Andreas

Just to make sure that people understand that despite the banter, CMMC2 positions are for those seriously interested in operational wargaming. It should be written cmMC2, IMO. Oh, and BUMP.

On the Soviet side, I think of them as Trotskyist intellectual cannon fodder scum in the last chance saloon... Works for me...

Oh great, there goes the neighbourhood ... </font>

If not, he will have to make do with me...

In a perfect world, yes. Since CMBB does not model every vehicle that ever saw combat in the east, I think it is not that great a loss - although I believe it would have made more sense to have this one, than the Sturmtiger. But I am a bit weird in that respect, I guess... I wonder how many of the remaining 90 or so were actually modified to take the 50L42 gun?

I June 1943 there were 30 PSW 178 aka 204(f) in service, from a list that I saw on Lexikon der Wehrmacht. I take it that is the Panhard? Quite a rare vehicle it seems. I suppose you can always use a German PSW to simulate it - anything with a light gun should do, not?

Combat reports from the tank battle at Saukotas in June 1941 credit SP 88s and 10cm K18 with the kills required to prevent 1.PD forward GHQ from being overrun. 88s had been used at Arras the year before to stop Matildas. I see no reason why they should not have been brought up again. I actually see little other use for the SP 88s that were present with 1.PD then.

Easy: 'It takes an Irishman to play the pipes.' Sean Connery, The Longest Day

Boy_Recon, mefinks you should understand that some of the German officer authored pamphlets purveyed by CMH are pure and unadulterated crap. Bollocks. Not worth the paper they were written on. Crap. Oh, I said that, didn't I? Positively harmful to our understanding of the war in the Soviet Union. Because I assume that is where your information is from, sounds suspiciously like this one publication written by former German officers on airborne ops during WW2. Apologies if they are from somewhere else, but they are still wrong. The Soviets had major airdrops on at least three occasions I know of: 1941 - Moscow counter-offensive, west of Moscow, Rzhev/Belyi area of operations I think (don't know the strength). The airborne troops were cut off and had to exfiltrate later with heavy losses. 1942 - Demjansk, AG North. One airborne corps (three brigades) used, one brigade airdropped, the other two on land. All three brigades destroyed, to all intents and purposes. 1943 - Dnejpr, vic. Kanev. Major airlanding, 8th Airborne Corps and yet another huge and unmitigated desaster. The Soviet version of 'A bridge too far'. Here is an interesting article by Col. Glantz on what we don't know about Soviet operations. fortunately enough he is hard it work to lessen the amount of what we don't know...

Rune, if there are technical terms your mother can not translate, I'd be happy to do that.

Me? Serious? Armour penetration? Isn't that what happens before my tanks go 'ka-booooom!'? Seriously, if you hope for me helping you out of this one, forget about it, I have no clue about armour, I defer to Rexford. I do know that you don't want tankers as high-ranking commanders in CMMC though Seriously though - I have at least one reference from a German armoured division in 1941 saying that the first time they encountered KVs and T34s they knocked them all out, and then never thought they were a problem again. Maybe a lot depended on that first impression? can't find it now though Regarding the performance of Soviet 45mm armed tanks vs. 20mm armed tanks - I just figure that somehow the Red Army must have lost all those 20,000+ tanks during June-December 1941. I don't think they just waylaid them. I find it quite believable that these tanks were really as hopeless as they are in CMBB. But all this is just impressions and opinions.

Yeah, what he said. I just talked to Justin about this over a beer, and we both agree that CMBB is a whole different kettle of fish than CMBO. Try charging a machine-gun, and then come back and tell us it is the same game Regarding the briefings - you will notice a certain standardisation of them. I did not like it at first, but I must say it is a vast improvement over the rambling stories that you get with some scenarios, telling you about the love-life of the commanding officer, and what he had for breakfast. They do the job - they are reasonably realistic in style. Dry and to the point, but then again, no military has a specific liking for those who think the pen is mightier than the sword.

Isn't that identical to the range bug on the M17 that is being fixed? Maybe I just need a coffee to understand it better...

Well, the Red Army had a few thousand of them if memory serves right, and they were predominantly used in forward detachments (maybe because they all had radios), so I would expect to see a lot of them. Same goes for Valentines. If your question is about their efficacy - that is another matter.

251/10 is the command HT with a 37mm PAK.

You're odd.

Doh! Well, I take comfort in that a 'non-English speaker' would probably not read this anyway A non-native English speaker (like me), should however know better than to make this mishtake

Err, the only puzzle you have to solve in Cemetary Hill is to use good fire and movement tactics, and read the terrain correctly. What is problematic about that? Any scenario will demand this off you in CMBB, the only thing is that in a larger scenario you can maybe afford to f*ck up once, and still recover. Cemetary Hill, Gefechtsaufklaerung, and other small scenarios don't allow you to do that. You just get mercilessly punished for screwing up and will lose. Which seems to be pretty real to me. I can understand why it is not your cup of tea, but that has nothing to do with the way I designed them, but with your own preferences and/or skills. It certainly is not Rubik's Cube, and I had no intention to design it that way. I think you are giving me too much credit for organised design if you think that is how I approach scenario design.

