Joachim

Well, apart from pink being not my favourite colour some kind of pink is common in Germany. Heck, it is one of those colours allowed in medieval towns protected by "Denkmalschutz" (law protecting historical site from changes). Schwetzingen palace is pink. But probably the pink colour depends on the kind of stone you find in the area. If the "Sandstein" used in the area is red, pink is more likely an option for 19c buildings as it fits the surrounding than when you use yellow stones in the vicinity - like in the Berlin Stadtschloß and probably most Berlin houses. But I would not bet the farm there were no pink buildings in Berlin. Gruß Joachim

Certainly. If we ignore the large amount of randomness in CM for a moment, we can look at the following scenario: You have one tank that can shoot an enemy MG. Unluckily, the MG is able to regain its morale at the same speed as your tank is lowering it. So you will never be able to break it. Now, add a second tank. Suddenly the MG's morale is dropping twice as fast as it is going up, so the MG will break eventually. Add another tank and it will break twice as fast, and so on. So yes, bringing more firepower to bear against a single target helps tremendously. Dschugaschwili </font>

Well, there is no easy walkthru. There is a ruleset where you start with a company and some armor in '41, get here and there a few attached units that stay around a bit longer till they are gone, and additional troops for each battle. The campaign is based on lots of dice rolls and some calculations. You can do them yourself, customize the MSexcel sheet or use an available Java program. The bad thing is you have to manually fill in some parameters from the AAR (for each unit of your company). Besides from that, it is addictive. Rules etc: BCR on SuperSulo's site Rules are available until 42. As it takes rather long to play the campaign, the rules for '43 should be ready before anyone ends '42. BTW: More info in the first post on page 1 of this topic Gruß Joachim [ July 15, 2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

Scarhead, this was in reference to me playing as the Soviets, so giving the Axis side +1 (or +2)experience was helping out the enemy! See my post back up a few, where I mention I have been adapting BCR to being played by the Soviet side against Axis AI. </font>

I'd like to group the factors, with several features in more than one group: Mobility: Weighing speed and cross country performance on different ground conditions. Must be weighed for phases like march, breakthru and explotation. The weight applied to the ground condition may change with region or season - a T34 in Korea's rain (mud) season may beat an M4, during dry weather it may be another matter. Survivability: Speed (not just in reverse gear ), armor, vision (or lack thereof), crew survivability, turret speed, ease of recovery after a hit, even a smoke discharger counts, as it allows to reverse and fight the other day. Killing power: AT: I'd measure this with the "to kill" percentage at a given distance from different angles. Optics, penetration, turret speed, speed, effect of gyrostabilizer. AP: Optics, blast, speed, turret speed, gyrostabilizer. Judgement day: To judge who's better you need to specify the region, the weather - and the enemy (which in this discussion is "the other tank"). To judge who's better overall, you need to weigh the region and the season and the types of enemies you encounter. After you've done all of that, there will be one grog who tears apart your conclusion by picking on one weigth - and he may be right. Personally, I'd fear the T34 more - but that's just because I'm in the early war fan club, where you can't kill it. Once the M4 arrives, the T34 is less of a problem. Gruß Joachim [ July 15, 2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

Now I found out what has to change for '43 - favor will heavily suffer when sacrifying your supporting units! They don't belong to you - treat them as (welcome) guests! Thou art an reckless glory-hunter. (Set on the blacklist for the Knights Cross). :mad: If you are really veteran, you would not need this . But maybe you just lack some experience vs the AI. If you get to know his tricks, you can beat him more easily. Try playing on custom-made maps - the AI sets up in locations that make sense - and thus you can guess better where he will be. The most important feature on the attack: Go for a single, outlying flag with good cover to defend it vs the AI, cut off by good lanes of fire from your supporting units. Take it. Wait for counterattack. Slaughter AI reserves there, continue attack. Often the casualty points exceed the flag points, so you only need to capture a few flags for a total victory! Concentrate your forces. A good defensive position includes predictable routes for the attacker. Forget about layered defense vs the AI - it only works against the forward elements. But the mass follows so quickly, it is very hard to pull out if the terrain ain't dense enough (or it is a foggy night). Defend where you think the AI will attack. Do not defend every flag - just kill enough with little own casualites. The AI will attack thru covered routes. Minefields, wire and TRPs on these are just great! Gruß Joachim

