced, ask her to choose between the five... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie: P.S. - I keep getting my butt handed to me as the Germans in Villers Bocage. Once my reinforcements show up, the Brits shoot them to pieces. Anyone ther with similar experience?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There have been a lot of discussions on the csipgwar-historical on this scenario, including an AAR by me on how I won it (folowing a recommendation by Peter) after getting my ass shot off a half-dozen times. If you can't find it, I can email it to you. Henri PS: Look Ma, no spoilers!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Derfel, I *may* be able to offer you one explination for your immobilised tank on the railway track. Remember that immobilised represents a thrown track on a tank and not just bogged down. Railway tracks, especially in the wet, can cause a tank to pop a track if unlucky <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a matter of fact, I had two tanks throw a track on the railroad in this scenario , but I expected that so I didn`t think it was a big deal, especially since I felt I could afford the tank losses . I lost a LOT more through bogging down , I think I had eight or ten immobilized tanks at the end Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-21-2000).]

I haven`t played this scenario , but under the circumstances, I would try a fighting retreat:hit the advancing enemy, then retreat to another defence line (before he gets within 80 m) and let him hit air .Then ambush him again and repeat. . If he`s using smoke to cover his advance, then good, it allows you to retreat easier. But make sure you`re not retreating just when the artillery is coming down . As a military expert, you understand that this requires good timing and maybe a bit of luck , but the Germans were very good at it. Henri

IN CM, 88s are very susceptible to mortars and artillery ; once it is spotted, it is usually dead meat fairly fast. I have never lost more than one tank yet to an 88. Tanks can take it out fairly easily, if the 88 doesn;t hit the tank first. One reason is that an 88 gun is rarely more than a few hundred meters away because of the scale of this game. It probably could be more effective if larger maps with fields of view of a couple of km were available. Another reason is that the relative power of an 88 is much less in 1944 than it was in the desert in 1942... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Derfel: Couldn't resist putting my oar in... Everytime I thought I had a grip on the krauts some new horror showed up and turned that part of the field into a sort of miniature Jonestown (total death and destruction)... I have rarely felt greater satisfaction in any wargame than when I finally led my battered survivors into the town and railway station... (on turn 68...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, this is a very tense scenario, and despite being aware of where in general to expect surprises (should be rather obvious from reading the briefing and examining the terrain -in retrospect...), I kept having the impression tha after the next hurdle it would be clear sailing, only to be met by an apparently insurmountable obstacle . A very well-designed scenario full of tension. The only negative part, as I have posted elsewhere has little to do with the design and more with the game mechanics, the tedious micro-management of moving many vehicles on roads. Good work Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: On the other hand, if the player KILLED a Panther early on and had seen a spoiler that conveyed the information that there was only a single Panther in the defense, then he'd know he had no more Panthers to worry about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you that giving the information that there is only one enemy tank and what kind would be a major spoiler . The example I was giving was saying that there is a specific tank when there is no information about whether or not there is only one, and when the briefing implies that there may be a number of tanks. I also agree that there are cases where giving information that may appear innocent may on occasion give away more than the poster is aware of. I also agree that each indivicual has the right to determine how much information he should be given and how much warning that he wants. But this is a public forum, so there is a need for some kind of consensus that probably can`t satisfy everyone. The question is whether it is necessary to avoid ALL information in order to avoid such infrequent cases, or whether one should use good judgment. It is somewhat similar to the question of whether one should avoid crossing the street because there is a small probability of being run over by a truck Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Well, you'd be a very lucky allied commander to have that much detail of the OOB of the enemy beforehand. Most times you only get "some dug-in Infantry w/ tanks across the river".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear ; I'm assuming that the player doesn't know that much detail, this OOB was given only to illustrate the point. The attacker only knows that the enemy is part of the remnant of a Panzer Division (which shoujld lead him to expect at least a few tanks). You say that the knowledge that there is a Panther on the other side of the river is going to change your tactics . I don't see how; in the example I gave, the attacking player shoud assume from the briefing that there are enemy tanks. He KNOWS from the "spoiler" that at least one of them is a Panther. After destroying some tanks as you say, he knows that there is at LEAST one more enemy tank and that it is a Panther . If he didn't know there were at least a Panther, he STILL wouldn't know whether or not there are still any enemy tanks left and how many. So I still don't see how this knowledge will give him an unfair advantage and how he can exploit it by changing his tactics, since the safe thing to do would be to assume that there are still tanks there. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that his tactics for assaulting the river line should be the same whether or not there are any enemy tanks left, that is, clear a path to the river, pound the enemy with artillery, cover your advance with smoke, and advance with infantry supported by tanks . Even if ther are no tanks left, there are likely to be AT guns in the enemy position , and one should NEVER lead with tanks against an unknown enemy, except perhaps over flat open terrain where there is no place to hide for bushwacking infantry. More comments welcome Henri

