Stephen Smith

Anything by Carlos D'este (sp?). He has written Decision in Normandy A book about Anzio A book about Sicily A Genius For War (bio of Patton) His books are excellent because they really approach WWII from the commander/officer perspective. You finish one of his books understanding the decisions that were made, why they were made, and what could have been done differently. I used to read war story type books (like The Forgotten Soldier), but lost interest in that type of story- the command decision perspective is much more interesting to me lately. Another good series of books is a series on the Korean War by Roy Appleman. They are a bit dry, and sometimes not brilliantly written, but they are a good record of battlefield events and command decisions.

It just occurred to me, but if it is so easy to take a game-given squad and remove soldiers from it (to simulate casualties), would it be so hard to make a squad from scratch? In other words, there must be a 'American rifle squad' template with (say) eleven soldiers and their equipment. If I can remove two or three or four of them, and remove any of the equipment I want (BAR or rifle as the mood strikes me), why not allow the scenario designer to ADD two or three soldiers, again with varying equipment? If I want a squad of fifteen, is there that much programming involved in allowing it? If I want to remove six rifles from an American squad and replace them with six BARs, is it possible? This would essentially allow us to create any squad out there, including the odd airborne squads mentioned earlier in this thread. Steve

On the squad list, I noticed that all the American and British squads are specific combat squads (I assume its the same for the Germans, I didnt' recognize all the types, and I'm including engineers here). Do you have other squads to simulate other, rear echelon troops? I am thinking that we may want to simulate an attack on a supply depot, for instance, in which the defending troops are basically supply guys manning the perimeter with rifles and perhaps a few mgs. Or in a battalion battle, if a penetration reached the bn headquarters, there would actually be an HQ company back there somewhere, again consisting of REMFs with rifles, pistols and maybe a few MGs which are poorly understood. If you think these types of situations would be adequately simulated by normal line infantry (or Volkstuurm infantry) at GREEN morale, that may work out. Just curious if any thought had been given to these situations. Also, I assume that was a list of SQUADS only-there is actually a longer list of all infantry units, including dismounted vehicle crews, hq sections, etc. etc. Am I correct? Steve

I'm reading a book, "Beyond the Beachhead," by (I think) Joseph Balkowski (I could be completely wrong on the author). He compares the American and German armies right after D-Day and has some pretty interesting things to say about squad differences-and those differences would have a direct bearing on a CM-level simulation. I'm wondering if you are aware/agree with him. He writes that at the squad level, the arming of infantry squads was dramatically different. The American squad had no MG, just a BAR, and several good semi-automatic rifles. The idea behind this was that individual squad members were expected to use their rifles to suppress the enemy, to overcome the enemy with superior firepower. The German squad, however, had a vastly superior MG (I think it is MG42, but I could be wrong), while the individual soldiers had crappy bolt action rifles. As a result of those rifles, the German squad member's role was quite different from Americans; they were there to support the MG-replace casualties, act as ammo bearers, etc. He goes on to say that this MG differential is pronounced throughout the two organizations: so much so, that Americans actually could NOT achieve fire superiority, and were actually outgunned at the small unit level (he claims that the German 2nd Parachute Division, with even more MGs, had ELEVEN TIMES as many MGs as the US 29th Infantry division). This would help to explain American reliance on artillery and support units-they simply needed it to achieve any kind of fire superiority. This would also help to explain (if it is indeed fact) German 'resilience' in the face of high casualties: if 6 or 8 members of a squad really only serve to support the MG, then a squad taking casualties will not lose too much combat effectiveness-as long as the MG remains manned and functioning. I found it pretty interesting, in that I had thought American infantry was better armed and had more fire than German infantry (I recall some story-I am thinking it was in some of the Squad Leader literature from fifteen or twenty years ago, about a battle, perhaps in the Vosges, where American and German infantry just lined up behind adjacent walls or fencelines, and went at it. The German force was supposedly simply overwhelmed by superior American firepower). Anyway, a very good book, with some interesting ideas that would influence CM. Steve

Have you guys given any thought to what the demo is going to be? As one possibility/suggestion, what about making the demo the scenario that has been playtested on the Gamers Net? Its got it all: attack and defense by both sides, armor, artillery, infantry, city fighting, long-range fighting, lots of decisions by both sides. And, you wouldn't have to 'give' or 'reveal' anything that hasn't already been given or revealed. If not that, what are you thinking of making the demo out to be? Stephen

I see- 1000 figures means 1000 human icons-I assumed that meant 1000 individual maneuver units (squads, hq sections, heavy weapons sections, etc). Steve

