Andreas

I know of a Canadian BN where the recon platoon used German guns when patrolling, because it would make the Germans hesitate when taking fire. Also, Germans used Shermans a few times (e.g. Herrlisheim), but I think it is indicative that Skorzeny's commandoes had very real trouble to get enough equipment out of the whole German army to equip themselves with US vehicles. Also, deployment numbers of Soviet tanks in the various army groups seems to have been low. In the Wehrmachtsausstellung however, there is an interesting picture from a large-scale anti-partisan operation in 1942, in which the Germans use a SU-76 SP gun, a BT-type (or somefink) light tank, and a Stug together. But this was a long way behind the frontline.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: I was so pissed that I told mommy how gamey my opponent was .<hr></blockquote> Shouldn't really play when drunk.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The South Alberta REgiment did it in Holland as well, IIRC - and not just a few rounds, but quite often during the winter stalemate. I don't have their history near to hand though, maybe Andreas can come along and call me a liar.<hr></blockquote> Nah, I won't. I understand they did it during ELEPHANT (Kappelsche Veer) and PLUNDER (Rhine crossing). During PLUNDER, pretty much anything with a gun-tube was asked to support the river crossing, IIRC.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Runyan99: Cool. I love the Der Kessel stuff. I am playing three Byte Battles PBEM right now, and they are all pretty good. Great work guys, and Andreas especially.<hr></blockquote> Thanks Cory, much appreciated. Let me know what you think of them if you get the time.

Steve, thanks for the clarification. To briefly address Jason's request regarding my stance on the cost of the FT and whether it is overpriced - I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know however is, that the day I get hung up about the price of a unit in CMBO or CMBB is the day I will smash the CD and erase the game from my hard-disk.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Sorry, Andreas, you misunderstood me. I think they should be part of a squad and hence get more robust. In that case, the engineer squad that carries the FT should be fairly expensive, maybe by an even larger offset than a FT teams costs now.<hr></blockquote> Okay, I am beginning to think I am dense now. What is the justification for them being more robust when they are in a squad then they are now. To me there are two underlying assumptions for this desire: 1) The AI would not prime-target them. Fine, but it would make it less realistic, since they were prime-targetted. If they are part of a squad, the AI would then have to prime-target them in the squad, something that would take major recoding I believe. 2) The rest of the squad would cover them. Again fine, but you can do this now through overwatch. 3) Their survivability would be higher because somebody would pick up the weapon and continue to use it. Let's think about that - Joe Bloggs the FT carrier marches onto the enemy line and gets wasted by a stream of 7.92mm rounds, almost shredding him in two, every 10th round tracer. On his back was this interesting contraption filled with Napalm. Since he is certifiably dead, it means that someone had a bead on him, and continues to have one on his now defunct body. You also have no idea what the bullets did to the tank. Do you a) try to get the VC by crawling over, taking the tank off Joe, strapping it on, and continue where he failed; pretend you are a birdwatcher and just wandered into the place; c) press your face in the mud and pray that the Napalm does not ignite? If there is more than 1), 2) and 3), I'd like to hear it, because it would help me understand better why this change is wanted. Unless I have missed it somewhere.

