Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: It may be a ground warfare game, but air power obviously played a major tactical role throughout much of the war, particularly the period and area modeled in CM. I've always felt it's underrepresented the game. Combined arms was the name of the game, after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anymore proof of that than your opinion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naja: My God - I think tero is owed an apology by not just Slapdragon but Steve, for "trying to defend the indefensable." To even equate tero's arguments to the great dragon's slaying of the arian brotherhood in his glorious college years is disgusting.... I stopped reading at page 9 of the last thread (I had to work... real work) and caught up on what I thought were good points made by tero. (Are we all really equal? I mean equal weight, height, thinking, love of country?) Unfortunately the "elites" of this bbs have taken it upon themselves to "defend America's honor"...BULL. The Japanese might be the only exception "because it is documented...Kamakazis" ...BULL.... Every country at one time or another believes in what it is fighting for and its people are willing to sacrifice all they have in that endeavor. The average Joe fought and died for his country while most number crunchers lived to "fight another day." If being a "grog" is being able to push numbers and stats down an "opponent's" throat ad nausium - all the while ignoring valid points "while typing faster than I can talk".. you can have your text-based battlefield.. but I bet I can shoot my mp5k straight and true when it counts (relevant to the "debate") better than a "city boy" who never "finished off" that small bird with your bb gun at 6.....Slappy yor a good debator (sic) - try defending America's belief in national modifiers when Blacks were used as truck drivers, cooks...Because ...welll according to the documentation of the time "that's all they were good for"...leave the fighting to the people who have the biggest libraries or type the fastest and things will be ok......just disgusted...If Steve and Slapdragon have already apologised then I am sorry if I offended; I haven't had time to read the new thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What on earth are you rambling about?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: I don't see how you can have a game set on the Eastern front and not try to simulate some of these massive barrages. However, I would imagine gameplay and balance would be thrown out of wack. On call airstikes would also be a very interesting addition as one poster hinted at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can see very easily how you can have a squad-level game of GPW warfare without these. Opening barrages are IMO simply outside the scope of the game. The Commonwealth used so-called pepperpots (or somefink along those lines) repeatedly on the western front, where all available guns (including AAA and the Vickers MGs) would fire indirect fire into an area. Then you walked in and mopped up the dazed survivors. That also is not simulated, and it should not be. The Germans had a habit of disrupting Soviet attacks by hitting the assembly areas with a barrage. That can not and should not be modelled either, IMO. CM starts when these barrages are over. If you want to simulate it in a scenario, just start by giving the side that was hit by the barrage 'broken!' and 'panic!' squads, which they will have to use for the first number of turns, and then feed in fresh units from the counter-attack. That way you could simulate the barrage without: a) wasting huge amounts of time (what fun for the one being shelled to send 15 PBEM turns just watching his troops cowering and breaking) the need to waste valuable coding time for a seldom used feature in H2H play c) preserve game balance Also, regarding Soviet arty, they did have lots of it, but I really wonder about the flexibility of the arm. It essentially comes down to where the arty was in organisational terms. The way I understand it, there was little organic arty at or below division level. (corrections please if that is incorrect) That to me would indicate a very inflexible system, in which you can deliver a huge weight of metal in a short time, as part of a pre-planned barrage, but which would not be very well suited to emergency support missions, or flexible engagements of opportunity targets. One example that I can recall off the top of my head is that during the start of BAGRATION the preceding recon in force (BN sized) was so successful in penetrating the German lines in some places that the barrage was cancelled (i.e. not relayed onto another target two miles in, just cancelled). This could indicate inflexibility of the system, compared especially to Commonwealth & US artillery. If someone could point me towards some good info on Soviet arty, especially in the later stages of the war (tried to find the books Jeff quoted, but they seem to be out of print), and in particular to their FOO system, that would be most appreciated. I know there is some stuff on Valera's site, but is there anything else. Jeff, if you could supply me with the ISBN numbers for those books please, that would be great.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: But if I were to fire up a QB with the parameters set to when the GBs saw action then one would think the chances of getting them would improve. Makes sense, doesn't it? Well, I've done it and still no GBs. Maybe I'm unlucky but I think I could generate a hundred QBs set to Jan / Feb '45 and still not see one GB. However i'll probably see a few Jagdtigers, Ostwinds and dozens of Pumas. How many other people have seen GB units generated by the computer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, try September/October 1944. At that time the Gebirgsjaegerbataillone 201 and 202 were in the line in the Vosges. Not sure about the rarity thing though, but at least you would have the right time. January saw 6th SS Gebirgsdivision in action in the Nordwind operation, but that was technically speaking not a Gebirgsjaegerdivision.