A regimental-sized battle would take about 1000 unique units per side? As rough numbers, I am guessing: Company: 1 CO 3 PL 9 squads throw in a few weapons squads, say 5 18 rough total Battalion: 1 Bn CO 4 line companies (4 x 18) 1 weapons company (18) 1 HQ co (18) 1 scout platoon (4) 118 rough total Bde/Regt: 1 Bde CO 3 line Bn (3 x 118) artillery is off-board (0) 1 scout company (18) 373 rough total number of units/icons. I'm using rough numbers, based on my knowledge of modern bn/bde organization, but I would think they are at least roughly the same. What units am I forgetting, that would triple the number of individual icons in a regimental-sized game? Steve

One worthy battle, that I think would be the right scale, would be the battle of Mortain. As I recall, there was one surrounded American company on a hill outside of town, and the rest of a bn down in and west of the town of Mortain, attempting to 1) halt the German attack and 2) rescue the surrounded company. On the German side, there were supposedly remnants of two divisions involved in the attack, but what those remnants amounted to, I don't know. It would be a good battle because there were really two or three 'theatres' of the battle: the hilltop, the defensive battle in and north of the town, and the American reinforcements. Attack and defense by both sides. Steve

I have a question for all the playtesters, that isn't too specific to the battle reports. If you have played scenarios as both the Germans and the Americans, do the two armies 'feel' different? There was a discussion earlier of how different armies should be modelled (i.e. national morale, organizational, or equipment differences). That wasn't really resolved, as I recall-some felt national characteristics (for example, Russian fanaticism) SHOULD be included, and others did not. Regardless, if you who have been playtesting are able to compare the feel of playing with the Americans, British, and Germans, do the rules included (maybe reaction times for artillery, quality and quantity of armor support, typical morale for your infantry units (green, average, experienced, elite, etc),reaction times to orders, etc) do the different armies yield a different feeling when playing them (as SL most definitely did), or do you end up feeling like you are just playing a different colored set of icons (as EF/WF often do)? Steve

Hunter- I agree with you. I brought this same issue up about three weeks ago-that command and control, and the passage of information up and down the chain of command, are too quick. However, I'm not sure that a realistic system is what any of us really want. Imagine the realistic game in which the first ten turns, nobody moves anywhere, but the company and platoon leaders are huddled in one spot. Then, for the next five turns, the platoon leaders move back to their platoons. Then, for the next fifteen turns, the platoon leader and his squad icons are huddled in one spot. Then, on turn 31, the company combat squads begin moving. For a battalion-level battle, at least double this prep time. For fragos, maybe you can halve it. Realistic? Probably. Fun? No. Steve

I am curious- several posts have now suggested that it is small unit leadership that makes the difference-not individual soldiers. Is there any leadership effect being modelled in CM, similar to individual leaders with different leadership modifiers in SL? I realize staying within command range is modelled. But what about better or worse Platoon leaders, company commanders, etc? What about modelling different reaction times to my commands based on either nationality or unit type (whether that unit type represents veterans/elite vs. average or green, or units with lots of radios vs units with none, or something else entirely). Or more effective firing based upon better platoon leaders being close (rather than merely 'within command range') Or longer/shorter command radii based upon the existence of handheld radios (or perhaps it represents a more professionally developed NCO corps) Are all Platoon leader teams the same in CM? stephen

