Andreas

Tommy, the text at the beginning of my website is indeed something worty of discussion over a beer. When you come to London, I'll be happy to discuss it Let's just say that Beevor may live in a non-judgemental age. I don't. I understand (or I believe I do) where you are coming from, and I would not outrightly associate anyone questioning the text with 'braunem Scheissdreck'. I have had some choice emails on the text BTW. The most amusing one accused me of trampling on the memory of all Wehrmacht soldiers, and calling them all criminals. Came from an American. Go figure. I have equally had a bit of feedback valuing the sentiment expressed in the text quite highly. That comes mostly from Eastern Europe. Maybe there is a message in that.

Don, I tend to agree with you on the German sources. Some are very good (e.g. Scheibert, who he uses a lot in 'From the Don to the Dnjepr'), others are highly questionable to abysmal (e.g. Carrell or Piekalkiewicz). I have my doubts on whether what Glantz presents is truly the last word on the Soviet-German war, as ISTR is claimed in some books. What it does though is portray a very good view from the other side of the hill, with all the warts that are associated with historical research in a society that inspired Orwell to write 1984. Being aware of these potential pitfalls, the books are very important additions to the body of knowledge of the war in the Soviet Union. They have to be taken with a grain of salt, which is to be expected seeing where the data comes from. Having said that, I have very serious doubts about some of the claims made and conclusions drawn at TDI about the value of e.g. going to German first-hand records, and their accuracy, or even the interpretation of the German loss figures in Kursk that seems to prevail there. I would for example not agree that a German infantry division in 1943 is not seriously incapacitated by losses of 2,000 men, because the infantry division has 11,000 guys in it. Or the idea that losses of tanks and infantry in 12.PD in summer 1943 are somehow not that important to gauge the effect on its combat effectiveness, as long as the artillery is not affected, since that is the big killer. For me it comes down to what is available - I read a lot from other sources, but Glantz certainly has a very important place in my reading schedule, despite the undoubted shortcomings. I do however think that the books are not all, and that he maybe focussing more on KTBs and other primary sources from the German side now.

Actual ammo expenditure etc. from my website: Clearly 28 rounds per target on average is not a lot, and probably more aimed at keeping the guys moving, than anything else.

South-east or South-west, or south central area, i.e. Peterhof, Pushkin or Mga/Ssinyavino? Check this out: http://www.id227.de/Dokumente/karten.htm

Q: How does a Dominion man console himself? A: By being ahead of the Pommies.

AIUI, unlike the Mercedes, this was actually a Canadian invention. Also AIUI, to say it was developed in 21st AG is not quite correct, ISTR it was a bunch of mad Canuckians at the RA school back in blighty who invented it. Is that in Blackburn too? Been a while that I read it.

NO! It was a purely Canadian invention. PURELY I TELL YOU! Like hockey, and the Mercedes Benz. All-Canadian!!!!! </font>

Recon in force. Fighting reconnaissance. At least that's what I think it means. Thinking postmodernistically, it is therefore also what the scenario name means, regardless of whether that is correct.

Thanks, I let him know about it. Had not thought about a book. I understand that self-publishing is not something one should attempt while still trying to finish a PhD If I do get one published you get an honorary mention as the person who brought up the idea.

Not just you. I am having the same problem, and so does a friend of mine.

Of course I have used group move. It is a useful tool. I can also see the absolute reason behind a 'follow the recon squad in column' or 'follow the leader on the road' command ideas, and I think these would be very interesting additions to the game. I fail to see any benefit, in the sort of battles I am playing, from a simple extension of the current group move order to allow further waypoints. One waypoint is always enough, and sometimes too much already. I would not use it, because on smaller maps you really have to look for the terrain and match your movement paths to it.

