Andreas

Puff, thanks for digging that up. I did not know it applied to the PF too. Sort of skews the picture a bit for what we are discussing here. Anyways, I still think that some numbers of badges awarded before the introduction of the PF would be helpful to understand how much of an issue this was.

Well, all I can say is that even if you rewrite the story with the tank on the hill to include an assault tank command, it does not sound very realistic to me. It fails that realism test at 'run over there'. I find that wholly unconvincing, and as a private, that would be the part where I would look for a way out. If you ask your squads to do things they are capable of doing, as Andrew and I described, they accomplish them at the moment. I am still not convinced that the problem is a missing order, it seems to me it is unrealistic expectations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: I had better said 'that rare' instead of difficult. <hr></blockquote> Before coming to that conclusion based on one guy with 21 of these badges, I would like to get an idea of the total number of awards, and of how rigorous the process was of awarding these throughout the years. To give you an example, towards the end of the war you could get an EK I for almost anything, provided the officers had one lying around, judging from a few stories I have heard (Festung Brest is an example). At the beginning to the middle period it was a very serious award (Unlike the EK II, which you got for being around long enough and not falling foul of your Feldwebel in many cases, according to my grandfather).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Well, the soldier with the most badges had destroyed 21(!) enemy tanks with hand weapons. So it doesn't seem to be that difficult.<hr></blockquote> Err, Oberst Rudel claims to have killed 500 tanks from his plane, does that also mean it is not difficult? Somehow I don't follow your logic here. How many of these badges were awarded, and what were the circumstances of the kills? Also, armies don't tend to award special badges for things that are not difficult. My grandfather got awarded the EK I., but I have yet to see his Potato-peeling badge. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Anyway Andreas, I still don't see why you are so against a clear command. <hr></blockquote> I don't like it as a matter of taste and that's that, if we talk about the specific 'use AT weapon' command. The 'follow-vehicle' idea I think would give unrealistic results, lead to unrealistic use of infantry, and is a total no-no in my opinion. I like the use of weapons random and uncontrollable as it is. I like it when the faust is 'wasted' against infantry. I think this unpredictability and lack of control is historically quite accurate, and I enjoy it in play. Different strokes for different folks. You see, I can not understand why you are so much for it. As for your gun problem, I never have seen something like it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: I think there is enough uncertainty within the system. I already ordered guns to fire on a tank, and they didn't fire a single shot during the whole turn (with enough AP ammo in stock, and the tank hasn't moved an inch). To give an order doesn't mean that it will be executed, but I prefer that I can give the order that I want give instead of searching the right way to make the game engine do what I want to have done.<hr></blockquote> Were the guns themselves under fire? Suppressed? Panicked? As for 'searching' - I did not need to search for any special way, it all works beautifully as it is now if you don't expect unrealistic heroism. Some examples: tank went too close (30-40m, can't remember) to previously hidden (i.e. unsuppressed, non-panicked) German squad with PF-60 (reg). Woosh, boom, end of tank. Pommy tank stayed close to wall of building, send German squad (vet or reg, can't remember) into building, satchel charge flies, kaboom, end of tank. Next turn, same building, Sexton does not make it out fast enough, handgrenades fly, end of Sexton. One of my first games with the beta demo, (Last Defense) - German HT about 30m from two-story building, platoon HQ (reg) lets handgrenades fly, one lands in the HT, end of HT. I just don't seem to have these problems, and I think that is because I don't expect my men to be German Mutant Ninjas with a death wish, or maybe it is because I seem to believe differently from others here, namely that there was a reason medals were given for single-handed (!) tank destruction. IMO that was because it was a rare thing that took some special courage.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: I guess Scipio's idea goes in the right direction. It would be enough if I can select to use the extra weapons or only small arms. Combine this with the new 'Cover arc' command, and you can have the realistic infantry vs tanks tactic: ambush.<hr></blockquote> Well, I never had problems getting my squads to use their Panzerfaust. The 30m is mostly used on infantry, but both the 60m and the 100m version I have seen used against tanks, the 100m at ranges out to IIRC 80m, and successfully. As to splitting the order menu between small arms and extra gear, I am not sure I like that. It is probably a matter of taste, but I like to go and see the uncertainty inherent in the system.

