Keith

I have created an operation titled "Bouncing The Rhine" and I would like to have some volunteer testers, if possible. The operation is a historic, company sized, four battle operation. My email address is kschur@erols.com. Note I have tested the operation myself against the AI several times. :cool:

You send me yours and I will send you mine Seriously, I also have a historic, company sized, four battle operation I need testing titled "Bouncing The Rhine". My email address kschur@erols.com.

The fact of the matter is Hitler did not create the rabid anti-Semitism present in Germany, Poland, and the Baltic States. Hitler merely tapped into and channeled what people were already feeling and wanting. The German people, and especially the German military officers, joyfully rode the fast horse that was Hitler until they realized, too late, that they couldn't get off and that Hitler would take the nation to its doom. BTW the first Holocaust occured way before Hitler ever walked onto the stage. The Crusaders slaughtered millions of Jews on their way to "liberate" Palestine.

This statement I agree with; however, the command bonuses are not a reflection of the training of the troops, which is intrinsic to the squads themselves (ie. the squad is either "Veteran", "Green",etc.). The command bonuses are modeling the ability of the commander to influence the performance of the troops through exemplary leadership, on the spot, where the action is happening. I like to think of the HQ units as an abstraction, with the actual officers themselves or runners moving from squad to squad within command radius to provide leadership. [ January 31, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

Enoch, your proposal has been proposed before on this forum. I will give some reasons why I don't like the idea of giving subordinate HQs bonuses from higher echelon HQs within a command radius. First, I believe what the CM designers intended to simulate when they provide HQ quality bonuses to subordinate units is the ability of HQs to provide leadership by example, on the spot, directing fires personally, etc. I find it hard to believe that somehow a company commander on the horn with a platoon commander is going to somehow magically transfer his knowledge of field craft (Stealth) to a squad several hundred meters away. In real combat, a company CO would not micromange his subordinate officers but would defer to these subordinate officers to execute their mission using the best of their abilites. Think about it. How does it help to have Capt. Clark yelling orders on a radio to Lt. Peterson who yells at Sgt. Watkins who yells at Private Johnson to shoot that german behind the tree stump in such a such manner. If you pardon my expression, the whole idea seems "gamey" to me and artificial. Once the shooting start, the role of the Company CO was to do exactly what you described - rallying men, acting as an extra platoon commander when needed, etc. I think this is well simulated in CM as is.

Steve, what about the Siberian veterans from the Manchurian front? Or the highly trained and motivated Soviet Airborne troops? I think you should leave the "Veteran" experience levels in for scenario designers, but just make it extremely rare or impossible for the Quick Battle crowd.

Nope. I ran into the same dilemma when I was trying to turn one of my scenarios into an operation.

Hi Ben. I just recently designed a historical Operation titled "Bouncing the Rhine" dealing with a failed attempt by the 82nd Airborne to establish a bridgehead on East bank of the Rhine in the town of Hitdorf in April '45. The operation is an Assault of four battles, with each battle being 20 turns long. Initially the Americans grab the town from Volkstrum militia, but in the subsequent battles the Germans get heavily reinforced to mount a major counter attack with armor. If you or anyone else is interested, just email me at kschur@erols.com. I plan to be posting the Operation on the Scenario Depot soon.

JasonC, if flame throwers are used correctly as part of a team they can wipe out multiple squads or take out pillboxes successfuly. I have done it and I am sure others have done. If you send in a flamthrower alone with no support and without first supressing the target, of course the flamthrower team will get waxed. The whole point is purchase points don't matter on the battlefield, skill and and luck do. [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Keith ]</p>

Bada-bing!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PEIPER#1: The Story of The First T-34 Encounter With The German Invaders... On july 8 1941- less than 3 weeks after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union commence-<hr></blockquote> Actually the Germans encountered the T-34 and KV tanks earlier than this. The Russians had several hundred of the newer models in their tank divisions that were involved in the first encirclement battles. There were several big tank counter attacks that occured early on in all three fronts (North, Center, South). The German infantry were particularly screwed because the infantry divisions had very few of the 50mm AT guns at this time. [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Keith ]</p>

The scenario editor already allows for the scenario designer to give one side an automatic point bonus for being handicapped. Check in the parameters menu of the scenario editor. It is a little known and used feature.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99: I disagree. Most of what I read intimtates that a great number of Russian soldiers were less than enthusiastic about fighting for "Uncle" Joe Stalin and the Communist regime in 1941. I find lots of accounts of Russians volunteering to surrender, even as late as the Taifun battles and the drive on Moscow.<hr></blockquote> On the other hand, I find numerous accounts of German commanders being incredulous about how the Soviets refused to surrender when they were hopelessly surrounded. The German chief of staff, Halder, expressed this many times in his diary and was extremely distressed with the number of casualties the Germans were taking to clean up encircled pockets of Russians. As another example of the tenacity of the Russian soldier, very often German accounts of battle in the West and Afrika are expressed in terms of a 'sport' with rules. In the East there wass none of this sentiment. I have read many times where encircled Russian troops and tanks layed low and let the German armored spearheads roll by, only to ambush the "soft" supply and administrative columns. This caused the Germans to siphon off tanks to protect the supply columns. Even General Guederian was ambushed by maurading Russian tanks while visiting his forward troops. The Russian soldier fought bravely when he was trained and well led and well equipped. Also, when the extent of the German's war of extermination was apparent, the Russians rallied around Stalin and were much less likely to surrender. As a final note, I would like to point out that many of the surrounded Russian troops managed to evade capture and went on the form the nucleus of the Partisan movement, which became quite formidable later in the war. [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Keith ]</p>

According to Glantz, another reason the Russians lost a lot of heavy tanks during the initial period of the war (June) was that many of the newer tanks had not yet been issued any ammunition! Many Russian tanks were also lost due to mechanical breakdown and lack of fuel.