So, who weed into your cornflakes today then Sergei? For the record, I have not said I see no use for it. I have said that I have never felt any need for it. If you can't tell the difference between the two, further debate with you is quite pointless. If you can't tell the difference between something that is already in the game, and something that needs extra coding, again, debating it with you is a waste of time. If you can't stand someone questioning what you say, I suggest emailing BFC directly in future, instead of putting the suggestion up on a DISCUSSION board.

I am not certain if Soviet infantry ever had organic AFV support. AFAIK attachments of armour were made on the basis of need, and were always temporary in principle, although they could be long-lasting in practice. The high production numbers came along with very high losses, and AIUI in 1943 there was actually a net loss in available AFVs. At the same time, tank corps were extended to full-blown tank armies. There are plenty of actions where neither side would have had AFVs, from 1941 to 1945. Most of these are eminently suitable for CM battles. They are just not written about very often I guess, because people get so infatuated with Panzers.

What is the point of having the order then? I genuinely don't understand it. It does not take away any of the requirements for micro-management. I have never missed it, most likely because I rarely if ever play something even approaching battalion size KG. As I said above - I don't think that this order should be connected in any way to the road movement problem, which is a separate coding issue.

The key to counterbattery is not only to destroy the enemy guns and soldiers. The positive outcomes can be much more varied than that: 1) Destruction of enemy materiel and personnel 2) Neutralisation of enemy assets at critical times 3) Inhibiting enemy use of assets at any given time 1 in particular, and 2 are achieved by using quite heavy concentrations of fire on the target. They work best as part of a long-term approach to dealing with the fire assets of the enemy that utilises strong reconnaissance combined with heavy fire either at a critical time (during a breakthrough operation or during an enemy attack), or over a long time. The former approach was used by the Soviets at Kursk. The latter approach was used by the Germans on the Leningrad front in summer 1942, in preparation for the planned assault on the city by 11th Army (that then never happened). I am not certain of the success of the former, others know more about Kursk than I do. German evaluation of the latter was that it was very successful, almost leading to a complete cessation of Soviet artillery activity in the sector. This can however have been flawed intelligence, because this reduction in Soviet fire can well have been in preparation for their own offensive against 18th Army in September 1942. 3 is a bit more 'easy-going'. This is where reconnaissance picks up batteries and somtimes single guns, and takes them under fire, compelling them to move. If you have an effective system for picking them up, you can keep the other guys moving, which means that they are not shooting. It also means that sooner or later they will run out of good places to shoot from. German and Allied approaches to counter-battery seem to have been quite different. The Germans had independent formations (Corps or Army level assets), and had CB batteries attached to Panzerdivisionen. They used flash, sound and balloon spotting, and tried to cover the whole frontline. The Soviets used all of these as well, but seem to have concentrated their CB formations with heavy artillery formations (RGVK regiments and later artillery divisions), which means that they would not be able to cover the whole front, but that in the sectors where they concentrated forces, a lot of these units would have been about. The Commonwealth used mostly sound-ranging, as I understand that, but would have tried to achiev 1, 2 or 3 as well. I would not agree with Jason's claim that counter-battery was not a great killer of artillery guns or crews unless I see some evidence for that it. It probably was not on the Allied side, where the Germans were generally not able to bring the heavy fire needed. I am much less certain that it was not more of an issue on the German side. As Mike says, mortars were another completely different problem. BTW Mike, the first German CB started in 1915, IIRC.

This reminds me of the Kaurismaeki movie in which 21 guys named Frank try to cross Helsinki. Few make it.

I do fail to see what one has to do with the other McAuliffe. Clearly a general group-waypoint command would, while maybe addressing your problem (can you be sure it would make vehicles follow the road?), be much more powerful than what you are asking for? So no, not 'enough said'.

To do a bank heist?

