John Kettler

This is another thread I'd really appreciate an official response to, please. Regards, John Kettler

Since I note that Steve's back, I'll post this in hope of finally getting an answer to my question. Welcome back, Steve! Regards, John Kettler

Mr. Peng, Thank you for such a superbly phrased description of what I and others are trying to do. Your witticism about Capt. Foobar cracked me up, but I howled when I read your signature quote. Very rich! Regards, John Kettler

Achtung! Chris Shillito's Armour in Focus site (www.armourinfocus.co.uk) has some beautiful crisp, clear images of everything from a PAK 43 in 'flage to a Churchill AVRE which were taken early this month in England at Bovington. Most of the vehicles are runners, some of which haven't been shown publicly for decades. You owe it to yourself to look. Sincerely, John Kettler

I'm glad that my post has engendered so many carefully crafted replies. OBGSF, I think you may well be on to something with your idea. Since wind isn't now depicted and may never be modeled in CM, it seems quite clear to me that something needs to be done to take smoke out of its present astronomic level of effectiveness and return it to something far closer to battlefield realities. Variable coverage would be nice, if the CPU can hack it. I suggest we ping Fionn on what wind velocity it takes to negate smoke and seriously consider either assigning or defining smoke unfavorable conditions in future scenarios, preferably by a percentage chance based on historical weather patterns. I also believe Fionn's the guy to answer your how to defend against a smokescreened river crossing. Regards, John Kettler

Rob/1, While I think that what you're doing is most worthwhile, I'd highly recommend that you put your entire site through a spellchecker or thoroughly proof it yourself/have it done by someone competent, since it's full of typos. I feel that they seriously detract from the general impressiveness and intelligibility of your work, which is obviously a labor of love. Also, the font you selected and the white on black are not easily read on my iMac under Netscape Communicator 4.51, though they probably look fine on machines running MS Explorer. Regards, John Kettler

I'm currently up to about Turn 13 in my very first PBEM. I have the Germans and have never played either side before, nor had I read the spoilers before the game. My opponent has played both sides before, even winning a rare victory once as the Germans against a live opponent. My game is being played straight up--no force adjustments on either end. And therein lies the rub. My defensive layout was sound, even according to my opponent, yet I'm being systematically ripped apart and am essentially powerless to do much of anything to him. It's the "too" problem. Too much armor.Too much infantry. Too much fire support, too much visibility into my defenses and way,way too much smoke. (See my Forum post on real world defense vs defense in CM). The direct fire is deadly accurate, even from a moving tank, itself under fire, some 200+ m away, the artillery is swift to arrive, frighteningly accurate and devastating, even against my strongest positions and dug-in, hidden troops. And did I mention that through most of the battle I've hardly seen anything? Every time I finally begin to be able to engage, more smoke blooms in my hard won LOS. A unit enfilading him from Plomville just got that very treatment. No more shooting for you! I did get a couple of good licks in with the sIG 33 in the earliest turns, before it was first suppressed, then destroyed in a deluge of what looked like mortar fire and 105s. The PAK bunker was blocked by smoke on the big American hill, behind which a pair of Shermans set up shop and rained death on my right flank positions. The smoke cleared just long enough for the PAK to K-kill one of my tormentors, at which point the hill was repeatedly plowed by 105 fires until its defenses were shattered. The entire valley floor then disappeared in smoke, as did the resmoked big American hill, behind which soon materialized a veritable sea of guys in khaki. My squads are facing fire, often plunging, from upwards of four squads each, are being shattered by direct tank fires, all while most of the bunkers and MG teams have either been suppressed, broken or destroyed outright. Now, I enjoy a tough fight, but this is more akin to being lashed to the target during a live fire exercise. You can definitely be hit, but you can't hit back. I seem to remember reading somewhere that VoT was specifically designed to showcase certain features of CM, but it seems to me that little if any thought was devoted to play balance in this scenario. The Allies seem to have crushing superiority in every applicable military category, against a static foe forced to defend several highly exposed objectives while possessing few long range weapons and only miniscule fire support. At my rival's suggestion, I looked up aka_tom_w's thread on this issue, so am aware that I will eventually get some reinforcements. At the present, accelerating rate of collapse among my infantry and given the near annihilation of my pillboxes and bunkers, I seriously doubt I'll be around for their arrival. Would someone more knowledgeable than I on this scenario, preferably the designer, please explain how this scenario could ever be considered balanced or even roughly balanced as written, with both sides played unmodified? I don't see how it's possible myself. I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who's wargamed since age 12, played lots of WW II battles with miniatures and spent over eleven years with Hughes and Rockwell as a professional military analyst. In martial perplexity, John Kettler