Käytän 7x8 km2 karttapohjaa joka kattaa kaiken Talista Ihantalaan ja Juustilan kanavalta Talin myllylle. Kaikkea en aio "värittää", mutta esim. Leitimojärven-Portinhoikan seutu on jo melkein kokonaan pussissa ja joitakin muitakin tärkeitä seutuja, esim. Marjamäki. Portinhoikka-kartta onkin jo Skenaariovarikolla. </font>

Air units usually start with one or more spotting runs in one turn and hit the following turn. I'd expect they point their target in the spotting run. Given their speed, I'd say anything less than 5 miles from the reinforcement marker is "close". . So I don't expect the exact place of the marker matters. Gruß Joachim

AI ceasefire is sometimes caused by lack of ammo. If the AI has lots of units, but most are routed, broken or out of ammo, it can't crush the human player. I once had a battle against the AI who was at 10% ammo from the start. I knew it would accept my ceasefire as soon as I hit the button. OTOH the AI auto-ceasefired when I was low on ammo for most units, but the few remaining shells and the ammo of 3 relatively fresh plts (initial ammo level 40%) would have captured one more big flag. It was a draw... Gruß Joachim

1.) Prep barrages with "sentries"? Only if the map is big enough for the attacker to spread his units, and only for selected spots where the human player is expected to set up - eg along roads. If the AI can scout every part of the setup zone, this would be gamey (ok, after all it is a game..) 2.) FOs as reinforcements is a good idea. Leave some for the occassional turn 1 barrage 3.) Heavy FOs forward may be a reward for the aggressive player. It is a working tactic vs the AI to attack one flag, slaughter the counterattack and win - with that one flag. Either use more flags, or - if the setting wants a breakthru on a broad front - reward the one who does this early by removing a few FOs from battle. 4.) TRPs might help the defending AI. Depends on the defenders mssion and time to dig in. Gruß Joachim

Second that. Where's the Hetzer? Gruß Joachim

Just like the TacAI targetting (tank) HQs or more experienced troops (read: more expensive troops) first. Somebody said the most threatening enemy would be targetted, but tests showed that a crack AC in the rear was targetted, while regular ACs unmolestedly drove towards the ATG. Guess those bugs have the same reason. TacAI firing routine knows the stats while it shouldn't know them. Gruß Joachim

Ahmmmm, 3,33m? </font>

All "major" (and foreign ) movies are dubbed - just to reach a bigger audience. You can see most movies in their original language - if you want to. Movies are for leisure time. A foreign language usually means you have to concentrate on what is spoken. Not necessarily what I want when going to the cinema. Besides, not everybody speaks/understands English good enough to understand the movie as well in both versions. When choosing whether to go to the dubbed version where everybody understands it, and the original version where some people might miss out on the fun, the result is clear. The argument re leisure time might hold for CM, too - not wanting to concentrate on the words. But CM has about 20 phrases which are usually different enough that your mind can fill in what you did not clearly understand if you have a basic grasp of the phrases. IMHO the point of the outcry was not "no dubbing of the German/Russian language!" but "no f*%%ing 2nd rate war movie accent in CM!" Gruß Joachim

Some scattered infos on halftracks - use them to support your own experience and thinking: The halftracks where to transport the troops to battle (not thru it!), then to give fire support by keyholing on single targets. Troops riding on HTs are only good if the HT is out of enemy LOS or you are sure there are no heavy weapons with LOS on its path. (Ie bringing up reserves). But running the troops thru the open may be as murderous as transporting them there. Both should be avoided. If you can't - expect casualties. Disembark only in scattered trees or behind cover. Consider the situation upon disembarking. Trops jump out of the HT, not knowing where they are and where the next cover is. Location of the enemy is also unknown. A critical situation. Any incoming easily spreads panic and irrational behaviour. In game terms: Troops pin,panic&rout easily. Sometimes it is possible to disembark directly on a heavily suppressed enemy. "Sometimes" as opposed to "often". If the enemy rallies, you are at a big disadvantage. There are people who do not buy HTs as they are to fragile, or only bring them up late in the battle. Some even drive them off the board ASAP, to deny easy kills to the enemy. My conclusion on them: If you are on a huge map (esp. with covered communication routes), fast troop mobility is a plus. On small maps, they are a waste of points except for transporting very heavy weapons (guns only) Gruß Joachim