Got an iMac DV SE G3/400, run lots of mods, use Aikidorat's mod manager (older version), and never had a problem. Also run some terrain mod, and it has not really affected the game speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Ya know, the added irony is "leadership factors" from the leader units haven't been broached so much in this pursuit for "differences" between the nationality's squads. Considering that leader units have four "variables" that all impact on troops that are IN COMMAND---and that all of these are within bounds to modify in scenario design---isn't that four more ways as to help approximate "doctrine" or "drill" or "responsiveness" or whatever?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that is a really good point. Also, as I said in the other thread - different drills are reflected in a different doctrine, and therefore different weapons. Once you have learned how to use a US Rifle squad, you will use it in a different way than you use a Gebirgsjaegersquad. And that is where the difference in Doctrine/Drill (which is really inseparable) comes into the use. So it is after all a function of your understanding of the differences.

Email jbailey@resolutecapital.com, and check with him if there are places in the CMMC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frenchy: Germanboy: Sample sent!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks a lot - very interesting stuff, just from the cursory glance I had at it.

Right, excuse my French, but this whole BS about censorship, and not being allowed to quote BTS is a bit ridiculous and reminds me of why I quit the board a while back. Maybe I should just do so again. Stacheldraht, make your mind up please. Either you want a community and a discussion (look it up in the dictionary, it can involve people disagreeing, although that maybe a surprise to you), or you want a private channel, where nobody is allowed to quote BTS, because they are the only purveyors of wisdom around here. You can have either/or, but not both. The rest - I have a reasonable amount of time I spent on this board, and a good memory for what went on here before. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough. Now if somebody comes along as Triumvir did, suggesting a change, what is wrong with me using the knowledge I have and telling him what I recall BTS' answer to be? That was no put-down or whatever, just a quiet reminder that there were reasons beyond what he was looking at for why we have 1min turns. I did not tell him to agree with them, or tell him that those were the Ultimate Truth, just said that the 1min turn length was not conjured out of thin air. I don't think he actually had an issue with that, but I may have the wrong impression there. No doubt somebody will now come with some crap like 'don't put down the newbies' or 'all views are equally valid'. To avoid having to read it I won't open this thread again. Night night.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Germanboy: Could you give me a sample search statement which doesn't cause UBB to time out? A simple "ai turn length" and variations forthwith doesn't work; do you have a timeframe by which I can search? As for shortening it, again; it does come down to preferences. I stress -- I'm not looking to _replace_ 1 minute turns, I'm looking to _supplement_ them. If a 30 second or a five minute turn -- which incidentally, will be correspondingly (at least!) longer to process -- fits my needs better than a 1 minute turn, shouldn't I be able to go to them as necessary? (By the by, I still stand by my statement that a CM that's programmed for granular turns can produce CM as we know it as a special case) As for privileged, I meant that -- and should have said, obviously -- in the sense that there is no reason from the code point of view to go with 60 seconds. Apologies for not making myself clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Triumvir, I don't know how to make searches work anymore. They seem to work for David Aitken, but for me they time out too. I think there maybe a reference to this in the links that he provided on page one of this thread. Sorry to not be able to help you there. It must have been about 3-6 months back, at the vey least. I think there are really two lines of argument here. I agree with you that there is no reason on the face of it that you could not code