Although we can quote numbers till the cows come home, I am afraid that the casualty number situation only helps to cloud the issue, when it is used to support the position of German superiority versus insurmountable Soviet odds. The fact is that after the initial disasters of 1941, the decisive battles that followed were almost evenly matched in terms of numbers of soldiers involved. The battle of Stalingrad, taking into account all the units that participated in the fight for the encirclement, involved about a million soldiers on both sides. They were about evenly matched, but the Soviets won due to superior tactics, better intelligence and exploitation of German mistakes ; the Germans lost because of faulty intelligence (they never spotted the major Soviet movements of armored formations until they were on them ), protecting their flanks with their weakest units (mostly Rumanians and Italians) , Hitler intervention in preventing a timely withdrawal from Stalingrad, and faulty strategy (overextending their lines to the Caucasus and focusing on two distant objectives that were too far apart) . The cold war made it convenient to swallow whole the defeated German generals' self-justified myuths to the effect that they were defeated only through Hitler's interventions and by Soviet "hordes". Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: Gentlemen, a few more questions: What do you think of Battlefront's approach to Operations. Like it? Don't like it? Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bill, I have only played one, so I am still undecided on the issue. However, one thing that I find disorienting and a bit unrealistic is the lack of information about how one is doing after each scenario . This could be improved mightily by changing only the briefing: in sum, the player could be told that he is expected to reach a certain "phase line" by a certain time, so that he would know if he is ahead or behind schedule.In a real-life Battle plan, commanders are given specific intermediate objectives to achieve, usually in the form of phase lines. More difficult to program in the same vein as the above would be branching scenarios that would depend on what the player has achieved or not achieved; for example, the player is tasked with capturing a certain crossroads before the end of the scenario; if he succeeds , he might be given another objective as part of a larger battle, or he might be submitted to an enemy counter-attack to retake the critical crossroads and be tasked with holding the position for a certain length of time.In the simplest case, there would be only two branches at the end of each scenario, or sometimes only one; for example if the player did not succeed in taking the objective, in the next scenario he might be tasked with the same objective, but perhaps with some reinforcements, but not necessarily. Another somewhat different but related approach would be a campaign where the player could not advance to the next step before accomplishing the previous one . This would be a linear campaign consisting of a series of connected scenarios and depending on the programmer, there could be branches or not. To avoid frustration from weaker players, there would have to be levels of difficulty. Nice work anyway. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Hello Henri, Mind if i chime in? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not at all, on tghe contrary, I would like to generate a discussion to clarify this point, at least in my own mind. I do agree that there are cases where information that there is a tank in a scenario can change the tactics of a player (especially if there are only two tanks per side as in a certain scenario), but let's take a hypothetical case to avoid spoilers: let us say that there is a 30-move scenario where the Allies are atttacking across a shallow river, and the briefing says that the river line is defended by the remnants of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Let us say that in fact there are two German companies supported by four tanks and a couple of At guns in the area. No let us say that someone on this forum slips out that there is a Panther in the German position. How is this going to change the tactics of a British player? If there were a Tiger instead of a Panther, would he attack in a different way? How about a PzIV? The fact is that there is only one standard way of assaulting a river crossing, whether or not ther are tanks or AT guns present, and that is to recon the German position to the extent possible, then to mount an assault with tanks and infantry after pounding the German position with artillery and smoke, keeping a sizeable resserve to follow up the breakthrough. And the briefing clearly indicated that the Germans are the remnants of a Panzer Division, who are therefore likely to have tanks. In my view, the following statement, although it clearly fits the definition of "spoiler" as implied by many here, gives absolutely no information that can be exploited by the British player: "I found that the German position was defended by entrenched infantry supported by tanks and AT guns, and I spotted a Panther near a hill behind what appeared to be the main point of German resistance across the river." What was the British player expecting, Daffy Duck? Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606: By the way, was that your AAR for "All or Nothing" in the war-historical newsgroup? If it was I read it and liked it. I've only played up to turn 38 and discovered that lllooonnnggg scenarios... [snipped to avoid spoiler complaints)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yp, that was me . That huge map has got to be the best CM map I hae ever seen . As I said elsewhere, an easier way to plot road travel of multiple vehicles could make this senario less tedious. Henri