Happy holidays! And make sure you do not look for Austerlitz on any maps of Austria Gruß Joachim

I'm no linguistics expert, but I'm going to disagree with this definition until I get the sources from the website. The sources I've checked, Fusilier is actually a French term meaning rifleman. It's derived from the word Fusil, which is the French word for firearm (pistols, rifles, etc). Fusil-mitrallieur, for example, means machine gun. Fusil itself is derived from the latin word "focilis", which means fire stone or flint stone. The fusil was the striking plate on very old fire arms, and the term was generalized to emcompass personal firearms in general. Phemur </font>

Panicked troops don't know what to do. They do not behave rationally. They stop thinking. That's war. It would be nice to have such a command. But not realistic. Try not to be on the receiving end - try to create panic in the enemies ranks! Excessively overwhelming forces, unexpected situations and flanking help spread panic, thus panic is a just reward for a good maneuver - or for a poor positioning of troops if you are stricken by panic! How gamey is it to withdraw your helpless units to a safe place when they themselves have lost situational awareness and don't know where it is safe? Note that they usually start to panic and either cower and creep somewhere where they think they have better cover or run - and do really weird things after they got hit while running. If somebody yells "get out", he does not say "get out, and make sure you don't run there, there and there!" Usually the NCO runs as the last man, so he can't even say "follow me". And if he is worth his money, he stays with his troops after they run -even in the wrong direction! Gruß Joachim

2nd that Grenadier were historically crack heavy infantry attack troops, sometimes armed with grenades (sic!). Guess that's why there name was chosen to denote the armored breakthru troops. Jaeger (lit: hunter) were (historically) light skirmishers. Jaeger-Regiment sounds better than Light infantry regiment. IIRC Füsiliere were historically (30-years war or evenolder) standard line troops with firearms. Not crack, but still line troops. My french ain't good enough, but IIRC it stems from a French word. It's exact meaning might clarify things. Aufklärung is Recon, they are usually a bit low in manpower, but armed more heavily to make up for that (only if you buy a btn! ->Hvy wpns Coy). Their task was to seize and defend terrain till the rest of the divsion arrived, not to hold it for long (at least in theory ). The later Volksgrenadier-Divisons and their VG or Füsilier Coys were to remind of the glorious past. Claiming that the new organization was to honour something, not necessary because of lack in men and equipment. And of course, the other branches like Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS had their own organizations - even if it was just to show that you are different (Starting in '42, the Waffen-SS got better equipped as the Allgemeine SS controlled more and more factories (e.g. slave labor camps, factory owners or high ranking corporate staff as members because they got privileges (like family members not to be sent to the Ostfront)). The Luftwaffe unsuccessfuly tried to make up for lack of manpower thru more heavy weapons, so I guess this is in the game. Security is for rear area duty, where you usually don't need heavy weapons or (heavy) AT equipment. There are usually two btn types: Those with and those without the HW Coy. Probably depending on the type of rear area - in France you would not expect tanks and big partisan formations, in some parts of Russia the partisans had tanks, when whole formations were cut off and joined the partisans. Gebirgstruppen are mountain troops, usually equipped to fit combat in the mountains - many light IGs as long range arty might hit a mountain on its flight, few ATGs, of course with skiing equipment. Gruß Joachim

I second YankeeDog. IIRC I read somewhere "Withdraw" halves the command delay. IMHO it reduces it even more, but that's not the important thing. Except for veteran+ squads under a good HQ, who have a very small command delay anyway, withdraw is the command of choice when it comes to get out of dodge ASAP and preserve the lives - not necessarily the combat value - of your men. Some points on improving withdraw (read: keep your men alive while running and/or in good fighting spirit). 1) The less incoming while withdrawing, the better for lives and morale. Smoke or a covered retreat route work. Supression fire on the enemy works (Overwatch helps...). 2) Make sure they retreat towards HQs with morale bonus. As they may stop and pin anywhere on their way out, it is not enough to let them run 200m to a oy HQ. The first metres are usually important! 3) In a mass retreat, it may help to sacrifice a squad in cover that does not retreat just to absorb the incoming fire. TacAI may choose to fight the most dangerous squad, not the one that is the most exposed. Gruß Joachim