John, Cemetary Hill is a small scenario, on a small map. Your tactical options are limited. In larger scenarios, it is easier to have multiple options (sometimes by accident, sometimes by design). Smaller scenarios limit choices in many ways, but have other benefits, e.g. manageability and speed of conclusion. I think it is a matter of taste to some degree. There are of course exceptions to this on either side. Sometimes you have small scenarios with lots of options, or large ones that give you none at all. Sometimes you eat the bar, sometimes the bar eats you. Or somefink...

Okay, I thought a bit about this. Basically I think that there is some flawed thinking behind the idea that bias comes into the reviews. I also think that this attitude is harmful to quality scenario design, and people producing scenarios for the first time. 1. Flawed thinking The same accusation of bias could be levelled at me if I review a scenario from e.g. B&T, or by any other designer. And it may well be correct - I have a certain bias towards what I like scenarios to do and be like. Based on that I feed back into the design process, and based on that I review them. I do not play scenarios other than for play-testing, so a policy that discourages reviews by play-testers will remove me from the list of reviewers at the Depot. It will mean that I will not review Lindan's excellent 'South of Heaven' scenario, since I tested it. I do not have time to write detailed AARs either, so that is not an option. I also think that if there is a clear statement and openness about it, then there is no problem. I also have to see the evidence that shows that we are unduly biased in our reviews (both Berli and me). Very specifically, are our reviews of other Der Kessel scenarios significantly higher scoring than the average score of the scenario? I do not believe that is the case. If it is not the case, then what is there to worry? 2. Impact on new designers and quality design While Der Kessel and B&T could agree to something like this internally (although I am not in favour of it), I do think that it would not stop the practice completely. Since I do believe that Der Kessel puts out good scenarios, it will reduce the number of reviews of these good scenarios. Simple as that. It will also bar me from making my opinion on a fellow designer's piece of work known in an easy and accessible way. The matter is more serious for new designers, who will have to rely on the reviews by their playtesters to make sure that the scenario receives some visibility at the Depot. It appears to me that once a review of a scenario has been posted, it is likely that its DLs will increase, and more reviews will be posted. A positive snowball effect. I have no proof of this, but it is an impression of mine, I would be interested in how others see it. So, in closing, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that my bias disables me from reviewing a scenario fairly, and through the scoring system pointing out its strong or weak points. I believe that both Berli and I, as well as other Der Kesselites have been evenhanded in our reviews, and removing us from the list of reviewers just will increase the share of fairly useless, grade-inflated reviews of which we have too many already. I can understand why people think that there might be a problem, but I would like to see some proof of that, other than a hunch, or a stance based on a general principle. Having said that, I will not review anything until this has been thrashed out a bit more.

I think 'promoting' is a far better word than marketing. The best way to promote a scenario is, if you do not have a track record, to ask the playtesters to post a review on the Depot. If it is even-handed, and not done in a fanboy-fashion (which would probably be seen neagtively), that is a good way to make sure it receives some attention. The reviewer should always identify if they were playtesters or not.

Wyatt, thanks for the comment. I also don't agree with you, but will not review scenarios in the future either then.

At least there are no T-34s rolling thru the streets of Kensington.</font>

Hi there, can't respond to reviews on the Depot yet, so I do it here. You raise two points in your review: 1. Infantry-weak Soviet forces. This scenario represents the attempt by a Soviet armoured force that is far ahead of the main effort to seize a German position from the march. Because of that, there is no artillery other than Katyushas (who were very mobile themselves), and there is only the infantry that could ride on the tanks. I agree that ideally the Soviets should have more infantry - I am sure that e.g. the commanders of 47th and 37th Mech Brigades near Belyi in November 42 did think the same too, or the commander of 25th Tank Corps at Tatsinskaya, in December 1942. Historically, the tank-heavy make-up of Soviet mechanised forces at this time of the war made them infantry weak as soon as they outran their accompanying rifle divisions. The scenario consciously depicts what happens next, it was not a decision about balance. 2. The designer and one reviewer both are Der Kesselites Yep - and almost everybody should know it. We review each others scenarios after playing/testing them. We have done so all the time in the past. I know that other groups don't do this. Since we are open about our allegiance, I don't think there should be a problem with it. While I agree that it may appear unsavoury, I have yet to see a Der Kessel scenario being hyped by a fellow member of our group when everybody else thinks it is sh*te. I would be interested in others' views on this though, although I am not sure we would want to change that approach.