As for Puff's question as to why I am not interested in the change. 1) I don't feel it is needed, they work fine as is. 2) Until proven otherwise, I tend to believe CMBO to portray/abstract historical reality as close as possible. Same in this case. If that is wrong, by all means change it. I don't know the standard organisation of an assault pioneer unit. For the Germans the book ordered by Puff will hopefully clear it up. If the Germans (or anyone) had these FTs as part of the squad, then by all means integrate them into it. If not, leave them as part of the platoon (an independent team) as they are now. In the Commonwealth platoon, the PIAT and the 2" mortar were part of the platoon HQ, but are currently protrayed as independent teams, because that is how they were used. You could make the same arguments for the inclusion of FT teams into the squad to include PIATs into Commonwealth squads or Schreck teams into German squads (wouldn't it be nice if they were inherently covered? someone would pick it up, etc.pp.). The Marines example from the Pacific is probably not particularly relevant here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I'm afraid it is not that simple. The knockout points still upset the final score. I don't doubt that you can actually use them in the right scenario, but if they are overpriced, that is still a problem in a scenario. If some defenders sit on a small flag and you would have to decide to push them off with two flamethrowers and some rifle squads, with a 100% chance to get the flag, but a 50% chance to loose the FTs, it is not worth it, considering probable other losses. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]<hr></blockquote> Okay - by how much are they overpriced? Say, 30%? That is, for a regular German FT, 13 points or thereabouts. Say you have two - four in a 2,000 point force, losing them costs you 26-52 points. I have never been interested in the arithmetic of winning or losing, but assuming that things have gone to hell in a handbasket if you lose all four anyway, I just can not see what kind of a difference it would make?

You could not shoot down the V-2. There is footage from the gun camera in a Typhoon I believe attacking one just lifting off (came as a bit of a surprise to the pilot I think. It has been described by a fellow pilot as 'the most optimistic attack of the war.'

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tools4fools: How about if we could order our units (rapid firing guns in particular like AA guns and MG) blind into the smoke? Like the aera fire command that sticks to any part of a building. Sometimes this could be useful, enemy advancing over a bridge under a smokescreen for example.<hr></blockquote> Again, a search would answer that question in more detail. The short answer is 'absolute spotting'.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: This is why most people including myself, before playing CM, thought that the Tiger was indestructable and yet its 100 mm of frontal armor isn't enough to deal with the Firefly in up close fights in CM. What gives? <hr></blockquote> Apart from everything else, ask yourself how many close-up fights between the Firefly and the Tiger occurred IRL, as opposed to a QB map.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kipanderson: Hi, Just a quick point. The QB generator may not build very realistic cities. I would not know, I have never used it. However, with the use of the scenario/map editor it is possible to build some very European looking towns, no problem. When it comes to he actual fighting in cities, I think CMBO models it very well. All the best, Kip.<hr></blockquote> I would agree with that - I think it is really not that much a problem of a lack in the combat model, but more one of a lack of imagination in terms of scenarios and inadequacies in the QB generator. The changes Dan talks about are very welcome though, and will serve to make it even better.

Read the passage in 'Quartered safe out here' where MacDonald Fraser relates how he became the section's 'sniper-scout'. If you can get past the Sergeant's Cumbrian accent, it is a hilarious read.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: On Andreas' comments, sorry I don't find an offer of "maybe I even will, if somebody else makes a map I like" an actual offer. If you think the present FTs aren't broken, then you ought to be willing to take them as they are and use them against the de facto reigning CM close combat weapon, which is the SMG<hr></blockquote> I seem to have trouble getting this through to you, so let me repeat for the hard of reading Jason. You are talking QBs, pricing, and the effectiveness of the FT in comparison to the SMG. I am talking about the effectiveness of the weapon when used in a less artificial environment (a canned scenario) where pricing concerns are irrelevant, and SMG troops only reign if the scenario designer so decided. To sum it up, we are talking about two totally different things, and your point about their price/effectiveness ratio concerns me about as much as a bicycle falling over in Beijing. It has nothing to do with the modeling of the weapon itself. I don't play QBs, because I don't have time for what I think is the most boring aspect of CMBO. Since my offer is not an offer to you, please feel free to ignore it too, you are doing a pretty good job at ignoring my argument already.