CM in a way to allow for variable turns. This may then be toggled, according to the needs of individual gamers. I can see the design principle, and while I am no programmer, I am sure it can be done in some way. No argument there. I think the second line of argument is whether it would work as well once you have done the code change. BTS have said in the past that >1min is to hard for the TacAI to cope with and would make the game very frustrating to play because of increasingly erratic behaviour. I think a lot of people would agree that despite its weaknesses, CMBO has a damn good AI. So any improvement to it would be hard to achieve and take a long time to code. At some point you would also hit a limit. Whether that would be at 1.5mins or 3mins in anyones guess. As I said, shortening (and I am 90% sure there was a BTS statement about this as well) would reduce the 'chaos of war' aspect of CM and introduce more player control. This is purely a design decision. One that to me works fine, but it is ultimately a matter of taste. I think I would come down on the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' side of things. So in closing, based on my memory, longer turns are currently not possible because of the AI. Shorter terms are not in keeping with the design philosophy, as I recall it. That is all from memory, in the absence of a working search function.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Perhaps he's referring to the 22nd Armd. brigade's charge at Bir el Gubi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the one, 19.11.41. I take your point Jeff that it was probably a pointless exercise, but again, if one gives the Italians a blanket 'Spaghetti' modifier (I know you did not ask for that), then the Ariete Division would probably be hard done by. I think there is mileage in the squad drill approach, seems well worth looking at, although I am not sure how much the current execution of the drill would be a function of the weapons available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Okay, so you can restrict things to often-used numbers, but the fact remains that there is no privileged reason to stick with 60 seconds a turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, not quite correct. There is a reason not to make it longer, IIRC. It would tax the Tac AI too much. Do a search, there are official statements to that effect. Also, for larger battles computation would take a longer, and depending on how long you go, that could be a problem for lower-end machines. Also, I don't know how good the high-level AIs would function with longer turns. So there are three good reasons not to extend the turn length. Now for shortening it, I guess that it comes down to how much micro-management and chaos of war you would like to see. 60secs gives you a nice effect in that your men do stuff that you don't expect them to do, based on the Tac AI acting semi-independently of your orders. Would that work with 45secs? Maybe. 30secs? Probably not as well. That is a design decision, but contrary to what you are saying, there may well be good reasons for it. Doesn't mean it can not be done, but it may mean that given the constraints of the vision governing CM, and those of current computing power, there are 'priviledged' reasons to stick with 60secs. edited because I am a moron... [ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: I'm looking to discuss ways to improve the engine, not score points off people to make myself look good, or smart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've got that slightly wrong, because you are actually looking for ways to screw up the engine by introducing tosh into it that has no basis in real life. Fortunately enough BTS are not going to fall for this. Or maybe you can just enlighten us as to what modifiers would be needed to replicate the Iraqui example of yours? I can't wait to hear all about them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Firefly: General Perceval who surrendered Singapore to the Japanese without a fight<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, while this maybe lost on you, the city was chock full with civilians. Percival should be commended for giving up as quickly as he did, thereby at least saving more of the inhabitants from being killed in the air raids and attacks. Any suggestions as to what he should have