I don't know about the rest of you, but when a Quick Battle gives me objectives to defend in a town at the crossroads, I tend to view all the roads entering my deployment area as potential axes of hostile advance, and position myself accordingly. It would really help if the Quick Battle generator provided at least an arrow or some other indication of the expected direction of the incoming attack. As it is, these battles occur in an acute informational vacuum totally unlike the real world, unless fighting surrounded or completely devoid of any intel data. A generic briefing would be even more useful. Also, we have no defensive options to speak of. We don't have concepts like avoid decisive engagement, hold position for X hours, delay from successive positions, etc. All we have is your basic do or die defense of the objective or objectives, which by the way seem to be sited in a way which makes little if any sense militarily. Instead of seizing the crossroads or taking the high ground, which would be logical, the objective flag is not on the road, nor in a building, but in a hollow off the road. Anyone know why? I've seen this happen repeatedly. Another thing which would be great would be a snatch mission in which the objective was to slip in, capture and bring back a prisoner. I have no idea how exactly to do this in CM. Any thoughts on this? That's all I have for now. Regards, John Kettler

It seems to me that the defender in CM labors under some major limitations which his real world counterpart did not. In CM, there is no real equivalent to final protective fires from machine guns. Yes, I can easily plot LOS and identify blind spots in my defensive coverage, but there is no way I know of to put down effective defensive fire while the foe is in smoke or enshrouded in darkness to deny him a road or axis of approach. Nor can I set up interlocking defensive fires between or among squads using their organic BARs, Brens or MG-42s, let alone rifles and SMGs. Yes, I understand the CPU hit problem there, but I don't understand why I can't put fire on a known, presurveyed axis in CM using an MG team when it was done all the time in the real world, using simple pegs, range cards, etc. Because of this problem, smoke is far more effective in CM than it was in the real world. In CM, it essentially guts the defense by blocking LOS, thus preventing fire altogether. In reality, if I've got an MG covering a stretch of road and have sited it properly, I can make anyone's life very doubtful who tries to cross it, even in smoke or fog. Similarly, in a prepared defense I ought to have not one TRP (as in a certain demo scenario) but a bunch, corresponding to preregistered defensive concentrations of mortar and artillery fire (especially in dead ground). I ought to be able to bring down that fire by simply firing an appropriate flare cluster, too, with no radio or field phone needed, regardless of smoke, fog, etc. In CM, I have far less flexibility in my overall fire plan. I can't even fire blind into smoke with mortars, even under direct observation by the firing mortar. And let's not forget that smoke in CM generally is either on or off. If it's on, kiss LOS goodbye. There are no conditions in CM I know of which preclude smoke's use--no wind, no stray eddies, no breezes, temperature inversions, storms, etc. Again, a huge CPU hit to model, if it could be modeled. But again, this makes smoke vastly more potent in CM than it really was in real life. American artillery preponderance in one of the demo scenarios is such that whole vales and large hills can be hidden from sight, largely negating the defense. The attacker can advance with far more confidence in CM than he could in real life. He can count on his smoke. While I'm at it, I think that minefields could use a few adjustments. The mere detonation of a mine by a man or vehicle obviously indicates there was a mine there, but that is a far cry from knowing whether it was an isolated mine for harassment, a hasty field, or a full-blown camouflaged, possibly boobytrapped, minefield, let alone its full extent. If possible, it would be nice to be able to differentiate between, say, the dreaded Bouncing Betty, which could seriously damage a squad, or a Schu mine which attacks a single man in the squad. In any event, I adamantly feel that minefields should not be a mere a one-detonation-here's-where-I (the minefield)-am experience. I want to see more like Kaboom! (screams, etc.)Now what do I (the CO) do? None of the above should be construed as an attack on what by definition is a stunning, revolutionary wargame, for which everyone who worked on it deserves our profound respect and admiration. Rather, I seek to highlight areas where I feel additional explanation and discussion is needed from BTS and the troops and to identify areas which I believe would improve an already amazing wargaming experience. Very truly, John Kettler

