Mark IV

Yeah... I was going to do the classic lay-low and ambush in Riesberg and had every body hid with ambush markers set. The first couple turns there was only the sound of Sherman engines and some infantry spotted. The first shot of the game was my in-town 88 taking an unsuccessful potshot at an M4 all the way down the road. The second shot of the game was the M4 sending the 88 to Walhalla. That's all- no 88, no ambush .

Major Tom: I absolutely agree that Kesselring doesn't get the press he deserves for the defense of Italy. However, on the subject of Hitler having only a corporal's experience, I have to say something bound to be unpopular: Hitler was encouraged in his belief in his own ability by the stodgy, timid attitude of many senior Heer officers in the early war years. Those generals were not motivated by some humanitarian reluctance to invade their neighbors, but by a failure to understand the new style of warfare at their fingertips, and a failure to grasp the psychology of their opponents. Hitler had the good sense to listen to the innovators (Manstein, Guderian), and proved far more adept at Euro-psychology than his senior commanders. After pulling off calculated gamble after gamble despite the misgivings of the Heer, Hitler was somewhat justified in thinking he might be the reincarnation of Napoleon. The Anschluss, Ruhr occupation, Sudetenland, Poland, and France were all his babies (even if that only consisted of getting out of the way of the guys with the right ideas). There is no doubt that he took it an invasion too far, but even that started well and he was looking pretty sharp until winter. I always liked von Rundstedt, considered a big-picture guy and a master of logistics, and another general who knew when to let innovative minds prevail. As for Stalin being a strategic genius, what on earth could justify this assessment? Yeah, he finally let the pros run the war (does Timoshenko get any credit here?), but his "strategy" consisted of getting surprise-attacked, then reorganizing his armies and pointing them West. His motivational qualities are legendary- after executing many of the experienced officers in the Red Army before a looming war that should have been obvious, he could be sure that his memos wouldn't be tossed unread into wastebaskets- but what on earth did he exhibit in terms of strategy?

I wonder if, with all this horses**t, there might not be a pony somewhere. If CM's muliplayer ability were enhanced (far in the future, after the hopefully IMMINENT release of v. 1.0), it would be possible to have platoon commander/players each operating their unit(s) in the time and scale of CM. They would then file their reports (sim of radio) to the company, who would manually update his map to reflect the status of units the report seems to indicate. Ideally this would include automatic update of units within his (the CO's) line of sight. Company commanders would in return report to the monkey at battalion who told them to take the hill. He in turn would update his map, augmenting the automatic updates made based on his LOS to the action. Thus action junkies play on the map and plot the tedious waypoints, while command & control types try to figure out what's happening and issue more general orders verbally via sim-radio or sound powered phone (sim with e-mail, natch). Their mapping ability would be the key to control, augmented by their ability to "look around" their field of view. Commanders would have no direct control over unit movement and fire control. I saw a version of this in the Army, which met with some success. Lower level commanders were in a gym with the sand table full of microarmor, but reported via PRC77 to higher level commanders in other rooms outside, who in return reported up, etc. The misreporting of locations and misidentification and numeration of enemy were not only humorous to behold after the fact, but as realistic as you can get when it comes to FOW. It makes you realize just how important AND impotent remote command can be in real time battlefields. PS: Random communications outages (no reports from certain units for periods of time) would be a vital component of realism in such a model. I think a lot of elements required for this are already in CM, the most important being a sound 3D battlefield sim to begin with. I would bet coordinating human players would prove a bigger challenge than coding the game mechanics to allow for individual unit control and multilevel communications. I used to update the maps in a forward command post (TOC) for a 2-star during Reforgers, etc., and this is how it works (or fails to). It is amazing how little you really know at higher levels during an all-out battle, including the status of entire brigades for periods of time. What do you think? I have fantasized about a game that would work like this, but the logisitics of pulling it off with multiple humans are daunting.

MATT!!! Sorry, your right- I blew up the picture and the label just reads "Fighter Bomber 819mm". Just got a little excited, you know how it is with incoming... still, the label is awfully close to a Hit Results tag, but I'll say no more... mum's the word...(you gotta admit it would be cool).

Never really thought it mattered ("long hair, short hair, it's all the same, once yer head's blowed off" -Firesign Theater) but with the other attention to detail we're seeing I had to ask. Regarding using AA on ground targets, I know that some AA had stops installed to prevent gun depression past a certain point. Target fixation could cause AA fire to track into friendlies- and this was a big problem when AA was installed around airfields, as they could inadvertently shoot up the planes they were there to defend. The stops were removable but I don't know how quickly.

Hey, I DID see a label in the sky, like the hull penetration label. This is gonna be great... ... and will the shadow help ID the aircraft? Do the silhouettes match actual profiles?

