Major Tom

The majority of the formations that took part in the defence of the German border were primarily new troops. I remember watching a movie on the Battle of the Bulge with one veteran tank commander commenting on his fellow tankers. The majority were, what he called young and inexperienced. He was 19. Normandy cost Germany its fiarly large and effective army. The one on the German border was a shadow of its former self. Almost 2000 Tanks were lost in Normandy, a significantly large number. Most of these were lost in the last few engagements, where the Germans attacked when they should have retreated. If this would have happened, the Allies would have been delayed in their advance on Germany, and/or the German forces during their winter counterattack would have more material resources to rely upon (with more war material being saved from destruction at Normandy). The counterattack in the late stages of the Normandy campaign put the Panzers in exactly the wrong place if they were to aid in the orderly withdrawl of the Infantry forces. What resulted was that many men were saved, but, their equipment was lost. And a significant number of the human casualties came from the tank units, which would show in later engagements. In engagements after Normandy the Germans were perpetually and severely outgunned, and Divisions never got even close to their official TOE. An army without weapons isn't much of an army. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

So it's Manieri talking to Manieri talking to Manieri, eh? That guy should go see a psychiatrist to get control of his multiple personalities. Sort of knew something was up when I checked Lewshan's profile. Interested in Basketball, drama and history, as well as going to Oakland. Being the dumbass that Maneri is, he probably thought that all black people live in Oakland and play basketball. Since his ISP has been banned, lets just see who isn't posting anymore, eh?

Now, we all throw some credible stuff at why they should or shouldn't retire these battleships. For whatever reason the USN has decided to mothball them, possibly scrap them. Maybe keeping one in deep reserve for whenever a major amphibious landing needs support might be a good idea, but, keeping it in full working order, when the possibility of a major amphibious landing is not in the near future is not economically feasible. Possibly the 'Big Gun' will come back into play when technology wars become too expensive to wage. As it is now, the mission that these ships are capable of could be fulfilled by a much more inexpensive, and probably better protected (ie. using evasion instead of armour) monitor. Personally, I am very uninterested in modern warfare and would love to see these big warships come back into play, but, the necessity of having something this large to supply fire support within 30 KM of the coast is a very limited mission for such a unit.

Actually, the German army was fiarly capable in Normandy. If it was allowed to be used more inteligently without interference from Hitler, the breakout might not have happened as early as it did, and, the German forces would have retreated in fairly good order to the Seine. The reason that they were pushed back to the German boarder was that Hitler ordered that Patton's breakout be cut by throwing all of the Panzer Divisions against well entrenched and supported US Infantry Divisions. They were attacking in terrain where the US previously blunted all of their previous attempts, why would German attempts have gone any better? This lost Germany's ability to maintain a stable front for an orderly retreat. The retreat from Falise may have saved much of the German army, but, it never really recovered from Normandy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Damn Major Tom, excellent post. I take back everything bad I said about you. I'm gonna have to copy and paste that into wordpad and save it for later referrence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, I think... Maybe I should delete that message, before all my tactics get out.

Oh, so armour strength numbers, comparisons at the ease of loss of as strong battleships in history, a history of teething problems of the Iowa class (ie turrets exploding), and that there are weapons capable of sinking these ships in large numbers around the world aren't really facts? I agree that 16" guns are good supressive fire weapons. I just don't think that their platforms are viable any more. Stating that a 1957 Flak gun can shoot down a modern $1 000 000 000 dollar fighter goes only to further my point that even with today's technology NOTHING is invincible. If a single burst of Flak can shoot down a supposed invisible aircraft, then a single spread of modern torpedos has as good, if not better chance in sinking a battleship from 1943. Even if it was guarded by the best ASW ships in the world. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

The removal of time limit, optional or not, just restricts engagements to be nothing more than totall annihilations. One side must destroy the other side to win. With timed operations, both sides might still have a lot of strength in them, but, one controlls the critical positions while the other one cannot get there in time. Defending in a no-limit game will be very annoying and tiresome. You have to always eliminate your enemy, delay is out of the question. Attackers can spend as long as they want preparing an assault. There is no feeling of rush, no immediacey. All that this serves to do is to feed one person's need to not only win, but to hunt down every straggler. There are many games as the defender I am counting down the clock to see if I can survive until the end of the game, and as the attacker counting down the clock to see if I am in correct positions to take the objectives by the end. I support variable time differences, but, removing the time alotment altogether is, well, ludicrous. Even if it is an option.