Talenn, If what you say is indeed true (haven't checked myself), then I strongly concur. It was and is common practice to register the guns in the weeks prior to the offensive. This is particularly true of key terrain on the axis of advance from which strong resistance is expected or is easily identified as an aiming offset. The exception to this rule would be if surprise had to be maintained at all costs. Regards, John Kettler

Problem solved! It definitely was the Shift-I issue that von Lucke suggested. I checked this out by setting up a Quick Battle and opened by successfully firing smoke from a TD cannon and a 60mm mortar. Also, when I went back to the aftermath of my earlier Quick Battle, hitting Shift-I provided tall billows of oily black smoke from my AFV victims. Thanks for the help! John Kettler

Shooter, I haven't used one offensively yet, but a flamethrower makes a dandy ambush weapon...as an ex-French tank under Wehrmacht command learned the hard way last night. Sadly, he had several friends close by (StuG IIIs), who proceeded to hammer the heroic duo entrenched in scattered trees into eventual oblivion. As far as offensive operations go, I strongly recommend lots of suppressive fires, obscurants and using every terrain wrinkle to maximum advantage. Hope this helps. John Kettler [ June 27, 2002, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback. Will start with von Lucke's idea, since it's quite possible I inadvertently did just what he suggested. For the record, my anemic rig will display high quality smoke, but as opaque, not transparent. John Kettler

60mm mortars, properly directed, can kill OT vehicles outright (offed quite a few halftracks) and force heavier armor to button up and even leave the area. In last night's Quick Battle I K-killed a buttoned StuG III with an 81mm mortar round. I guess it set the engine on fire, which promptly set the fighting compartment ablaze. Sure, it's not likely, but things like this will definitely give your opponent pause. If an 81 can do this, just imagine the fun when 4.2s and 120mm mortars enter the fray. Regards, John Kettler

Just so this thread doesn't get lost in the burgeoning message traffic I'm putting this reply up in the hopes that you see this with my missing smoke post regarding the Quick Battle generator. Would really appreciate responses to them, but I realize you have been buried with the release and the second batch. Congratulations on your success! Hope you also get to sleep! John Kettler

Dear BTS, In several quick battles fought over the last several days my friend Jim and I have been unable to fire smoke. In three separate quick battles, one as the French and the two as the Americans, I repeatedly ordered smoke from my 60mm mortars...and got none. In one case, a Battle of the Bulge scenario, it looked as though something landed in the snow, but fizzled. The other engagements were fought on dry ground. Nor tonight was I able to get smoke from my 81mm mortar either. Jim had a different kind of problem, in that his German tanks and assault guns wouldn't fire smoke. In all cases, the forces involved clearly showed smoke available in the ammo loadout. So why won't they fire it? Lots of troops died because of this. By the way, I did run a search on this issue and came up dry. Hope you can shed some light on this. Regards, John Kettler

I know people have asked why an MG can't be taken from a pillbox, and I certainly can understand why a static mounted MG or AT gun can't be moved. But I don't understand why the crews lack something as fundamental as rifles. I can produce all kinds of pictures of MG crewmen and AT gun crewmen armed with rifles, carbines, etc. So could someone there or elsewhere please explain to me why all these guys have are pistols? In VoT I've had several pillboxes knocked out, but the crews came through intact. With only pistols for weapons, though, they're militarily useless. Please explain the logic behind this decision. Thanks! John Kettler

I know that foxholes are in the game and that people are working on trenches, but is there any way to get foxholes with overhead cover into CM? Having been the particular object of lots of American artillery fire (thanks, Black Sabot!) while dug-in inside a tree line, I have become a huge fan of improved foxholes. I've learned to hate treebursts. On a related note, I see that though a tank can be dug in by the scenario designer, I was shocked to discover that this tank can't be moved at all. What tank commander in his right mind, assuming his vehicle worked, would ever willingly deprive himself of his mobility? Can this be fixed? The tank should be able to back out of the firing position even when dug in. Regards, John Kettler

Good thoughts, guys! Tell me more, please. Fionn, would love to hear from you on this. Thanks! John Kettler

