Keith

An immobile tank with AP flying around is a steel coffin. I think it is perfectly natural to abandon ship in this circumstance and simulates what happens in Real Life. I was playing a game yesterday where I had a green T60 (20mm gun) shooting at a PzKfw III several hundred meters away. The T60 bounced several shells of the panzer and went from fine morale to shaken to panicked when the crew realized that the shells were having no affect. The panzer did not even shoot in the T60's direction! :eek: [ October 22, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Keith ]

If you are positioning your AT guns on top of hills with a great field of view you are ASKING to get mortared. Try placing your AT guns with narrow fields of view or on reverse slopes and supported by machine guns and see how hard they are to kill.

If you want to simulate a defense in depth, CM:BB has a new feature for operations where you can have reinforcements arrive only once the attacker advances past a flag marker the designer places on the map. Create some reinforcements and select the "from map" option and place the flag.

My experience is the tank hunter teams work best when they are placed just behind an infantry screen. The regular infantry should focus on pinning down and seperating the enemy infantry from the enemy armor. This forces the armor to advance buttoned up without infantry support, which makes them easy prey for the tank hunter teams. Placing the tank hunter teams in front of your infantry typically results in the teams getting quickly spotted and overwhelmed by the enemy infantry firepower.

Some comments about the German breakthrough tactics in Bulge. Dietrich's Sixth SS Panzer Army in the North attacked with Volksgrenadier and Fallschirmjäger divisons for the initial breakthrough. The majority of the infantry units were composed of inexperienced men conscripted from the surplus Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personel, or they were over age reservist or teenagers. The infantry failed miserably, incuring high losses (a formula that was repeated in Nordwind). Subsequently Dietrich commited the SS Panzer Divisions to break through (Pieper). In contrast, the more successful Fifth Panzer Army attacked with the armor divisions in the first waves (once they bridged the river). The German infantry prooved inadequate for the task of taking Bastogne, thus drawing away German armor from the spearheads. Of course the supply situation eventualy become catostrophic resulting in the wholesale abandonment of German armor due the lack of gas. I would have to agree with the assertion that the German army was very unbalanced, with only a handful of elite Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions having mobility and high quality personel. The majority of the German army was infantry divisions who relied on horse drawn artillery, marched on their feet, and often lacked tank support. This is in contrast to the American and Russian infantry divisions, which customarily had a tank battalion and/or a SP gun or TD battalion attached for combined arms purposes, not to mention copious amounts of artillery. The bottom line is the German offensives failed in the later part of the war in no small measure due to their inadequate infantry, which resulted in the constant wearing down of the elite Panzer units.

The thing I would like to have changed is the behavior of the tactical AI whenever a targeted unit is supressed and "disappears" to be replaced by a national symbol (star or cross). If this occurs the firing unit ceases firing and switches targets. The problem is if the target is an AT gun, for example, then by ceasing to at least target the foxhole where the gun is emplaced allows the AT gun crew to recover and zap your tank. What I usually do to compensate is the following turn I Area target the emplacement. But this behavior occurs frequently and is quite annoying.

You seem to be asking two questions in one 1) How do I avoid getting ambushed 2) How do I determine enemy positions without getting waxed The answer to part one in armor engagments is to use overwatch tactics where anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of your force stops (preferably hull down) while the remainder advances within sight of the overwatch group. This way if a bad guy pops up they can be supressed by the overwatch tanks. You can leap frog units in this fashion. Never send recon units so far out in advance that they are not covered, otherwise you will end up with a lot of flaming data points. Another good tactic with CM:BB is to use the covered arc command to bring the turret to bear on suspected enemy positions whatever the direction of your movement. For the answer to the second part, how do you determine enemy positions, there are a couple of solutions. One solution is "recon by fire" where you simply area fire on a suspected enemy position and hope the bad guys break cover and return fire, or at least remain supressed. This is a good tactic against buildings. Another tactic is to send split half squads forward with move to contact or sneak commands. For vehicles in CM:BB, use the Shoot and Scoot command when popping up over a ridge or around a bend. This allows a minimal amount of time for the bad guys to shoot at you. I hope this helps.

I have noticed the CM:BB AI uses overwatch tactics when moving its armor forward rather than the mindless mass technique in CM:BO. You will notice that tanks take turns moving forward in bounds.