According to a statement by a former German officer in Glantz 'The initial period of war', all the usual suspects that his unit was equipped with (I think it was 7. PD) failed against the KV-1, up to and including the 8,8cm Flak. The only real help was the field artillery, 10,5cm lFH and 10cm field cannon. According to a report from 1.PD attacking along the Vilnius axis I believe, the best the German tankers could hope for was immobilisation at distances of 30-60 yards using Tungsten(!). Also (Puff is going to like this), engineers using demo charges succeeded in disabling the heavies, by causing turret traverse failure, gun damage and immobilisation. Looking at the composition of one force in June 1941: the advance element of 1. PD in their attack across the Lithuanian border on the 22. June consisted of the following: 3. Kp. S.R.113 - 16 APC - 2 SP 20mm AA guns - 10 Panzer III - 2 Panzer IV - 1 battery lFH 10,5cm I would surmise that the intention was to have the field artillery handy for dual use. Bottomline is, in the absence of the actual failures of the Red Army heavies (lack of fuel, ammo, training of the crew, and transmission prone to failure for the KV-1) on the CMBB battlefield, the initial war scenarios can get ugly very fast for the Germans. Regarding rarity - there were quite a few of the T-34 and KV-1 around it seems (several hundred of both types I think, but don't quote me on it). The real problem appears to have been that nobody had trained with them, and that they were used piecemeal and with no infantry support.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Believe me, I love city battles, and I'm really unhappy that they are a bit undermodeled in CM. Even if the scenario is designed for housefighting. And I repeat, once the FT is in the city, the situation is the same. It doesn't matter how much country is around the city. Simplified, you have houses and streets. <hr></blockquote> These are the two points where we fundamentally disagree. Contrary to your opinion I am convinced that: 1) City-fighting is modeled quite well in CMBO, but only if you have a really good scenario. 2) FTs work if the condition in 1) is met. Ergo FTs are not broken, and don't need fixing. Regarding your experience with scenarios - have you had a look at the Scenario depot? The stuff that is in Big Dog's Top 10 over 3 is really all quite good. There is no longer any need to waste time playing crappy scenarios, thanks to Admiral Keth's service. Link in my sig.

JPS - I meant my point about encumbrance was a minor point, not yours about weight. I think that your's is quite important actually.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JPS: How does the "typical" combat load of a pioneer equipped for assault compare to a flamethrower team member equipment weight? (80 lbs was mentioned for FT team - could anyone provide more details on this?)<hr></blockquote> Minor point - while the weight may not be that bad, the way of carrying it would probably hinder fast movement too.

Well, I think we are talking in circles now. Bottomline is, neither you nor Jason have convinced me that there is something wrong with FTs as they are currently handled. Your arguments focus on something being wrong with them in QBs (comparative cost and usefulness on the QB map), not on something that is wrong with them in principle. As for Jason's suggestion that they should lead to a global drop in morale - I would agree with that for the presence of Crocodiles, and maybe Wasps. Definitely not for hand-held FTs. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Andreas, only because you don't like QBs, that doesn't mean that they are broken. <hr></blockquote> 'Broken' is probably the wrong term - 'nowhere near as good as a well-designed canned scenario' would be better. Particularly when it comes to the use of special weapons. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: And I'm pretty sure that the recoding of the auto map creator is more difficult to do then the recoding of a special weapons use - why do you think this would be so difficult? <hr></blockquote> Because you would have to introduce the concept of individual soldier modelling into the current model, due to the load distribution and the picking up if the handler goes down issue. I do not know how they do it at the moment, but I am sure they would have to do it differently for FTs. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:And I don't agree that a recoding of the map creator would change the handling of the FT. Once in the city of a QB, he is in the same situation like in a scenario, so what is the difference?<hr></blockquote> As Xerxes said, pick up a decent city-fight including FTs, and we talk again. Until then, I am afraid you are probably not qualified to make that judgement. A QB 'town' map and a well-done scenario city map are incomparable.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: Although I think Andreas may have been living in London too long. "Quite exciting"? That has to be one of your better examples of British phlegm and understatment. Next you'll be saying you "quite like" mushy peas <hr></blockquote> You may continue calling me 'the Anglophile', that would be grand. BTW, the weather is not too bad today (see, I can even do Irish expressions).