Last night my roomie, Jim, leaped CM generations (he'd played the Beta but never the Gold demo) and fought a Quick Battle with me. He had the Germans, I the Americans. I initially set the force level at 1000 points, with the Americans on the attack.He freaked when he saw how much he got as the defender, shuddering to think what I would get, let alone the work of positioning and running that many units. I then reset the generator to 300 points, with all settings nominal except that Germans had a one level experience advantage over the Americans. Both sides had combined arms. Terrain was rolling, with clumps of scattered trees, good armor terrain for closing in on a dug-in foe. Date was September '44. I had a mech I platoon w/ M5 halftracks, platoon HQ w/ halftrack, .50 cal MG and 60mm, in a halftrack (5 HTs in all). I also had one 75mm Sherman and three T-8 recon vehicles. They're deturreted Stuart light tanks mounting a .50 cal MG. Never saw one of those before. My roomie had only one platoon of infantry, a platoon HQ, a 250/9 (OT turret w 20mm cannon & MG 34), two AP minefields and a PAK 40. That was it. He was supposed to defend a single objective located at the rear of a town sited on a Y junction. The objective lay near the base of the Y. I deployed the T-8s up front, trailed by the HTs, with the Sherman in scattered trees for overwatch on the right flank. Using lots of suppressive fires on the buildings, I advanced by successive bounds and encountered his 250/9. A T-8 got it before it could fire so much as a single shot. The infantry in the heavy building it was hiding behind died in a hail of 75mm HE and multiple .50 cal MG fires. I did lose a T-8 (we think from PAK 40 fire) near the road, close to the Y junction. The PAK 40 was behind a stone wall at the corner of a field, directly across from the objective. It too was smothered by suppressive fires and destroyed, as were the remaining two German squads, which were located in heavy buildings. Naturally, the game ended in a smashing Allied victory on Turn 8. Having no combat means left, Jim surrendered. I took one casualty, some poor unfortunate who stepped on a mine. Even the knocked out T-8's crew emerged unharmed. Granted that terrain was favorable and I avoided the PAK 40's ambush marker, which saved a haltrack and the mortar team riding in it. Granted that my tactics were sound as well. Still, neither Jim nor I understand how he was supposed to have any real chance to defeat such a well armed, relatively well protected foe. Quoth he "What am I supposed to do? Use harsh language?" He had veterans, I regulars, to be sure, but with the terrain, lack of any AT weapon with real range other than the PAK 40 (not even a Panzerschreck), no HMG, no mortar or FO, how could he possibly be expected to do much of anything to me, let alone defeat me? Is this an indication of a glitch in the Quick Battle Generator? Does its selection logic somehow break down at such low point totals? Also, he and I both noticed another oddity. Even though his forces were savaged as soon as the shooting started (rapidly worsening thereafter), he had a crushing victory on the meter until I got close (two houses away) to the single objective flag. Frankly, this strikes me as a serious distortion in the game decision logic. I had crushing combat superiority against a foe helpless to resist several turns before the game recognized the obvious and changed the flag to mine. That didn't trigger a surrender either, by the way. Jim had to manually surrender. I believe that the logic controlling a single objective battle may need to be looked at carefully. Something seems off. Thought you should know. Regards, John Kettler

I find it astonishing that with all the grogs and treadheads on this board, not a soul responded to a serious question. Surely one of you could shed some light on what seems to me to be a whopping disparity in MG ammo loads between German and U.S. halftracks? Regards, John Kettler

Barnes & Noble is having a summer book sale for an undetermined period of time. I was able to snag George Forty's U.S. ARMY HANDBOOK 1939-1945 (2nd Ed.) for about five bucks--in hardcover. Originally a $25.00 book, B & N had it for a special price of $9.98, with that price dropped 50% while the sale runs. This book is full of great pictures, TO & Es, unit diagrams, etc. It covers not only the combat arms but the various support functions as well. A phenomenal deal in terms of information content! Regards, John Kettler P.S. Ken Macksey's TANK vs. TANK is also available, but it'll cost you $12.98 (not on sale). All prices quoted in U.S. dollars

Having now had two opportunities to see Allied halftracks in action, I couldn't help noticing the huge disparity in MG ammo carried. The Germans seem to run at around 57 and the Allies at 149. As the Germans, it seems I'm forever running out of ammo for my halftracks, usually at the worst possible time. In my previously described Quick Battle vs.the Poles, the final assault was conducted with three 251s, only one of which still had ammo and could fire. Would Fionn or someone else up on such minutia please explain this to me, especially since the Germans had higher firing rate machine guns and therefore would logically be expected to carry more ammo than the Allies, not less, in their halftracks? Thanks for any and all help. Sincerely, John Kettler