I think the high amount of casualties that units in CM can absorb and continue to fight is a bit unrealistic. Real life units would disengage at a much lower casualtiy threshold. Also, it seems the only times I capture prisoners is typically when enemy weapons teams are down to one man. Squads seem to fight to the death unless the enemy morale is in the toilet < 20%. This occurs even if an enemy squad is adjacent to or even surrounded by my friendly squads and the enemy squad is getting absolutely destroyed. I agree with the above poster that in "Real Life" Tm battles take much longer than the simulated CM world and a big reason is the instantaneous communications we have with are digital men - a mere mouseclick

I believe you need to simultaneously use the "Shift" key while clicking the "-" button from the map menu. The user interface is not very intuitive.

Bump

As the one time capital of the Holy Roman Empire and as the first city in Germany threatened with capture, the city of Aachen was an important symbol of National Socialism. For these reasons Hitler ordered a fanatical house-by-house "last stand". The city's defense rested in the hands of Col. Gerhard Wilck. The German high command told Wilck that he was to hold the city "to the last man,and if necessary allow himself to be buried under its ruins". The American First Army plan was to encircle Aachen and maintain a strong shield against German relief attempts while the city was being reduced. As part of the operation to encircle Aachen, the veteran American 18th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division was tasked to attack northward and capture Crucifix Hill (Hill 239), a crucial objective that was bristling with a maze of pillboxes and was crowned by a giant crucifix atop the hill. To assault Crucifix Hill and the surrounding ridges, Col. Smith, the 18th Infantry commander, organized special pillbox assault teams equipped with flame-throwers, Bangalore torpedoes, and demolition charges. In addition, a battery of tank destroyers and self-propelled guns were prepared to spew direct fire against the pillboxes. Captain Bobby Brown's Company "C" received orders for the attack on Crucifix Hill and its bunker complex. As the leading rifle platoon assaulted the first of many pillboxes studding the rising ground, heavy fire from a flanking emplacement raked it. An intense artillery barrage fell on the American troops that were pinned down in an exposed position. Captain Brown, a boxing champion who had earned a battlefield commission in Normandy, grabbed a pole charge, crawled and then sprinted toward the pillbox with bullets whipping around him. Capt. Brown rammed the demolition charge down the aperture of the pillbox, blowing it up. Next, Capt. Brown proceeded to knock out two more pillboxes, including the largest and most heavily armed fortification on the hill, which contained a turret mounted-88-mm gun. Once Crucifix Hill was secured Capt.Brown enabled his company to throw back two powerful German counterattacks with heavy losses. By his indomitable courage, fearless leadership, and outstanding skill as a soldier, Capt. Brown contributed in great measure to the taking of Crucifix Hill. For these actions Capt. Brown received the Congressional Medal of Honor. http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission

Sorry for being so trollish guys. I just like to be the devil's advocate sometimes.

This "Assault Vehicle" idea is bad because: 1) Infantry teams already assault vehicles if they are not supressed and are adjacent to a vehicle. 2) Ridiculous anti-historical results are likely. I can just see a bunch of squads getting mowed down trying to follow a tank around a map. 3) BTS is going to release the game in this quarter so the chance of getting in new features is exactly 0% 4) I would never use the command. 5) Gross micromanagement 6) See #3 above 7) See #3 above 8) See #3 above 9) Well, I think you get the picture...

Nice briefing. I will give it a whirl when I get a chance and post a review.

Interesting points Michael. U.S. infantry division typically had a tank battalion as well as a tank destroyer battalion attached for support. In addition independent artillery battalions could be attached. As such the typical American infantry division was as strong as a full strength German panzergrenadier division. With regard to armored divisions, the Americans split their units into three independent combat commands "A", "B", and "R" (reserve). Typically an infantry battalion would be paired with a tank battalion and engineer and artillery assets. In addition a combat command could be further split up into task forces for a specific purpose. Operationally you would typically see infantry divisions tasked to open a breach in the enemy's defenses for a combat command or task force to follow through for pursuit.

Actually it was typical for a Panzer Grenadier Division to have a battalion of assault guns, typically Stug IIIG or Stug IV, on paper. The number of actual vehicles varied based on how long the unit had been in the line, if the unit was an SS unit such as the 17th SS Panzergrenadier, etc. Note the Panzergrenadiers did not have any Sdkfz 251 APCs in their TOE because these vehicles were reserved for the grenadier regiments of the Panzer Divisions. The number of APCs was limited and in fact only the 1st Battalion of the 1st Grenadier Regiment of a Panzer Division were equipped with 251s.

I'll give an example of how the lack of a briefing can adversly affect the playing of a scenario. I just played a scenario with no briefing where for the first five turns I had nothing on the board but one platoon of infantry. It turns out this was a recon platoon and in the following turns roughly a battalion of reinforcements showed up. I had no clue this would happen not to mention the fact that the enemy actually outnumbered me for several turns. I would have handled things differently by initially attacking less aggressively if there had been a briefing. [ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Keith ]</p>

I think the briefing is an ESSENTIAL part of the gaming experience. This IS an historical wargame after all - not Mortal Kombat. Getting rid of the briefing score is like getting rid of the swimsuit competition in the Miss Universe contest. Just because some authors can't be bothered to put in the 1/2 hour effort into writing a briefing doesn't mean that the briefing score should be eliminated. The briefing sets the tone of the battle and provides essential info on reinforcements, force allocation, intelligence, etc. As a reviewer, if you don't want to rate a category, just put a zero in. For myself, I always put a comment in my reviews on the briefing quality. The briefing might seem like window dressing to others but to history buffs like myself the briefing is an important part.