This has been covered in previous threads, though I don't recall which (search on VL?). Part of the Fog of War is that each side can think it controls the VL if enemy units in the vicinity are unspotted. So, if your US squad near the VL can't see an SS platoon in the woods (even closer to the VL), you think you're in control. The Germans would think THEY were in control. In this instance the computer would probably award control to the Germans, or consider it a coin toss (? mark). I think the computer awards control based on its own god-like awareness.

Thanks for the responses! Re: no results being shown, it does seem to rob the AAA operator of some satisfaction at knowing the results of his efforts (though I suspect most AA batteries never knew if they were hitting anything or not- my dad was a quad-.50+90mm AA operator, went over at D+5, and backs this up). Will FACs be included then, like FOs? Thanks again, and Matt, as far as being patient... we're dying out here... curse these demos.... [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-05-2000).]

This is what you get for teasing (how much more can we bear?): 1) Does fire from ground troops (infantry, MGs) count toward killing the aircraft mission in some way? 2) Will results of ground AA fire be shown (suspended in the sky?) like hull penetrations? 3) Will damage to (or driving off) enemy aircraft count toward victory points? 4) Do FO's and their LOS have an effect on aircraft efficacy?

"Commando Extraordinary" by Charles Foley- story of Otto Skorzeny. "Hitler's Generals" edited by Corelli Barnett- good thumbnails of the Volk you'll be facing- or serving. "The Mask of Command" by John Keegan. "Company Commander" was really great. Another take on the Yamato's last banzai: "A Glorious Way to Die" by Russell Spurr (not Euro theater, though). For the record, I never took Sven Hassel's work seriously, and thought it was simply escapist fiction with a better-than-average level of realism for things Wehrmacht. The site noted above "exposing" Hassel may be absolutely correct, but it sure sounds like the author has an axe to grind with Danes and others. There is something a little hysterical about his style which makes me wonder....

Anything else that could be done to booby-trap a recently evacuated structure to provide a house-warming for the new occupants? I don't disagree with the above decision at all, but got spoiled by another game where satchels were the deadliest antitank force on the battlefield .

Will defenders be able to preset satchels or other charges to rubble a small building (such as those in the front of Riesberg)? I know there was a monster thread that went all over the place about Engineers/Pioneers blowing up bridges, clearing minefields, etc., but I think most of those other questions were answered. The thread moved away from small-scale demolitions, and I'm curious that with several months of game evolution there may be an answer to this. I just want to blow up a little building...

The discovery of the German wooden bullets by GIs led to rumors that they were for anti-personnel use, designed to splinter on impact with human bone. This was widely believed and is still held to this day by the slightly initiated- a common "urban legend" at gun shows. The ballistic properties of a wooden 7.92mm slug never seems to occur to the believers.

bill: colon-eek-colon There is a key to the "new" smileys on the reply form called Smilies Legend- it's hard to see in white on light blue... if you've changed ISPs you'll know it's appropriate .

Thanks- I needed a test thread too (new ISP ). Mark IV clear.

I need to add this from "Company Commander" (MacDonald): [i requested] several types of ammunition, including 60mm mortar shells adapted for firing from the M1 rifle with the aid of a grenade launcher. My men had found the expedient to be most effective in street-fighting in Brest and swore that it was more effective than either hand grenades or fragmentation rifle grenades. It, in effect, put the equivalent of 60mm mortars in the forward foxholes." Great book. Reads in parts exactly like some of the AARs around here.

A few things I haven't seen above, or want to re-emphasize: 1) Detailed list of terrain effects on unit defense and movement- scattered trees, creeks, bogs, stone walls. What effect on infantry, vehicles, what effect on incoming of various types- as someone else put it, anything required to turn common sense into quality game play. Expressed as plus or minus to the die roll would be fine, or however it actually works. Ditto for weather. 2) Detailed description of OBA and proper employment. This almost can't help being tactical notes, in a way. Some games really make a big deal out of OBA and it shouldn't be that hard. Adjusting barrages and pre-registering targets are probably not completely intuitive. 3) Detailed description of game mechanics for unusual weapons systems or vehicles (such as minesweepers and other Engineer vehicles, bridges (?), flamethrowers, etc. Too often I see detailed charts for real world capabilities of such weapons, but not instructions for how to use them in the game context. Trial and error are only possible at the expense of scenario "freshness". 4) Add my voice to pleas for a comprehensive index.

I'm just reading MacDonald's "Company Commander", the WWII classic written in 1947, long before PC-ness started the great historical rewrite. He mentions the negro platoon in F company, 23rd Infantry, 2ID, holding a road into the town of Hameln just across the Weser. A car load of German officers barreled into town, unaware that it had been captured, and was utterly destroyed by them. There were lots of little actions that remain undocumented as negro platoons accompanied white units on the front.