One of the things not presently in CM that I'd really love to see is a detailed rundown of what the opposing side started with, the complete enemy order of battle, unless an operation is in progress. Ideally, this would be laid out in such a way that a single glance would show that,say,7 of 10 251s were lost by game's end, along with two out of five squads of infantry. As it is, I can only approximate it after the fact by painstakingly hunting around the battlefield for the markers of killed and damaged units, then adding them up. Time consuming and unsanitary! Also, as the frequent recipient of deadly artillery fire I am keenly interested in the foe's available fire suppport at game start--by type, size, quantity, FO type and FO quality if known. There is no way to figure this out after the game other than by counting craters and noting their sizes. And I've learned to my sorrow how big a role fire support can play on success in battle. It would be helpful to have some indicator as to the force one just fought--elements of a recon battalion, reinforced mech company or whatever. This would be much easier for most wargamers to relate to than an unadorned body count which takes no account of unit organization. Which would you rather lose, a company of cooks or a company of veteran line infantry? Right now they're both either corpses or wounded, with no sense whatever of how they really relate to maintaining combat power. This issue should really become important in operations and especially in the MetaCampaign. Finally, is there a quick and dirty way to get even a rough briefing for the Instant Battles? I stand in awe of what you've already done, and that's without having yet tried a single scenario, let alone an operation. With deep respect and gratitude, John Kettler

"His Majesty's Forces today attacked and seized the village of (Censored), which controls a key road junction. Fighting was fierce, but our Forces carried every objective, receiving casualties described as "moderate." Armor losses were rather heavier. The entire defending force was either killed, wounded or captured. No further details were provided." Actually a well directed British force managed to completely unhinge what should've been a strong defense based on a Panzer Grenadier platoon, with 3 251s, augmented by a Stug III and a 251-towed 105mm recoilless gun. Squads had only a single Panzerfaust klein each. No Schrecks either. The British attacked from three directions, starting with a recon probe on the German far right, which was a grassy slope overlooking the hamlet . What was thought to be a Stuart (actually a Humber AC) met an ugly death via StuG, followed later by a real Stuart, killed either by the StuG or the 105 recoiless gun. The backblast when it fires is something to see! The Stug paid fully for such target fixation, being dispatched in two shots by a Cromwell which entered from the German left on the forested road and nailed it broadside in a K-kill after stalking it for a couple of turns with the help of some interested spectators in halftracks, who sent a steady stream of reports on what the StuG was doing and where it was. The Cromwell then went on a rampage, destroying several 251s, chasing one off before seizing the nearest objective. Soon after the Cromwell first appeared came the British infantry filtering through the trees and across the road. A temporary disruption occurred when the 105 put a shot squarely into a mortar unit crossing the road. Wham! Three mortars knocked out, presumably with crews. But most got through unscathed. The rate of fire on the recoilless isn't that great, and the 81mm mortar FO trying to stop the same horde of Tommies evidently stuck his head out about the time a 75mm shell exploded near his foxhole. A real pity, since the fire request had just been made. The British infantry now swarmed after the tank and somehow avoided entirely my antipersonnel minefield, before swooping down on the next objective from the rear, seizing it in jig time and only harassed by 251 fires coming from the rear of the main German position in the woods protecting the third objective (only way to control the Y road junction). The recoilless made the road an exciting proposition, and one Humber crew was properly startled when a big 105mm round whistled directly overhead (Humber was in defilade), en route to more infantry targets. In spite of driving all over the place, the British wholly avoided every single ambush I set for them. Meanwhile the British halftracks attacked on the heels of the Cromwell, then rapidly crossed the German front, firing all the way, before coming straight at the German right. The recoilless was busy elsewhere when a halftrack came charging up and machine gunned the crew, causing the only other heavy German weapon to be lost by crew abandonment. The entire issue was rendered moot shortly thereafter by the arrival of several accurate volleys of medium artillery, which blanketed the position and shattered the defenders. Finding his retreat route blocked by an enemy halftrack which in its zeal to attack was almost hit by the British artillery fire, his means to resist gone, practically his entire force wounded and essentially surrounded by a foe with the means and will to finish off even the remnants of his troops, the German commander wisely surrendered. Not a man got away. Final totals German 37 casualties (8 KIA) 10 captured 105mm recoilless gun lost StuG III K-killed 4 251s lost (2 K-killed) British 46 casualties (15 KIA) 111 men OK 3 mortars 3 AFVs lost, all by K-kill 1 Cromwell 1 Stuart 1 Humber AC