Over the past 3 days, whenever I am not playing Combat Mission, I am reading this forum. Problem is, by the time I get to the bottom of the list, new messages have popped up at the top, and I end up reading the list endlessly. If you also have this problem, I think I have a solution Based on my experience of reading these forums almost full-time for 3 days or more, here is what I found: instead of reading messages fromthe top of the list, start reading fromthe BOTTOM. While you are working your way to the top, new messages will be added to those top messages, so you will have more to read by the time you get there and you will spend less time scrolling around This is so efficient that I now have nothing to read, and I am reduced to writing messages of my own in order to kill time while waiting for new messages to appear . Henri Sheesh! This game is more addictive than heroin

I have just been doing searches about the subject "spoilers" in order to find out exactly what is the standard on this forum, having recently been accused myself of posting spoilers in at least one message .The search didn't help much, except to tell me how sensitive some people are about the slightest bit of information. Now I respect other peoples' opinions, and everyone has a right to determine himself how much he wants to know in advance about any scenario.The fact is that I don't understand how some small amount of information that any reasonable person should be able to guess can "spoil the fun" or give an "added advantage" . Here are some examples. In one case, a poster (not me) was chided because he mentioned that there were tanks (without saying how many or which ones) in a scenario on a big map that lasted over 50 moves. I have difficulty imagining a very large scenario in combat mission where there are no tanks at all. Or what difference it makes in gameplay.If you are playing an assault, what difference does it make whether or not tanks or AT guns are going to greet your own tanks? In another case, a poster was chided for "ruining" a pbem game about to start because he mentioned information that was clearly available in the briefing text. Now I can imagine cases where information such as "...late in the game, German tanks popped up on my right flank unexpectedly just when I was about to enter the town...", but I fail to understand how knowledge that there is a Tiger in a big scenario can "spoil" the game. As a matter of fact, I real all the AARs I can find, and it doesn't affect my gameplay at all. Maybe it's because I don't think about the scenario itself but on the tactics and flow of the battle; when I played a certain scenario recently, someone told me that I might have a nasty surprise as I crossed a certain bridge, but that didn't stop me from crossing it, and I would have been just as careful had I not been told anything. In another case, I read an AAR and the very next day, made the same mistake that the poster had mentioned in his AAR. In many cases, I prefer to know as much as possible about the scenario BEFORE I play it, which is why I would like a computer vs computer mode in CM . I understand that everyone is not like me, and that this is not good for human vs human play (which I haven't got into yet :rolleyes . My personal definition of a spoiler would be "information about a scenario that may be used by a player to gain an (unfair) advantage over an opponent". If we want to use the definition "Any information about a specific scenario that is not explicit in the briefing", then maybe we need two definitions. Opinions welcome. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: The key rules to a fighting retreat are to inflict your clutch of casualties on the enemy and retreat BEFORE they get close enough to inflict lots of casualties on you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is very good advice, and indeed, when I applied it to the rest of my game, I was able to execute a flexible defence with success (see my AAR on Fear in the Fog). Given that there was fog reducing visibility, I could retreat with as little as 60 m from the enemy, but I had other units suppressing the enemy. My limited experience tells me this: to successfully retreat, you should have just fired on the enemy, be at least in scattered tree terrain or better, have the enemy unit(s) suppressed and lying down and be at least 60 m from the nearest one.If any one of these conditions is absent, you stand a pretty good chance of taking heavy casualties as you retreat .Having other nearby units (especially a machinegun) suppressing the enemy can also be a big plus. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrapGame: Wow, what a great thread. I am relatively new to the world of drinking Scotch, so this is a fantastic learning experience. The old lady is gonna be Pissed when she sees the cost of this trip to the liquor store.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't let the plebe convince you that just because Johnny Walker Black Label is advertised in airline magazines, it is the best scotch; no sir, you gotta go fer Johnny Walker GOLD Label, which is a lot better, or if you own an oil well or two, you might even want to go for the BLUE Label! (Actually I only had a bottle of Gold Label becauase my sons gave it to me for Christmas. But at the Glasgow airport last month, a lady had me taste a new kind of Glen Fiddich (she said), and it was so good that I bought a bottle. I keep such scotch deep in my liquor cabinet and feed ordinary guests scotch with the name of a horse in it that my mother-in-law used to give me for Christmas every year. Henri