I like the heavy mortors. The 3" and 81mm Mortors have a fairly quick fire rate and can land powerful shells and ruin an entrenched force's day. Lighter mortors, like the 60mm and 2" are VERY usefull in breaking up attacks. Enemy in the open, or advancing though trees can get nailed by these small shells. Group 3 of them together an you can litter an area with 60-70 HE shells in two minutes. The best part about them is that they are immediate. Other uses for artillery is to use them for smoke cover fire. Most people don't use them this way, as, a big explosion gives an bombarder much more confidence than a wack of smoke. However, laying down a smokescreen can save your tanks from Long Range AT fire and infantry from HMG fire when advancing. It is also very good to use when counterattacking (just bombard the enemy position in smoke and move in your troops, just watch the chaos!).

I would suggest using your Artillery and onboard Mortors a lot. Wherever you think/know enemy troops are, just bombard the heck out of them and move in with your own troops to quickly mop them up. Hold back artillery until you kow where they are, or are darned sure that they are there, unless you have a lot of it! Since troop engagements will probably be in close quarters, then having a bunch of split squads as your forward platoon recon, to figure out where the enemy is, then concentrate overwhelming numbers at one critical point will save you casualties. Your split squads will probably get annihilated, but, it is better than losing the entire platoon! Always have some sort of reserve platoon for every attack. Once you secure a position, move back the troops you used to secure it and replace them with fresh ones. Close combat can drain a force's ammo and neuter an otherwize effective force (like what happened to your one force when counterattacked by that fresh platoon). You can keep these worn out troops to suppliment further attacks, or, have them guard areas you think 'might' be attacked, or for when desperate measures require them! Try to attack places where not only you have a limited field of fire, but your enemy as well. You don't want to advance in a crossfire. Surrounding an enemy group is optimum, but, very difficult, as, your surrounding forces might get surrounded themselves. Defending in a bocage should be done with minimal forces in the outpost area (enough to stop an advance) but plentiful numbers in reserve (to counterattack forces breaking through the outpost line), unless you plan to counterattack immediately catching your enemy off guard. Depending on the lenght of fields between the bocage, MMG's are either very powerful or very useless. Concentrated mortors connected to a spotter are very good in breaking up advancing troops. Tanks like StuG's are very usefull especially if there is a main road (low profile, and not much need of a fast rotating turret). One tactic is to have a deep defensive area by splitting a lot of squads and placing one in frontline positions, and a rear position in another line of bocage. This will leave you an area to retreat too that will offer you significant defensive cover, plus, you can determine the best places to position your troops for coverfire. When the enemy takes the first line of defence, they will be up against another one of equal strength. This could really ground down an assault. Troops with high numbers of Panzerfausts or Rifle Grenades should be used as your reserve or counterattack units. They are really good in cracking defensive positions. Using them in the first attacks will result in a lot of casualties before they are within range of effective use (due to medium range fire). Placing squads with large numbers of PF or RG's in defensive positions on the front lines will not use their extra weapons effectively, as they are usually used by the Tac-AI when up against entrenched enemies (not advancing ones). For tanks, I would suggest keeping them behind the Infantry, and have some Infantry on the flanks. They can be killed really easily by a Zook or Schreck hidden just about anywayre. When you find where an enemy force is, these tanks can be invaluable in supressing or knocking out their positions. The Churchill tank, Tigers and King Tigers are very good, as, they are slow yet have great armour, flame tanks should be good as well. Moving fast in bocage isn't recommended. Most of this is common knowledge, but, it doesn't hurt to reiterate stuff you already know, eh?

Ok, I thought that for EVERY scenario after a certain date a Tiger I would cost significantly more than on the earlier dates. If it randomly occurs, then, it will be more 'accurate' to simulate rarity than if it always occured. That makes a lot more sense. So, one scenario your Tiger costs a lot, and another at the same time it doesn't. But, if you do buy the Tiger I when it costs a lot, it isn't lowering the number of Tiger I's you can use, but, lowering the amount of extra points you could use for other units.

The Prince of Wales, a King George V class Battleship, had thicker side armour (16") and as thick deck armour (11") and was sunk by conventional torpedoes and bombs. The Iowa isn't revolutionary. It is the last of a long line of battleships, which have certain weaknesses. Also, ANY design that is 60+ years old should be replaced. There is only so much you can do to upgrade a hull. Assuming that your ships or navy is invincible will undobutedly result in a blooddy nose. These ships should be replaced by a more cost effective bombardment device. Having a 60 000t warship providing as effective amount of bombardment power as a 10 000t warship is rediculous. All that any modern bombardment vessel would need is ONE 16" turret. Radar tracking has negated the need for large battleships with multiple turrets to guarantee a hit. No defensive system is flawless. It was proven in just about every engagement that "the bomber will always get through".