Followup on the problem with time/distance relationships. After reading your response, I both kind of agree and kind of disagree with you on the time/distance relationship. YOu are correct, travel distances of 3-400 m are probably reasonable, and it is possible that three or four artillery strikes are possible within ten minutes. It may even be true that, since CM isn't simulating any prep time, or movement to contact time, then the actual 'fire back and forth until one side is dead' time may be as short as 20 minutes. The actual events that have occurred could plausibly occur in the ten turns of the game. But CM is simulating more than physical events. It is also simulating DECISIONS on the part of the (in this scenario) bn (roughly) commander. And in that case, the time is far too compressed. Because as part of that ten minutes, the above mentioned events aren't the only things that occurred. There were also several decisions made (and communicated down to the team level). I won't be too specific to avoid giving away anything to either player, but, for example, 1) artillery was fired at several different places. The DECISION to fire that artillery in the given places, and not others, based on intelligence of enemy strength and location, presumably the artillery was corrected, and many of the results of those barrages were communicated to you, the bn commander to factore into your defensive or offensive plans. Realistically, maybe pretargetted artillery would have hit, the bn commander may have been able to talk to one company commander during that time, to get a garbled and inaccurate initial assessment of damage ("I see smoke, it might be a vehicle. It sounds like 3rd platoon is getting hit." 2) One or both sides considered shifting their strength to react to the developing situation, AFTER firing for a few turns. Realistically, the front line platoons may have begun firing, the company commander may have heard the noise, and is trying to raise the platoon leader on the radio. The Bn commander may not know anything has even happened-or if he does, its because he tried to call the company commander on the radio and can't get anybody (because the CO is busy yelling at the PL) 3)The american bazooka or MG teams have fired, been fired upon, and surrendered to German units 100 m away. Those German units captured the teams and continued down the road with other firefights. Realistically, perhaps the bazooka team fired. He was fired on in return. Perhaps he panicked and surrendered. If dismounted infantry captured him, they just ran 100 m, are either clearing the surrounding woods or are catching their breath and getting a drink of water. they have not moved on to engage in other firefights further down the road yet 4) the american commander has 'learned' of their surrender, and has been forced to factor in their loss into his defensive plans. Realistically, the platoon leader adjacent might know of it, because he saw it happen. He might have communicated it to his company commander. IF both of those things happened, the co is probably to busy running his company, and the bn net is swamped anyway, so that information has not yet reached the bn commander. The bn plan could in no way take advantage of the knowledge of the surrender of a bazooka team 6 minutes after it happened. I realize part of the problem is due to the difference scales of simulation mentioned before. We don't really want to simulate a bn commander, and have essentially 3 or 4 maneuver elements to command (companies) with all other elements moving automatically (perhaps by the computer AI). We want to be bn commander, co commanders, platoon leaders, squad leaders, and even Tank commanders simultaneously. But THIS fact allows much more to happen in a given amount of time than would realistically. Essentially, you are correct. If CM merely simulates the 20 minute actions on an objective, where soldiers are either obeying SOPs or the OPORD, then it could happen in a 20 minute timeframe. But if CM is simulating actions/reactions on the part of several different levels of command (which it has to do in order to be a fun game), then the action in the game is too compressed. This is by no means a bad thing. But it is unrealistic. steve Steve

Followup on the problem with time/distance relationships. After reading your response, I both kind of agree and kind of disagree with you on the time/distance relationship. YOu are correct, travel distances of 3-400 m are probably reasonable, and it is possible that three or four artillery strikes are possible within ten minutes. It may even be true that, since CM isn't simulating any prep time, or movement to contact time, then the actual 'fire back and forth until one side is dead' time may be as short as 20 minutes. The actual events that have occurred could plausibly occur in the ten turns of the game. But CM is simulating more than physical events. It is also simulating DECISIONS on the part of the (in this scenario) bn (roughly) commander. And in that case, the time is far too compressed. Because as part of that ten minutes, the above mentioned events aren't the only things that occurred. There were also several decisions made (and communicated down to the team level). I won't be too specific to avoid giving away anything to either player, but, for example, 1) artillery was fired at several different places. The DECISION to fire that artillery in the given places, and not others, based on intelligence of enemy strength and location, presumably the artillery was corrected, and many of the results of those barrages were communicated to you, the bn commander to factore into your defensive or offensive plans. Realistically, maybe pretargetted artillery would have hit, the bn commander may have been able to talk to one company commander during that time, to get a garbled and inaccurate initial assessment of damage ("I see smoke, it might be a vehicle. It sounds like 3rd platoon is getting hit." 2) One or both sides considered shifting their strength to react to the developing situation, AFTER firing for a few turns. Realistically, the front line platoons may have begun firing, the company commander may have heard the noise, and is trying to raise the platoon leader on the radio. The Bn commander may not know anything has even happened-or if he does, its because he tried to call the company commander on the radio and can't get anybody (because the CO is busy yelling at the PL) 3)The american bazooka or MG teams have fired, been fired upon, and surrendered to German units 100 m away. Those German units captured the teams and continued down the road with other firefights. Realistically, perhaps the bazooka team fired. He was fired on in return. Perhaps he panicked and surrendered. If dismounted infantry captured him, they just ran 100 m, are either clearing the surrounding woods or are catching their breath and getting a drink of water. they have not moved on to engage in other firefights further down the road yet 4) the american commander has 'learned' of their surrender, and has been forced to factor in their loss into his defensive plans. Realistically, the platoon leader adjacent might know of it, because he saw it happen. He might have communicated it to his company commander. IF both of those things happened, the co is probably to busy running his company, and the bn net is swamped anyway, so that information has not yet reached the bn commander. The bn plan could in no way take advantage of the knowledge of the surrender of a bazooka team 6 minutes after it happened. I realize part of the problem is due to the difference scales of simulation mentioned before. We don't really want to simulate a bn commander, and have essentially 3 or 4 maneuver elements to command (companies) with all other elements moving automatically (perhaps by the computer AI). We want to be bn commander, co commanders, platoon leaders, squad leaders, and even Tank commanders simultaneously. But THIS fact allows much more to happen in a given amount of time than would realistically. Essentially, you are correct. If CM merely simulates the 20 minute actions on an objective, where soldiers are either obeying SOPs or the OPORD, then it could happen in a 20 minute timeframe. But if CM is simulating actions/reactions on the part of several different levels of command (which it has to do in order to be a fun game), then the action in the game is too compressed. This is by no means a bad thing. But it is unrealistic. steve Steve

