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. 1.03 is here, and I am gone- but I feel compelled to say thank you to pretty much everybody who ever posted on this board: each post I have read (which is virtually all of them) has either increased my knowledge in some way, or has given me cause for reflection in others. For this I am indebted to all of you. Especially though, I would like to thank Steve and Charles for CM, and to Fionn, MadMatt, KwazyDog, Moon, and the many others who have laboured on the game either directly or indirectly to bring it to the level it has reached today. What is interesting about CM is that even though it is putting a new spin on wargaming, it has brought back, for me, the same fun and excitement I used to get 30+ years ago when I first played "cardboard and paper." Until now, that excitement has been missing- I'm glad it has finally returned...

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

My son learned that bigger is not necessarily always the better way to go when one of my British glider squads destroyed his King Tiger with a Gammon bomb as he was parked next to a building. He spent probably 75% of his allotted points on the beastie. I have used the StuG III,IV and Panzer IV G/H/J quite a lot, and find they do well. You have to be careful with them, but that holds true for all the armour in the game...

Mr Wilder: I think it would be an excellent idea. I would play it. I am currently working on the map for one of the San Pietro (Italy) battles- it is not in the right place or time, but if I can get the map to work to my satisfaction, it should be close enough...

Seems to me that the Canadians gave the SS a hard time on occassion also...

I have been totally involved playing CM since I got it. What really kills me for gaming are the horrendous prices by the time the games arrive in Canada- CM and Normandy '44 together cost me almost $160. They are good value for money, but I can't buy too many games at those prices...

On the Pershing: T26E3 Pershing. Source: Hunnicutt, R. P.: Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. Twenty Pershings were shipped to Antwerp in January 1945. After bore sighting and test firings were completed on 23 February 1945 they were then ready for combat. The next shipment of at least 70 Pershings arrived at Antwerp and Le Havre on about 25 March 1945. These were ready for action in the first week of April 1945. By VE day there were 310 Pershings in Europe of which about 200 had been issued to front line units. Twelve Pershings were also sent to Okinawa but were too late to take part in any fighting. T26E4 Pershing. Source: Hunnicutt, R. P.: Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series. This was also known as the Super Pershing. This was a T26E1 refitted with the new 90mm gun T15E2 and redesignated the T26E4. A single vehicle arrived in Europe at the 3rd Armoured Division on 15 March 1945, but was not ready for combat until about a week later. The front hull armour of a Panther was added to the front hull of this Pershing. As for the Jagdpanther, it's thickest armour was about 80mm IIRC- if it was 76mm M4's firing at it, they may have been using tungsten rounds, which at 500m would be a problem for the JP... I am not sure what "price structure" is used to attach a value to a piece of equipment in the game.

Don't know what your video card, etc. is like- but the flash and smoke are there, at least on my box anyways...

If you could be the game designer, and put in Rangers, how would you feature them that would make them radically different from the American units already in the game?

I read that near Arnhem, at the time of Market-Garden, there was some sort of Panzer training unit that had six Pz III (mark unknown) on hand...

"They won't hit the tank either..." lol. Reminds me of what my friend's dad used to say about the Sten gun (he was in the 6th Airborne)- it was at it's best in close-quarters combat: first you empty the magazine at the enemy from ten metres (if it didn't jam), hitting nothing, and then you wallop him over the head with it...

Flank, flank, flank- use every bit of terrain you can, and try to approach the enemy from at least two different directions: while trying to engage/protect itself against one direction, it's flank will be exposed in the other. Be patient- withold your armour until your infantry element has had a chance to scope things out on foot. A rule of thumb I use is 1/3 of the time can be safely spent feeling things out (if game is 15 turns, allow at least 5 turns for recce). In a high threat environment, like a village or town, the trick is to keep in some contact with your infantry, but let them move far enough ahead to clear out AT weapons, snipers, etc. Position some element to overwatch another while it moves up- if there is high ground, grab it and use it. Create your own "terrain" with smoke if need be. In truth, there weren't a whole lot of pure tank-on-tank battles in Northwest Europe- the terrain was against it- your best defence against enemy tanks is your own infantry.

I have played about half a dozen games with the grid on, and in truth, I get so wrapped up in events, I forget that it is even there...

The first thing I thought of was comparing games that I have that also use grids: Alpha Centauri, Chaos Gate, Final Liberation, and S.M.'s Gettysburg. The only one of the four that I don't use the grid on is S.M.'s Gettsyburg, mostly because it is ugly enough to knock a buzzard off a ****-wagon. The other three are unobtrusive, and this new grid thingie looks just fine to me. I am too lazy to count squares, the LOS tool is good enough for distances. I have no trouble finding hull-down posits. But the grid will help to get a better feel for the terrain with just a glance- this will be important when TCP/IP comes in, and my opponent is trying to climb out of the chat box screaming at me to hurry up with my frigging move, will ya already?

Try playing a scenario in heavy fog, with the "sound contacts" jumping all over the place. The FOW of this game is one of it's best features, IMO.