First off, all the things that have been outlibnned here for the command to be working (e.g. alert to infantry - ever heard of FOW; speed of vehicle vs. speed of squad - how many vehicles in the game will be slower than an infantry squad; and of course - never mind the newbie) indicate to me that this is really not a serious proposition. Also, I would like to hear some historical examples where squads chased enemy vehicles. I can think of none. What you are asking for is different from what I understand how tanks were killed in close combat (by letting it come to you, and then ambush it by losing cover when it is extremely close). Have a look at this German tank destruction manual that can be found on the web. Yes, I find it frustrating when I order a squad to go to a vehicle to kill it in openish ground, but then the vehicle fails to oblige, moves off and the squad dies. I have found the perfect way to avoid it, I don't order it anymore, because I believe it is ahistorical as an order and the dead squad is a fair historical result. OTOH I have been very successful stalking tanks in cities (remember Nijmegen Aaraon?) and scattered trees. There is the celebrated case of the lone KV-1 stopping the German advance - it was not killed by the infantry, although it had no infantry support at all. There are a number of cases where unsupported Soviet heavies crashed into the German lines in the border battles of 1941. They were not killed by infantry, but either by 88s, or by their own technical problems, or lack of fuel. THe example of Tankodesantnikyi (sp?) is badly chosen, because they were there to support tanks attacking a position against the Germans in that position, by suppressing them. As I said above, that is different from ordering your men to stalk a tank. All these conditions that Col_Deadmarsh outlined in his last post indicate to me that this is a command that should not be in CMBB, because it somehow does not gel with the whole design philosophy of the CM series. Finally, while it is all well to ignore new players because they do stupid things - does anyone want a guess at the amount of threads this command is going to create that will be titled 'BTS - my elite SS Squad used your Assault Vehicle command and died horribly. Your game is broken, fix or somefink'.

The German retail boxed version is (surprisingly enough) in German though. So unless the lad who is asking the question is one of the few Britons able to comprehend a foreign language, it won't do him any good

Compassion, they were not copies. And who gives a flyin' monkey's what calibre it was anyway, it was still the best soddin' gun in the effin' war.

Is that grenade launcher based on the IWM picture? In that case I think it was a post-war addition, IIRC. Looks really really nice, I'd play with it

Okay, I maybe particularly dense, but still. Current: Situation: The infantry moves towards the vehicle. Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry and stays, and dies. Option 2: The vehicle does spot the infantry, moves off, the infantry sits there gets shot at, and dies. Future (after a 'follow vehicle' command has been coded in) Situation: The infantry moves towards the vehicle Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry, stays and dies Option 2: The vehicle spots the infantry, moves off, stops after, say, 20m. The infantry follows. The vehicle observes the movement (remember, it has spotted the threat last round) and moves off another 20m. The infantry follows (in the meantime everyone and their second cousin has seen the infantry and is busy killing it a lot). The infantry dies. What exactly is the difference, apart from that the infantry gets some exercise before dieing?

Well, I have read the whole discussion, and I still agree with Keith.

Mr. Peng's Hunan restaurant is to Chinese food what CMBO is to wargaming. Both Ethan and I had a whale of a time, ate too much of the gorgeous stuff he peddles, chatted with Mr. Peng, and were thorougly glad that he is no relative of our Mr. Peng.

Woops Keith, careful, people may start not liking you anymore

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Concur. But after early 1942 it was present<hr></blockquote> Err, the production numbers from LdW say that 8,500 were produced in 1942. I believe this would have been a pilot run, and mass production taking off in the last few months. Then you have to get it to the front. I somehow doubt that they would have reached the front in significant numbers before late Jan 1943 at the earliest.

Checking on Scipio's reference site, and on Lexikon der Wehrmacht unearthes the following: 1. The HHL3 may or may not have been successful (we have to take the word of the guy writing Scipio's reference text for it), but it certainly was superseded by the Panzerfaust, which to me indicates that it was not a loved design, since it was dropped quite quickly once something better came along. 2. For a discussion of German infantry combat vs. tanks in the early years in the GPW, the HHL 3 is a red herring. Production started in 1942, with 8,500, peaked in 1943, with 358,400, and ended in 1944 with 187,000 units. 59,000 units were left in the arsenals in March 1945. 3. Production figures in total are 553,900 HHL3, vs. 8,245,300 Panzerfaust of all types. Assuming production started in November 1942, over the 29 months this would give us a consumption/wastage rate of 17,000 units per month. To compare, for the Panzerfaust (of all types) this figure would be ~305,000. Just to give you an impression of availability, and likelyhood to see one or the other in the frontline. So, based on this info (which I have not verified elsewhere), the German infantry did not have HHL3s available to deal with the T-34 that their Heeresanklopfgeraet (aka 3,7cm PAK) could not dispatch in December 1941.

The translation by tero is correct.

Gregory, I think that is describing an ideal situation, and it did not seem to be achieved during operation Mars (follow-on part) and Little Saturn (initial part) ten months later, based on my reading of Glantz. The reason being that supply routes were the unknown quantity in this equation. It seemed to be impossible to move all the needed stuff (supply, C&C, new formations, artillery) on the few roads (if any) that were available, hence the schedule fell by the wayside. Mellenthin also comments on this failure to follow on for the Soviet artillery IIRC. But since we Germans are an obliging lot, we just counter-attacked places on the shoulders of the penetration, still in reach of the original artillery.