Fionn- I have noticed that several of your screenshots have been from the American, not German, perspective (i.e. there is an American soldier icon at the bottom of the screenshot). I suspect that they have all been captured units, but I don't know for sure. It also looks like the soldier icon in each case is a black soldier. Is that accurate? Is the generic soldier's face used to identify a unit (in the case I specifically remember, it was a surrendering MG group, identified as CPL Something, from Turn 11) going to be a black soldier in this WWII game?

I have a few general, hard to categorize questions. 1) I'm pretty sure I understand how woods work-there are woods 'areas' represented by a variable number of tree symbols, and the woods 'areas' have affects on movement/LOS etc. However, I can't really distinguish where woods 'areas' are on the screenshots. I assume they are portrayed by slightly darker areas on the ground (ie. shadowed snow, or green-tinted snow, or something) which isn't reflected very accurately when the screenshots are sent to TGN and then downloaded by me (in other words, I am assuming the players during the game can easily identify the woodline, and the areas of light, medium, and heavy trees). Is this accurate? If I am expected to 'see' wooded areas in the snow from the screenshots, well, I can't. Perhaps you should consider a darker tint to the shading of wooded ground to make sure it is visible to the player. 2) The hedges and walls seem too short (they almost look like sidewalks). I suspect it may be caused by the fact that the players are inflating the sizes of their men/vehicles so we can see them better on the screenshots, but I am not sure of this. 3) How are the time/distance relationships working out? I have noticed that we are now in turn 10 of the game, and have had several attacks, several firefights, and called in several artillery barrages. That is utterly unrealistic (we have probably seen two hours worth of action in these ten turns). However, I don't see that as a problem-a realistic portrayal of warfare (particularly at the one minute per turn scale!!) would be a lot of turns of nothing happening, waiting for your troops to react. Rather than realistic, I imagine you are aiming for 'immersive'-seemingly realistic occurences which are compressed for excitement's sake. Is that the case, and are you happy with the way the battle is going from this perspective? 4) Similarly, I have noticed that the men and vehicles are increased in size (presumably so we can see them in the screenshots) so that the distance that the units are firing (or not firing) doesn't seem plausible-on some screenshots, I see a sherman, and see german halftracks, and think to myself-that sherman ought to be destroying that column!!! (note for the players-this is an example only-I'm not giving away a hidden sherman, or anything). What is probably actually happening is the vehicle silhouettes are inflated, so that they only appear to be 100m apart-at 'realistic sizes,' they will appear to be further apart (or even out of range, as they apparently are). At normal silhouette sizes, does the battlefield 'look' right? Do you quickly scan the battlefield and vehicles look to be 6 m or so long? Or at least, are units scaled properly so you can quickly judge ranges between them (for firing, for moving, etc) reasonably accurately? Steve

I was just wondering: earlier, someone said the Jumbo was an M4A3E2. In my memory (GI, Anvil of Victory? Some other wargame that I've forgotten?) I remember the jumbo as being the M4A3E8 Jumbo. Am I mistaken? What is the E8? Steve