done? Why don't you nominate von Choltitz for giving up Paris or von Kesselring for giving up Rome without a fight while you are at it? Apart from that I agree with what the previous poster said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Does anyone know if there have been any studies done to see if, all else being equal, people from colder climes freeze to death more slowly than their warm blooded peers? On the surface, it sounds absurd to me, but I've never really looked into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tosh, as you rightly suspect. It is an issue of training, experience, and proper clothing, as well as fuel provision for heating. Of course it helps when you have grown up in the cold, because you would have grown up with the procedures that would help you cope. As John posted, about 90,000 Soviet soldiers did not cope very well either. In the Winter War, one Soviet division was sent without acclimatisation and winter clothing to Karelia from Ukraine. I think it got annihilated by Uberfinns, but not because of some genetic trait making the Finns better able to cope with the cold. My grandfather, from the mild lower Saxony area of Germany, did not suffer frost-bite - his unit was supplied with winter clothing, because he was part of Heeresgruppe Nord, and he was a farmer, so he was used to the outdoors. As for the Iraq example, some people (tero, Sirocco) just don't get it. They also will never get it, but that's alright. For all the others who maybe taken in by the drivel they provide is the following. The Iraqui army was made up of lowly trained conscripts, because it had been bled dry in the first Gulf War. It faced a professional army that had total control of the sky and superior equipment. As Bullethead will tell you, they fought, but they stood little chance, because of their equipment and their lack of training, and the lack of good commanders. End of story. You can simulate this now in CMBO with the experience rating, the setting for fanaticism, and by letting a unit start e.g. exhausted, weary, broken, whatever. In CMBB you will be able to simulate it further with the fitness factor (to account for the lack of supply coming through to the Iraquis due to their supply columns being shot up by the Alliance air forces). I don't often agree with Lewis, but he is spot-on here. When tero is getting the Uber-Finn posters, maybe someone should order a collection of GI-Joe dolls for Sirocco, so that he can simulate Uberamericans kick innately inferior Iraqui rear-ends. Someone should close this thread. This is a tedious business, that is not getting more interesting just because it comes up time and again. I just read an account by von Mellenthin, stating that during CRUSADER the 7th Armoured got their asss handed to them by the Italians in a bad way (you read that right). Not exactly what you would suspect, eh? Not exactly what you could simulate if Italians had the negative national modifier that I suspect some peoplen would want them to have.

You may want to check this site: http://call.army.mil/homepage/mout.htm

Corrections welcome, particularly US and German numbers. Commonwealth infantry division: 3 Field regiments (battalions) with 24 25pdrs each (72 total) Plus 16(?) 4.2" mortars and 60 3" mortars (in 9 infantry battalions and the Recce Rgt) German infantry division (vanilla type, not Voksgrenadier) 2 battalions with 16 105mm lFH each 1 Battalion with 16 150mm 48 total Plus regimental 120mm mortars and battalion level 81mm mortars (no idea about numbers), plus infantry guns in the regiments (75mm and 150mm), no idea about numbers US Infantry Division (off the top of my head, most likely wrong) 2 Battalions with 16 105mm guns each 1 Battalion with 155mm guns 48 total Plus 81mm mortars in the battalions (?) and attached assets, e.g. 4.2" Chem Mortar Battalions. Larger guns than this were higher level assets, but could be controlled by combat level FOOs. They were however often used for long-range interdiction and supply harassment, as well as counter-battery fire, due to their range). So if you face a Commonwealth division, a storm of 25pdrs is what you can expect. For the Germans and US, some more heavy stuff is easily intermixed because it is still organic at division level. In general, go with 105 if you are playing German or US and with 25pdrs if you are Commonwealth, and Bob's your uncle.