I noticed that some of the AT hunter teams have AT mines in their inventory. How are they used against enemy tanks? Do you issue an "Assault" command with the waypoint set to the target tank? As an aside, I noticed that the AI does not take advantage of the pre-bombardment in the demo scenario.

I noticed a couple of people blasting Hitler for his stand fast orders. I argue that in many cases, the stand fast orders were the best course of action. A case in point is the Moscow counter offensive in 1941-1942. The majority of the German divisions were infantry units with horse drawn artillery. Most of the infantry was malnurished, frost bitten, soles with limited mobility and most of their horses were dead and replaced by Russian ponies. They would have been scatered and slaughtered in the open steppes of Russia. Hitler's stand fast order saved AG Center. Another example is Stalingrad. I argue that once Stalingrad was firmly surrounded, Hitler's order to stand fast was correct and in fact prevented the complete collapse of the Southern front. Sixth Army tied down numerous Russian divisions that would otherwise could have run pell mell further East and cut off the Army in the Caucasus. Furthermore the poor soles in Stalingrad had no real chance to escape given their miserable condition, lack of fuel, etc. The Russian tanks would have eaten them alive if they tried to break out. Granted, in numerous cases Hitler decisions to hold territory at all cost resulted in the liquidation of countless German divisions. But also remember that the vast part of the German Army marched on its feet and lacked the mobility to disengage from the Russians.

This medium size operation is best suited for PBEM and has been play tested for PBEM. Title: Bouncing The Rhine Date: April 6, 1945 Location: Hitdorf, Germany Weather: Night; Variable Weather Length: 4 Battles Recommended Side to Play: PBEM or Americans vs AI Operation Type: Assault Author: Keith Schur kschur@erols.com Version 2.0 On April 1st, 1945 the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment took up positions along the West Bank of the Rhine River. The opponents this time were battered Wehrmacht forces who had been trapped in the Ruhr pocket with their backs to the East Bank of the Rhine River. The airborne troops sent patrols each night from the West Bank in boats to reconnoiter the opposite shore where, almost without exception, the enemy was contacted and brisk firefights developed. With usual paratrooper aggressiveness Col. Tucker, the commander of the 504th PIR, ordered Company "A" to cross the Rhine on April 6th to seize and occupy the mile long village of Hitdorf, a small enemy held harbor on the Rhine between Köln and Düsseldorf. The colonel wished to establish a base for further patrolling on the East Bank of the Rhine. Loading into assault boats in platoon waves, "A" Company crossed the Rhine at 0230 hours. Upon reaching the east bank, the enemy was immediately contacted. Under heavy fire the American platoons managed to knock out several machine gun nest and the Hitdorf garrison was eliminated by 0830 hours. A perimeter defense was established and after defeating a company sized German counter attack, the situation appeared to be well in hand. However, this peace was short lived. The Germans assembled and directed a considerable portion of the 62nd Volksgrenadier Division and remnants of the 11th Panzer Division to the mission of annihilating the formidable thrust. In mid-afternoon on April 7th the entire area was subjected to a withering and devastating artillery barrage for two hours after which counter-attacking forces in overwhelming strength with tank support assaulted the defending troopers from every direction and penetrated to the heart of the town. The troopers of Company "A" doggedly stood their ground and at point blank range inflicted terrible casualties on the masses of the enemy. Unfortunately, the third platoon of "A" Company was wiped out. During the hours of darkness on April 7th the two remaining platoons of "A" Company fought their way back step by step to their boats. A horseshoe defense was established at the beachhead, the open end of which faced the water. Regiment meanwhile ordered two platoons of "I" Company to cross the river at 0130 hours in order to clear the beachhead and withdraw back across the river with the survivors of "A" company. Simultaneously, the Germans counterattacked, this time with a platoon of tanks and 200 infantry. The paratroopers quickly piled into their boats and staged a "mini-Dunkirk". Eighty prisoners were taken and evacuated. Conservative estimates indicate that 150 of the enemy were killed and 250 wounded. For this action Company "A" received a Presidential Unit Citation. Get it at the scenario depot: http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/

The Molotov cocktails were not as "emergency" as you think. They were in fact manufactured with special fuses in a kind of kit and issued to the infantry.