I have noticed that with your advancing infantry in the area of the town, the squads are often advancing across open fields with individual trees. What effect do those individual trees have on LOS/LOF, and how do you KNOW what effect those trees have on LOS/LOF? Does each tree represent a small group of trees, and you could be "in" the woodline by setting one of your squads close to one of the tree symbols? I have noticed that you can see past the individual tree to enemy soldiers stationed in one of the houses of the town. How can you tell whether the tree (or group of trees that it represents) has any effect on that specific units LOS, or whether your advancing infantry is in any way protected by the individual tree symbol (whether that symbol represents an individual tree or a group of trees). I ask this because it seems that games often have a problem with this concept. In CC, it seemed that one's natural inclination to hug a hedgerow, for instance, would yield a benefit to protection in real life-at the first crack of enemy fire, the unit could immediately jump into the hedgerow, or into the ditches near it, or through it, or whatever. But in games, being in the open 'near' a hedgerow (or treeline, or individual tree) is no different from being in the open in an open field-the point to point LOS simply rolls the dice on the same 'moving in the open target' table. Steve

A followup to my last question. Each squad is a member of a platoon, and must stay within command range of the platoon leader to really fight well. Is each platoon also a member of a company, with similar command restrictions, or are platoons able to operate independently? Are companies able to operate independently? Are any level of command able to do so? In this scenario, I can see it playing a part-you have soldiers fighting on different sides of your battlefield, and if no level of organization is independent, then almost by definition, one of the two halves of the battlefield is out of command and control range? Steve

I had two questions about setting the Shermans. In one, you mention that it is easy to set a tank to be hull down-you get behind the hill/wall whatever, and tell the tank to 'sneak' or 'lurk' or 'hunt' or something and the tank will inch its way forward until it can just fire at an opposing target. But what if there is no opposing target? What if you want to set up a tank to be hull down in the initial setup, or move it into position during the game? Second question. There was one shot in which a tank was set so that it could just see past a building (and the shot showed the tank's LOS just skirt the right edge of the building). I assume you had the tank selected, then selected a spot on the ground 'out there' and the computer gave you a 'green line' indicating a clear LOS. Is there also a command to create a whole fan from a friendly unit showing all its LOS? What if I don't want to know whether a specific point is in LOS, but rather want to know how clear the entire 180 degrees in front of a given position is/is not in LOS (to id blind spots, dead spots, etc) Third question: You mention that one Sherman is oriented towards the town, the others are oreinted towards the east. Are tanks subject to the same command and control rules that infantry is? (I would guess that splitting an infantry platoon in this manner would leave one half of the platoon out of command and control range.) Thanks, Steve

I should have asked this question earlier, but I was having trouble with my computer and couldnt' post at the time. In an earlier thread, there was a big discussion about what types of campaigns to include. BTS will include linked campaigns that actually break down one day or two long battle into say six individual scenarios, with frontline positions moving along a larger map (for example 1 Km by 8 Km) as each scenario progresses. This was contrasted with the alternative, where one scenario takes place in Normandy, the next in Holland, the next at the Bulge, etc. I support this philosophy, and the argument behind it expressed by BTS. But my question was, if the campaign is simply one large map broken into six smaller sections (for example), with the front lines from the second scenario defined by the end locations from the first scenario, and units strengths the same, then why bother having campaigns at all? Why not just have one big scenario? In the above example, we could have six 30 turn scenarios taking place on a subsection (say 1 Km by 1.5 KM) of a 1 Km by 8 Km map, with the ultimate goal of capturing a bridge at the end of the map. OR, we could have one 180 turn scenario on the entire 1 KM by 8 Km map, which, as far as I can tell, would be the same thing. What happens BETWEEN scenarios in a campaign that will make it a campaign? It seems to me that the only reason to do something like this would be to simulate things like fatigue, resupply, etc (a soldier may fight for 30 turns, then need rest-so fighting for 180 turns is unrealistic). But are you simulating fatigue and supply in CM? If not, what purpose does the break between scenarios serve? (also: while a 180 turn scenario would be unwieldy, it is really what a six scenario campaign is anyway-and I presume we can save anytime we want, so 'wieldiness' is not a justification for the campaigns, either). For the campaigns to be at all meaningful, it seems to me that they have to add something more than just a string of scenarios. What is that something? steve

"Out of the dozens of books we have read only a few instances of PFs being used by US troops come to light. I have also never seen a picture of a GI standing around with a PF, and that says something too." I just recently read two books about General Ridgway, commander of 82nd Airborne. "On to Berlin" was one (by Ridgway) and "Ridgway's Paratroopers" was the other (by Claire something, or something like that). In one of these books, Ridgway said that by the time the Normandy battle was over, the 82nd had truckloads of captured panzerfausts-plenty to arm the division for Bulge, Market-Garden, etc. He didn't state numbers (i.e. one panzerfaust per squad, per soldier, per platoon, or what) but the implication was that captured panzerfausts were so prevalent, the were de facto part of 82nd airborne's TOE. steve