Calls for a Combaiku My soldiers all died now I only wish I had read the manual

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frenchy: Guys, thanks for the offers but I have sent copies (via snail mail) to Martin "Moon" Turewicz. I do have one page scanned if you would like to see a sample. Send me an email if you'd like it sent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes please. Email in the profile.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Battles didn't always conveniently take place after both sides had set things up just to their liking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ding - round one of the old chestnut. In the left corner, the forces of reason. In the right corner, the horse worshippers. Bet your money now - how long until Steve feels inclined to waste some of his valuable time to tell the assembled horseheads THAT THERE WILL BE NO HORSES IN CMBB? Hey, why the long face?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: I believe what is being simulated here is the fact that the mortars were usually integral battalion weapons and the 105s (i.e. the 'real' guns) were usually divisional. Battalion support is generally more readily available and responsive, hence the shorter delay times for it. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 120mm mortars of the Germans were regimental assets, IIRC. The Commonwealth 4.2" mortars were divisional assets (A Coy in the Machinegun Battalion had 16 (?) of them), and I believe that in the US Army the Chemical Mortar Battalions fielding the 4.2" mortar were army level assets but attached to divisions as needed. Not quite sure about the latter though. So in terms of organisational integration, the Germans had their heavy mortars at the lowest level. CMBO does not only simulate these organisational differences though, but also the likelyhood that fire is delayed by counter-battery activity IIRC. The Allies were much more efficient at this, due to the better fire control, better supply with ammunition, and higher number of guns. To give you an example of the scale of ammunition available (or not, as was the case) for the Germans. During the counterattack for Maltot, 9th SS Panzer Division had 700 rounds artillery available for all guns, according to a transcript by the divisional commander I found on www.feldgrau.com . Compare this to George Blackburn's account, a Canadian FOO in NW Europe ('The guns of war'): there were instances in Normandy were 2nd Canadian Infantry's field regiments (72 25pdr guns) fired an average of 400-500 rounds per gun per day. Combine this with what probably was the best fire-control system of World War 2, and you begin to understand why Panthers, King Tigers, SMGs and experienced East Front veterans interspersed with fanatical Waffen-SS youngsters did not really get anywhere against the relatively inexperienced Commonwealth armies armed with rifles and Shermans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frenchy: While cleaning house I found some documents that I had received from the Bundesarchiv many years ago. It's about 20 pages and seems to be intelligence reports, casualty reports of unit engagements in the Bryansk area. It's all in German and my German is not that good. So if there are any translators out there I'll send you copies. I'd like to know what they contain!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depending on how many pages and when you want it, and to what level of detail, I maybe able to help you. I would be very interested in seeing the documents. Oh, and I am a native speaker. Check in with Grego or me via the email in the profile, but don't send me 25MBs of scanned pages without a warning please.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Don't talk to strangers, especially redheaded New Zealanders called Peter, Americans going by the name of Jon with a blue sweater and thick-rimmed glasses, and sinister Germans dressed in black and white called Andreas. If you see any English, they should preferably be avoided as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can buy me a beer, to atone for losing in Valley of Trouble ages back (was you, wasn't it)? If we can persuade Kip to come, you can talk about Grog stuff too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: US units adopted tactics to counter german automatic weapons based upon rapid calling of artillery (while not fully developed in WW2, the US Army was the only Army in the world that tried to do an "Every Gun in Range" system, using swtiching and routing, allowing the lowliest Lieutenant to be assigned control of the largest artillery barrage. This is superior, when it works, to the FO system since the FO may not be in the right place at the right time<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't quite agree with this (no surprises there). From my readings it seems that Commonwealth FOOs did a good amount of 'off-map' firing, where they would direct the artillery without necessarily being present at the location it was needed. There usually was one FOO attached to every battalion, and he would always be where the main effort was undertaken. The Commonwealth also operated a system whereby all the guns could be brought onto a target, byt firing so-called MIKE (regiment), VICTOR (division) and UNCLE (Corps) targets, depending on the situation. The FOOs were specifically trained while in the UK, and were usually the battery commanders. Once losses set in, they were replaced with less experienced officers. The job was hazardous, but the advantage of having FOOs instead of having Joe Public direct your arty was that they were specialists with a good understanding of the effect of the guns, the constraints on the system, and how to direct the guns. What kind of system does the US use today? I heard the UK still uses FOOs, I think the Germans do, what about other armies?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoopenfaust 101: Would you be a good chap and send that via e-mail to me, since I am far from being special. Thank you bhooper@bowmead.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry mate, no can do - am at work at the moment, and at home it is a pay-per-minute slow connection. The mod is huge. Best contact Marcel (Pawbroon) to get it.