The book,"Tiger Fibel," (Tiger Bible) has a very detailed chapter on how to use the optics on the Tiger, and how to shoot at various targets, compensating for many variables. This only applies to the Tiger, but I would assume would be applicable to other German equipment of the same time period. http://sites.netscape.net/wulfdbrand/main/Teutonia-Tigerfibel-main.html

I think the "interactive history" bill fits me. I have played wargames since I was eight, I am 43 now. Yet, I can't stand playing other types of games, like Monopoly or card games, or anything like that. My daughter wanted me to play Monopoly (the kid's version!)the other day, and I did enough squirming for ten kids. I think she let me win, too...

The FlaK 18/36/37 was designed as an anti-aircraft weapon first- somebody probably sat down and figured out that 88mm would be the optimum size calibre that would fill 'x' area of the sky with enough lethal fragments at the right altitude to make it uncomfortable to fly through. Bigger may have been better in the above respect, but then, weight would have increased, the gun would be less movable, a different prime mover might be needed, etc. Smaller, and you need more guns to fill the same job, max ceiling would be lower...ad nauseum The FlaK 18 was designed by Krupp engineers working for Bofors in Sweden about 1931. They brought the plans back to Germany and the gun went into service in 1933. The FlaK 36 was an 18 with a simplified platform, with front and rear made identical, as were the limbers, so the gun could be easily re-limbered and towed in either direction with equal facility. The barrel came in three interlocking pieces, so that only a worn section had to be replaced, not the entire barrel (saved on metal). The FlaK 37 was a 36 with a two piece barrel and a simplified, electrical, gunlaying system.

I never thought I would see a game where you could have a pure infantry fight and it turns out to be doable, fun, and tense. Seen it now... The Bucholz Station scenario by Martin Turewicz is a great small scenario- I recommend everybody play that one. I played as the Amis and gave the computer a +3 (I always give the AI +3). Won't give away anything, but I was losing for 3/4 of the game until I managed to rally my men and beat off a very determined German attack that gave me a draw.

I have yet to play anything on other than a small map. I have only played two scenarios- "St Anne's Chappelle" and "Breakfast at Bucholz Station" (outstanding scenario, Moon!). The rest have all been QB's of generally 500 points or less, and twenty turns in length. I may never get around to any of the other included scenarios...

This is a bit nebulous I realize, but for what it is worth: I have two old books at home that make references to the Stuart minus it's turret, and I spent about an hour on the net looking for references on the Stuart Kangaroo, and found it mentioned by name (no pictures though, naturally). Condensed, the above basically said that the turret was removed and seats were put in, along the lines of the Ram variant. It seems that "Kangaroo" was the name stuck to any of the field modified types, whether they were Priests, Rams, Stuarts, or old Sherman hulls. The Stuart in British/Canadian sevice was turretless as a command tank, a recce tank, and as a mini-prime mover, also. http://www.shadowsfolly.com/WWII/USA/LightM3_M5.htm The above URL is typical of the info I found. Given the use made of other chassis in the role of an ad hoc APC, it seems like a logical extension that the Stuart could be used in the same way. This site: http://www.mapleleafup.org/intro.html is in the process of getting an article up about Canadian Stuarts, so maybe something interesting will show up there...wish I had Hunnicutt's books, too, but they are a little expensive for me...

I am currently playing a small QB PBEM with the following (Canadian troops, Veteran, armour is Regular): 2 x Rifle Platoons (ea with 1 x PIAT and 1 x 2" Mortar) 1 x Engineer Platoon (2 squads, 1 FT) 1 x Vickers MMG 1 X 5.5" FO 1 x Badger 1 x Churchill VIII (95mm howitzer) This is typical of the kind of structure I like to use, both in scale and in size. The above could be considered a composite force formed to perform a specific task- getting control of a small village in this case. It can be argued that it might not be a prototypical arrangement, but it seems like a reasonable one. I have yet to do anything on other than a small map- the really large stuff doesn't really grip me, at least not yet.

Philistine: I have been building my forces in the exact opposite way you have: I choose infantry first, and then go from there. It seems more realistic (to me) to keep the infantry structure as intact as possible, and then add-in the other bits. "Your job today is to take Coy B over that hill and clear that village. I managed to scrounge two M-10s from the TD Battalion, and a 105 FO from the Cannon Coy to back you up." That's the way I tend to see the game, I guess. It seems more plausible to keep the basic infantry structure as intact as possible, and then put in some assets to round it out.

I am glad that someone has addressed the historical availability of certain types of equipment. Reading some of the earlier posts on games where there were an even dozen flame units and three dozen King Tigers appearing kind of made my hair stand on end. I show that 6 Wasps were (under ideal circumstances), supposed to be allocated to each infantry battalion (Illustrated Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Weapons and Warfare, Columbia House, 1979). Since circumstances were seldom, if ever ideal, I would suggest maybe three or less is more like it. For the size of most scenarios in CM, one would be the rule of thumb I would use: I would also apply this to AVRE's and most other "specialty" items. Tommi- I think the English word (actually French, but we stole it) that closest describes the tree barricades would be "abatis."

You might want to check out the Canadian Badger, too: it has basically the same flame equipment as the Wasp, but is mounted on a Ram chassis, and so is much more heavily armoured...