A ray of light, of an unnatural, deitious quality. The denizens of the Peng Thread, fearing light almost as much as soap scurry away into the showy corners of the pool area, mewling. A magnificent figure appears. It is HE, the most perfect Japanese-looking, in London-living God that the world has ever laid eyes on. A shudder of fear runs down the maimed and weak spines of the denizens, as they crouch in the mud. Their eyes dare not behold HIM. A quick glance shows that he has a couple of stone-tablets, a soft, warm and mellow glow that reminds them of the nice places they once walked, but now hurts their eyes badly, emanating from them. HE unceremonously drops them on Joe's hiding place. A hideous squeal is cut short by an ugly squishing noise, of the sort that you get when you drive your mountain bike over a big ugly one-legged toad. HE smiles, a sight that is terror to the denizens. Then HE speaks. A soft, beautiful voice carries into the last corner of the universe, and reverberates in the empty heads of the denizens. They try to crawl deeper into the mud. This is what HE has to say. 'Listen up you ugly scum-sucking ****es. Ethan has escaped your foul lands to better himself in the city of light, well a place close to it anyway. To celebrate this fact, not only will we go for drinks Saturday night, but we will also go to feast, on the fruits of the earth, and maybe also the little lambs, but almost certainly the once-happy Mr. Pig (a close relative of you lot, apart from their intelligence), and maybe a squid or two. Because it is written in the scriptures (Book of Andreas XXXVI, Chapter 99 Verse 2186) "When then the day cometh that Ethan should be in London, there shall be much rejoicing, and a procession will be held to the only Hunan restaurant in town, and Mr. Peng (ignore the heathen Italian 'food' will feast HIM and Ethan, at the hour that HE deigns the righteous one for taking his luncheon." Amen. So, tomorrow is the day when we shall put this prophecy into TRUTH, by making it happen. Disbelievers will be dealt with according to the usual custom, one cross per person only. Now, what the scripture does not say, but what will happen nevertheless is that we will check on whether Mr.Peng the Hunan master of Godly cuisine deserves his name. Once we have done so, we will find out whether our Mr.Peng is related to him, because if he is not, he can only be Mr. Peng the Trader in live cat meat. For Saturday the scripture tells us the following (Book of Andreas XXXVII, Chapter 13 Verse 195) "After feasting on the Chilies brought forth by the fiery earth of Hunan, there shall be much wailing, and a ring of fire shall appear over the toilet bowl. Pints of hop juice will cure the fire raging in the belly of HIM and Ethan, and there shall be more rejoicing." That is all for now. Continue to worship me, and live in the filth you love everafter. Goodbye.' HE turns and slowly hovers towards the bright light at the end of the tunnel. The denizens crawl deeper into the mud. Will HE smite them on his way out? Fear reigns over them like a brutal emperor, fiddling on their nerves, while the adrenalin burns through their veins. But HE only turns, and almost impossible to hear he says: Hans, you do no good little filthy liar.' before he proceeds to dismember him. The light fades. Darkness returns. Foul smell wafts through the Peng Thread again now that HE has left. Berli takes over. The denizens crawl from out of the friendly shadows to again start their futile little lives, if that is what you want to call it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Priest: Another note, again IIRC the Panzer III command tank was used to command tanks of other design.<hr></blockquote> I think there maybe a bit of confusion here. I am sure that degunned command tanks would be at least Coy HQ, if not Battalion HQ. This would be the stripped Panzer III commanding a Battalion of Panthers you are thinking about. At that level you need the space because you are most likely equipped with two radios, one to command your battalion, and one to link back to division net. Platoon HQ would certainly be in a gunned tank, because it only needs one radio set. AFAIK in the Commonwealth you would not get degunned command tanks below regimental (BN) level. Platoon commanders certainly would be in a fully armed tank. Just imagine 1/5 or 1/4th of your tanks coming to the party without main gun. Bit of a waste.

Yes, but should that out of gas Stug then benefit from the bonuses of being in command or not, if it: a) has not trained with the other vehicles as a unit has never had any dealings with experience of its new commander c) is unsuitable to work according to the FM with some Panthers in the first place, because it is a Stug?

Regarding your last question, I hope not. That would be ahistorical, unless it was TO&E to have such mixed platoons (maybe Tigers and Panzer IIIN?)

While I neither care nor know much about either of the sports in question, anyone saying that Cricket has anything to do with Eurocentrism should have a look at a game played between, say, India and New Zealand in India, where you easily get tens of thousands of people to come and visit, compared to a few hundred in the UK (which, BTW is the only European country left playing on the international stage). Oh, and there is a true world league for cricket (in which the Pommies do gratifyingly bad), while the Baseball 'World Series' seems to fail to take in anything outside the US? What does all this have to do with getting grenades on target BTW? Last I checked you lobbed them.

Sorting by date will not give you a campaign feel in the GPW. What does a Dec. 42 battle in the Rhzev salient have to do with a Dec. 42 battle on the Chir, or a Dec.42 probe of the Soviet lines outside Schluesselburg? Not much. IMO the best way to do this is as Michael suggests, and as we already do at Der Kessel, by sorting it through region/campaign and time. In the case of the GPW, a historical/semi-historical scenario could e.g. be named for the operation first: Little Saturn - Hell on the Chir Mars - Breaking into the line Demjansk - Getting out While for fictional scenarios, they could just be named by season, region and year followed by the name: Autumn 1943 Kharkov - Thunder on the Dnjepr Or somefink

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mace: Now I know Andreas is far more reasonable than Lawyer, and is quite happy to provide both Stuka and I with free airfares to attend. Isn't that right, Andreas? Mace<hr></blockquote> Sod off, both of you. Guiness is for weenies.