I swear, nothing is ever good enough for some of the grogs on the board. I am suprised the CM design team don't wake up in the morning and punt and say screw it with all of the complaining going on. The design team should be commended for their hard work. The graphics are super. It IS a tactical war game, not some silly real time shooter game.

I look forward to downloading your work. Your attention to detail is always great.

One thing JasonC failed to point out in his article on the evolution of Russian SPGs is the fact that one of the prime motivations for the Russians was that they desperately needed responsive, dynamic artillery support, which they could not obtain through indirect artillery fires. The Russians lacked flexiblity with artillery due to a lack of radios, lack of trained personel with technical know how required for operation of artillery fire control centers, and the Russian centralization of command authority. In fact, during the first two years of the war the Russian artillery was only noted by the Germans when the Germans were fighting against static lines where the Russians could lay land lines in advance. So the Russian SPGs were seen as a way to overcome the short comings of the Russain artillery by providing infantry with direct fire artillery support.

The notion that the Soviets deliberately stalled to allow the Germans to "liquidate" Jews is absolute baloney. The gheto populations were eliminated in 1943, long before the Russians showed up om the Vistula. The Russians may have been totalitarian, but they were miles above the Germans with their treatment of Jews. In fact, several high ranking general officers of the Soviet Army were Jews. David Glantz comes down rather firmly on the assertion that the Bagration offensive simply ran out of steam. [ February 12, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

The notion that the Soviets deliberately stalled to allow the Germans to "liquidate" Jews is absolute baloney. The gheto populations were eliminated in 1943, long before the Russians showed up om the Vistula. The Russians may have been totalitarian, but they were miles above the Germans with their treatment of Jews. In fact, several high ranking general officers of the Soviet Army were Jews. David Glantz comes down rather firmly on the assertion that the Bagration offensive simply ran out of steam. [ February 12, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

I have an four battle, company sized operation I would like you to test, if possible. The title of the operation is "Bouncing The Rhine" and features the 82nd Airborne's attempt to establish a Rhine bridgehead. Email me at kschur@erols.com if you or anyone else is interested. -Keith

You might want to post your message in the Tactics and Strategy message board for more responses. Generaly speaking, on the defense support weapons such as mortars, AT guns, infantry guns, etc. should be deployed behind a screen of infantry. MGs can be deployed on the flanks with converging, interlocking fields of fire. On the offense, support weapons should only move once the rifle squads have cleared the way. Support weapons can provide a base of fire using overwatch to cover an infantry assault. Check out the following website for thorough discussions on tactics from a REAL professional http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/ Go to the archives section and download his series of articles on infantry on the attack. [ February 08, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

It was really criminal how Talonsoft handled the TOAOW series, making the various packeged "updates" incompatible with one another. They really milked the cow for all its worth. :mad:

From the CM perspective there is little to distinguish a Jaeger infantry unit from a regular infantry unit other than the weapons and TO&E. Operationally, however, the Jaeger divisions were true light infantry in the sense they had a short logistics trail compared to regular army units. This is important when operating in difficult terrain such as mountains. You will notice that currently the U.S. always deploys 10th Mountain very quickly during any conflict exactly for the same reason - a short logistics trail. For example 10th Mountain was deployed in Somalia where there are no mountains at all. Likewise 10th Mountain was deployed in Yugoslovia, not necessarily to conduct mountain warfare, but because the U.S. need to rapidly deploy infantry on the ground in peace keeping roles. Likewise for guarding the airfields and acting as a rapid reaction force in Afghanastan. [ February 06, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

Steve, what is the chance that some of these great enhancements will be retrofitted int CMBO after you wrap up CMBB?

I think the 'front line determination' code works fine as is. For city fights the designer can already set the "no man's land" seperation to 80m, which is four map squares. I think this is sufficient, unless you want to model situations where units are cut off in islands of resistance. With regard to battle duration, the problem you have with making battles long is ammunition shortages. I think the multiple battle format is supposed to model multiple pushes, each taking 15 min to 30 min. Simply add more battles to model a prolonged struggle. [ February 05, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

Bill, I know you developed several scenarios for the various tournaments. I was wondering if you could publish these scenarios on your web site now that some of the tournaments are wrapping up.

I recommend going to Amazon.com and looking up the volume you are interested. The reviews at that website are very valuable. Generally speaking , the Osprey series give an overview of historic battle with nice map and graphics. The quality is variable depending on the author.