I think there are at least two different issues here that are being confused. 1) The lacking ability to give groups multiple waypoints 2) The lacking ability of the AI to clearly ID a road and stick to it as the best way forward These two are not really connected, IMO, except for the ability of using 1) if it were implemented as a crutch resolving some of the issues from 2). I would be against implementing 1). I am currently reading 'cassino' by John Ellis. One thing that is clear from reading it is the chaos that descended very quickly onto the battlefield, breaking up battalion assaults into platoon or even section affairs. Commanders not knowing where they were, radios malfunctioning all the time. Units get lost, trundle back to their startline, disappear into the void. Martin is IMO right when he argues that if allowing a group-move for multiple waypoints, BFC would have to add in some snags by design. It would make the game more of a command game than what it currently is. I assume that those interested in this group-move prefer to play larger battles (battalion and up)? A great quote by an officer of 22eme Régiment when approached by another officer from a different unit enquiring about the location 'My friend, we have been here for 12 hours and have fought a first-class battle - but where I am - I do not know.' Something to ponder.

Since it is my grandfather's name, and also my nephew's, I believe it would be fair to say that our family as a whole is rather fond of the term, and I would go so far as to consider it not just a term, but a proper name. That all Germans should be called by the name of my grandfather by foreigners of course just shows the great appreciation foreigners in general have for my family, of which I am an outstanding example. Good-looking, intelligent, well-mannered, softly spoken, suave in appearance, dapperly dressed, with superb taste, a deep understanding of anything people care to think is intellectually rewarding, and modest to a 'T'.

Probably further up this thread The T70 was the best solution for use of the automotive factories when it was designed. When something better came along, in the form of the SU-76, the Soviets very sensibly switched over to that. The SU-76 worked much better in the Soviet doctrine of direct fire use of medium artillery, giving the infantry very good mobile fire support. You don't want to go up against a Panzer in it, or even a Stug (and I think Marders are borderline), but for assaults on infantry positions they beat the T-70 hands-down.

I have adopted the non-rambling, very dry style that we were asked to do for the CD scenarios as standard. I really do quite like it, and it gets the job done. I find that with the long-winded intros it is easy to miss the key information. I also find it somewhat inappropriate to delve too deeply into this 'Private Meier was anxiously peering out of his foxhole into the night - he had just written the letter to his fiancee, not knowing whether he would survive the next day, when he suddenly spotted a [...]' gibberish. Does not seem to do the scale and intensity of the conflict justice. Just my opinion. Some of the other things raised - desinformation in the briefing. I try to keep this to an absolute minimum, if not doing away with it altogether. Uncertainty is fine, and expected. Intel was patchy most of the time in reality. Outright desinformation is not fine though, IMO, unless it is a scenario set at the very tip of the advance, where little to nothing is known. Reinforcements - I always give a space of time, even if I design the reinforcements to appear at a specific turn. So if it says 10-15 minutes, they could appear in 8, but also in 20 minutes, as far as the player is concerned. I think it would be wrong to give the definitive time. The general direction they come from is fine though, that would have been known. But in general, I prefer the short crisp style, not least because it reduces the strain of writing the things. I also always try to give the sources, as in e.g. 'A morning commute', where the link to 'Irrepressible in action' is given in the general briefing.

Go green. Then in 1942 2,000 points should buy you a somewhat depleted motorised battalion, which comes with an 81mm FOO. Fill in the rest with 2 platoons of T34, one of Valentines, some assorted guns (45mm, 76mm ZIS-3 and 76mm m1927, 25mm AA) and you are laughing all the way to the VL. The Valentine MG ammo is good enough to deal with a lot of infantry even if there is no HE for the 2-pdr gun. The T34s come with tons of cannister. All the guns are good to kill anything the Germans field from the flank, and since you have a total of 10-15 tank killers on the battlefield, chances are there will be opportunities for flank shots.

Woohay! Blast from the past. Still my favourite thread! Managed to repair one of the broken links. I'll do the other ones tonight. [ May 21, 2003, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Woohay! Blast from the past. Still my favourite thread! Managed to repair one of the broken links. I'll do the other ones tonight. [ May 21, 2003, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]