The main reason that there are no Iowa Class BB's on the ocean floor, is, that after 1941 NO Allied Battleship or Battle Cruiser was sunk, and these ships were completed after and during 1943. They were no longer prime targets in the war, Aircraft Carriers were. The North Carolina and South Dakota Class Battleships carry a similar armour system as the Iowa Class. The Iowa may be larger, but, most of that space was taken up by increasing its speed (33 Kts from 28 Kts). Their protection isn't trivial, but, has been compromised on other vessels. There are no invincible ships or defensive systems. All that any nation has to do is to plant a 500-1000 Kg bomb on one of these ships. The technology to effectively do this exists, and has existed for over 70 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Don't be messin' with Daisy Duke. She and Alyssa Milano share my Official First Crush honors. And yes, I know I just showed my age. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You ever see that Alyssa Milano Vampire movie? It is always on late at night on those, well, less respectable channels, like FOX.

There is a problem of abuse though. If the German player starts the QB, they can just keep on starting scenarios until they get a favourable number of Tiger I tanks appearing in their inventory. Yet, many things in starting a QB rely on trust of your PBEM opponent, so, this wouldn't be a "critical" problem to the game.

Mockery is also a good way to either lull your opponent into a feeling of self security (ie. This guy mocks so bad he must really suck at CM too), or into a state of shock (ie. I can't believe he knew that about my mom, maybe he knows my CM battle plan?!?!). It is very effective.

Sorry to bring this one back up (From the Re: Ban Manieri thread), but, when you said 'I was busy watching "Rear Window"', that isn't like some sort of "Vertigo" re-enactment you were doing? Was it? [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

On thing that was used in a few tabletop games was a 'rarity roll'. BTS could do something a little more complicated than this. In some games in order to determine the number of certain rare units that one could purchase for their army they would roll a six sided dice, and whatever number appeared they could buy a maximum of. CM2 could have a more 'refined' way of measuring this, related to battle point allocation, and year of engagement. Whenever a QB is being set up, the German player would be shown the maximum numbers of Tiger I tanks they could purchase. Possibly it could be 4, or maybe 0, depends on the time of year, battle points rating (smaller battles would have an even less chance of a Tiger appearing) as well as some random chance. This would probably limit the number of Tiger I tanks used better than increasing its point value. It wouldn't mess with the already good system of point allocation.

Oops, forgot, I was going to include a smiley face. Here's an extra one for good measure! Too bad that it had to go the route it did though.

I liked him better when he just posted a lot. Too bad he stopped asking questions and started making statements.

A few minutes too late.

Personally, I don't agree with limiting a vehicles rarity by increasing its point value. BTS designed the point values to represent the vehicle's actual ability or qualities, not its availability. So, when you purchase a Tiger I tank in CM2, what actually happens is that it limits your force size, not necessarily representative of the rarity of a Tiger I tank. Lets say that the Germans have an equivalent tank to the Tiger I, down to EVERY aspect (so it equals points) called the Feline I. Here's what would happen... You could purchase KG 1 500 Total points 1x Feline I 3x Platoons of Motorized Infantry OR KG 2 500 Total points 1x Tiger I 2x Platoons of Motorized Infantry Increasing the point value for rare vehicles will only serve to skew the entire point system. Each KG costs 500 points, but, KG 2 is much weaker than KG 1. It won't limit the number of tigers, but, will limit the size of the force engaging in battle. Every time you purchase a Tiger I, you are fully aware that your force quality is actually much worse than if you would have purchased another AFV or unit with the points provided. Increasing Tiger I point values will not serve to represent its limited production, but, serve to show some unhistorical action that every unit that fought with Tiger I tanks was smaller than those without them.

60mm Mortors and 2" mortors are great offensive and defensive weapons. They are relatively cheap, and can give a platoon/company some quick direct fire support. They work well in repelling an attack, and supporting an advance. Most have 2-3 Smoke charges and 3 of them can cover a field for a quick infantry charge. Never underestimate the use of these small weapons!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Benny Manieri: I'm not a grognard by any stretch of the imagination. I find tactical wargaming, dull, dry and unexciting. However, I found that rare gem that appealed to me, Combat Mission. Just because I hate hex games doesn't mean I'm stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reason I called what you said stupid, (not necessarily you, but the words you spoke) was, that you insinuated that anyone who plays these types of games likes "slow and stupid gameplay". These games don't have stupid gameplay, and as Loki said they were the only thing that was around before computers could handle these high graphics on such a large scale. Sure, they might not be as actioned packed as CM, but, that doesn't mean that they, and anyone that enjoys playing them should be rudely trashed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 420: Anyone heard of a game from some time ago called "X-COM: Ufo Defense" ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I played that back in the day. It was a wonderfully amusing title, although, I was fairly disappointed in its successors. X-Com 2 Terror from the Deep was just a ripoff of X-Com 1, just underwater. X-Com 3 Apocalypse lost the humour of X-Com, although it did gain a fairly action packed RTS.

Benny, you should write a book. "1 000 000 stupid things to say" Too bad that hex wargaming is above your head. It is really interesting, getting into pure strategy, wit against wit. Cool graphics alone only serve those with short attention spans. Luckilly CM has both strategy and good graphics.