As von Clausewitz put it, the advantage is on the defense. If time is on my side, and the enemy is/has to be aggressive, I'd always opt for the defense (quick flag-grabbing and going over to defense anybody? Letting the enemy grab the flags and blow him up with arty? Both are defensive tactics, as you want to let the enemy come to you - except the latter is a defense against the former . ). A commander who is able to fight all his battles as a defender is an operational genius and/or has the strategic situation playing in his favor. If strategic situation is in his favor, and he risks to attack, he proves he is incompetent in strategical art (ie he can't even read the situation). If he does attack just to prove to the world that he is able to attack, then he's an incompetent selfish glory-hunter playing with the lives of his soldiers, not a good commander. If you never attacked, nothing can be said about your attacking skills. If you never attacked but the strategic situation demanded to attack - your strategic skills lack (ie reading the strategic situation and operationally/tactically acting accordingly). Looking at Wellington, he did everything right. He won his battles, and the French always accepted them. His mission was not to decisively beat the French and throw them out of Spain, but to keep them occupied, drain forces and just to be there - to show you can resist. To encourage the Spanish resistance (we are not alone, we have an ally that can defeat the French!) and the other continental powers (France ain't invincible). The French knew about the psychological moment and wanted to end the war in Spain, and that's why they attacked. Wellington knew the French knew that, and that's why he stayed on the defense. The same goes for the 100 days. Nappy had to attack. Wellington used the advantage of the defense. Again: Why give up such an advantage? In the defense of Nappy at Waterloo and his Marechals in Spain: They had to attack in the battles. Strategic situation was against them, after all they were the attackers on the strategic scale! Not to stir the "who was the attacker"-debate again: The French had a revolution. They changed something. Everybody else with some power wanted to keep his power and thus the system that guaranteed it. Nappy disturbed that system, so he was to be removed. His power was based on military success. Everybody else could loose some wars and was still in power. Not him. In the long run, the allied resources were larger, an attritionist approach would favor them. So he had to attack. Regarding the importance of the UK: Just as in WW2, a constant thorn in the side is important. But it can't win the war on its own. It might just be able to drain resources (even if it is just the occasional hour of Nappy thinking about Spain when he had to concentrate on Russia), to keep up morale of the allies - or to help them economically (1800: money, WW2: as a base for shipping lend lease to Russia). It might be completely unnecessary, but it might have been just the little bit necessary to tip the balance in the allies favor. Gruß Joachim

???German with a Dutch accent? Or did the "Ü" finally enter Dutch service Gruß Joachim

Is this a common tactic with your opponent? Does he see your men in the buildings or is this just preparation before moving into the destroyed village? Sounds kinda gamey to me. Any other opinions on this? </font>

Sounds interesting! But if these are the forces - do you mean two men in the one FO team of the one Recce btn, or ist there a 2nd btn? A bit misleading... Gruß Joachim

There are other factors: Nappy improved the arty and its usage - but the Allies did catch up and maybe even got better. In the early years, The allies had formations which had trouble fighting small units (A full volley of a company on 6 men??? And what with those other teams running around? Split fire? WTH is that?). Forced draft armies where you have to keep your men from deserting can't use these techniques. Late war, the allies knew how to fight these small units and had motivated volunteers able to serve in skirmish troops, too - though I actually never heard (read) of any widespread usage. Looking at Waterloo, the usage of any skirmish troops was negated by fortified positions where the British defenders probably shot individually - and by reverse slope. While everybody had lots of Battles of Napoleon to study, there were not as many for Wellington or Blücher - especially not ont heir improved styles after they adapted to Napoleonic warfare. Then there is the strategic factor: Napoleon had time on his side in the early wars. He acted quick to surprise the enemy, but these battles were risks, not gambles. He could recover from a lost battle. In the 100 days, he was under immense pressure. A loss or a slow campaign would oust him, as he ruled a war weary country were many of his former followers had changed sides to consolidate their gains from his early reign. How would nappy react to their earlier betrayal after he was successful? If they supported him too much and he would lose, would the old rulers again be lenient and leave them with their gains or even still accept them as theirs? And I bet Nappy knew this problems of his "supporters". He was hard pressed to win - fast and decisive! Only a total victory would strengthen his position. Tactics in a do or die situation differ from those you do when you only need a victory (as in CM - if I go for a minor victory, it is much more likely to get a victory. ) In a war there is no runner up. If the others get better and you remain the same, you will find yourself running away, not up. Gruß Joachim