OK, here is my own AAR on the game I just finished as the Allies playing Fear in the Fog. For more details on the scenario itself and pictures of the map, check out the thread on the other AAR on this forum. I`m going from memory, so there may be a few inaccuracies. Like one of the posters on the other thread, I misunderstood the briefing and was under the impression that the Germans would be coming down the road in the center of the map and that I might have to fight for the town. So I had my three original platoons moving North side-by-side, with the center one slightly ahead and the two others ready to step up to the flank when the central platoon collided with the enemy. Let us call them from left to right I, II and III platoons of Company A. My single tank followed behind the center. I bypassed the town without incident, and assumed that the Germans would be around the second victory flag further up the road.I was startled when the the rightmost squad of Platoon 3/A on the right heard Germans coming to their right. I quickly turned them to the right and deployed them in wooded terrain as well as I could. A company of Germans walked right into them and was severely shot to pieces before they could bring up reinforcements. I decided to continue Platoon 1/A up the road towards the second objective while turning Platoon 2 to the right and heading East just below the town. Company B reinforcements had just come in to the West with a second tank, and they could be split to cover the southern flank, take cover in the town and back up Platoon 3 of Company A. Now strong German reinforcements were coming up NE of the town and causing casualties to Platoon 3/A, and it was clear that Platon 3/A could not hold out against what appeared to be a full German company, so I decided to execute a fighting retreat to fall back on my reinforcements, but it was too late, since German units were as close as 30 m from my units, and Platoon 3/A was annihilated . I quickly ordered Platoon 2/A to back up and to form a defensive line just East of the N-S road, while Platoon 1/B came up behind tosupport them. One squad of 2/A was sent to capture the second objective flag to the North. In the meantime, Platoon 2/A ambushed a bunch of Germans SE of the town and again caused heavy casualties. The Germans were backed up by a tank, who was headed sraight for a Bazooka unit, who took careful aim, and destroyed the tank with his first shot. My first tank was parked next to a house at the extreme East end of the town, where I expected the German Schwerpunkt to hit.My second tank was bogged down and immobilized as soon as it moved . After recovering from the ambush, the Germans brought up forces and again I tried a fighting retreat with the same result as before.After this, I came to this forum and learned that one should not attempt a fighting retreat when the enemy is closer than 80 m .Platoon 2/A was gone too. Now a Panther appeared and moved within 30 m in front of my Sherman, who fired and missed after aiming for 30 seconds ! The Panther didn`t miss, and my last tank went up in flames . I scrambled my surviving bazooka units who, following Murphy`s principle, were all at the furthest possible distances from the German tank . I had visions of this German tank gallivanting through the center of my position without opposition . I finally positioned a bazooka team in a woods some 50 m in front of the tank; he got off two shots before the tank sent his limbs flying in all directions with a direct hit from the cannon. My right flank was being held by a single infantry platoon, backed up by a HMG across the road, and the tank began to loop towards the infantry platoon, who was shooting at advancing Germans; the tanks stopped right adjacent to one of my company HQs, then slowly rotated to the left with the clear intention of putting the kibosh on my right flank along with the advancing German infantry . Less than a meter from the tank, the Company commander grabbed a satchel charge and threw it at the tank; a loud explosion and the tank crew came scampering out and were mowed down by the HQ unit , who then proceeded to hoof it out of there toward the West, because a number of German squads were approaching fast with revenge in their eyes. in the meantime, i had managed to deploy two platooons of infantry North of the town into two N-S lines one behind the other and sliding them South, with the intention of doing another fighting retreat. This time, it worked perfectly: the Germans decided to rush what they thought was the right flank of this line, but it had moved and they rushed right into the center where they were greeted with a hail of lead. My units then sucessfully fell back smoe distance to wait for the next onslaught. If things turned sour, the second line should hold off the Germans. It now became clear that the Germans were attacking with two pincers, one North of the town and one south of the town, expecting to take the defenders of the town in a squeeze play; But it turned out that my center was far to the rear in the Western part of the town, with my strength also in two pincers , one facing the Northern German pincer and the other slightly to the south of the other one. As a result, to the South, the Germans hit air when they rushed the center and were taken in the flank by my units there. When I saw enough German units in the center, I opened fire with my 105 mm artillery in an area bombardment, the result of which was not immediately evident, but it clearly rattled the teeth of the Germans. The Germans tried once more to rush my line in the North, but once more they came right at my units in woods supported by two machineguns, and their dead were piled up like cordwood in front of my line. Finally, I realized that the enemy assault was spent, and I ordered my reserve units in the South to advance, with the idea of mopping up survivors East and SE of the town and to hit the ones in the North on the flank. As soon as the Germans saw that the tables were turned and that they were doomed, they surrendered, handing me a major victory . The Germans had taken four times as many casualties as they had given, despite wiping out the two platoons that they had originally met. In retrospect, I was a bit lucky : after destroying the two platoons that had intercepted them, the Germans concluded that there would be a hole in my line at these locations, but as it happened, my deployment expecting Germans coming from the North favored a redeployment favorable to flanking the Germans on the one hand, and blocking them in the other. The loss of the Panther was the critical turning point of the battle. Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-19-2000).]