Err, for this argument that they should be treated like the squad lMG or a PF/demo charge/rifle grenade - on top of what Jon said about load distribution - these are all weapons that can be picked up rather easily if the original handler goes to ground. They are also light, and you can run with them. None of which applies to the FT. It would need a serious bit of recoding, for something which I am sure is not broken. What you are trying to fix is the inability of the QB generator to give you a good map to use them on. You don't fix that by changing the FTs in the game, obviously. As for Jason's offer of having SMG squads go up against a US engineer outfit. First, you are thinking in QB terms again (see above - this will be fixed by rarity). Second, if Berli did build a city map scenario for the game, I might even take you up on it. As Xerxes said - scenarios are very well suitable for PBEM, probably more so than QBs.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Cough, cough . How should I explain... The FT now: slow, defensless because of short range. Anyway, the TacAI selects it as a primary target, similar to Bazookas AFAIK. This causes that this slow and on longer range defenseless unit is regulary slaughtered. The FT as part of the squad: The TacAI don't aim an infantry squad as primary target. Especially not under FOW. The FT is not longer 'THERE THIS FT MUST BE KILLED', it is only one man* in a squad of 10. So the chance to be the one who is killed in the targeted unit falls from 100% to 10% - please don't nail me on the math , but I hope you get the idea now. IN REALITY they are an important target - IN GAME as part of a squad, they can't be aimed as a single target, only the whole squad can be aimed. In princip this abstracts that the important FT is protected by other squad members. *(BTW, still unanswered, why is a FT team two men?) JasonC Thanks, I already feared I made a complete fool of me <hr></blockquote> That's what I thought - in that case I simply disagree. What you want is to remove the possibility for the opposition to take care of a major threat to their position. That I feel is unrealistic and should not be done. FTs were prime targets. If you want them to be covered, do it with another squad/tank/whatever through suppression. As for them working as AT weapons - no I don't, but I don't find it a major stretch of imagination that they disable vehicles or cause crews to bail. Someone posted here about the episode related by Belton Cooper in which Shermans caused KT crews to bail with WP rounds. Same principle. As for Jason's points. Yes for some of them in QBs (I absolutely disagree with the claim that there is not enough of a morale effect). No for well-designed scenarios. This indicates to me that it is a QB problem, and not an FT problem. What needs fixing then is the QB system, which should probably include a city only setting in CMBB (although I am not sure if the auto-generator could handle such a map), and not some way to make FTs stronger than they already are (if used correctly).

Oh yes, and I forgot. A point about their effectiveness. In another Der Kessel game I playtested against the AI, a flamethrower killed a King Tiger with three shots (ambushed it from inside a house), other FTs killed numerous HTs with single shots, and the morale effect Jason mentions is definitely in the game - the Germans who were treated to the tender attention of a flame-thrower were very eager to surrender. I had squads with just one or two casualties throw in the towel. To claim that all this is not in the game is just plain wrong.

Well Jason, to repeat the point - you are talking QBs (who cares about them anyway), and if you pick up a decent city fight scenario, most of your points fall by the wayside. They are very useful now, and there is nothing BTS has to fix for them to be useful in Stalingrad.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: To answer your question: to merge them with squads should negate that they are a primary target. But NOT, because they are not a prefered target - indeed they were. This should only simulate the cover they get from the rest of the squad. <hr></blockquote> Err, bit of a conundrum here - so they should be prefered targets, but not? Sorry, but the logic behind that bit I don't understand at all. I just can't see how this 'cover' is supposed to work. Anyways, as Xerxes said, if you use them the way they are supposed to be used, e.g in cities - and yes, city-fighting works brilliantly in CMBO, just not in QBs, and many of the scenarios trying to depict it are, not to mince my words, ****e. I am currently playtesting a brilliant city-scenario by Berli, and it is one hell of a ride, probably the most exciting one I have played in a long time. I can not comment on 'To the last man', since as the designer it unfortunately does not work for me.