Andreas

I'll make sure to tell that to my grandfather who spent a lot of time fighting battles you think did not happen. Such as lying behind a cemetery wall with 50 other Germans waiting for 200 Soviets to assault them in February 1944. Such as fighting reconnaissance into a Baltic village with some Stugs and guns in July/August 1941. The scale of the key actions in the west also dwarves anything you can do in CM. Or have you seen someone design a playable battle showing the whole operation to close the Falaise pocket? Or the whole Cobra breakout? Or the whole of Monte Cassino? Or the whole defense of the Oosterbeek perimeter? Or the whole initial stage of the Ardennes offensive? Or the whole of 12th SS assaulting the Elsenborn Ridge? Do I need to go on? There are many reasons for not being interested in CMBB. Plain old ignorance does not feature highly amongst those, or reflect well on you.

Here is the OOB for the 246. VGD: 246. VGD at Lexikon der Wehrmacht No further info on that at the moment, and I doubt I have anything at home. Originally that maybe correct, but not in the case of the 246.VGD. As the link shows, it was originally the 565.VGD, but this was renamed after the destroyed 246.ID. It probably received the survivors of the 246.ID as well. So it became the 246.VGD before entering the line at Aachen. At the same time, 12.VGD entered the battle near Aachen and in the Huertgen, and that had originally been the 12.ID, but was rebuilt on the VGD establishment (in theory). At this point, all new divisions established for the defense of the Reich were named Volksgrenadier, AFAIK, so any special meaning attached to this name had gone. For scenario purposes, the 246.VGD would most likely be considered green, with the odd veteran/regular HQ or squad thrown in, and most likely very little in terms of heavy weapons support.

Just some added info. Fretter-Pico in his memoirs refers to the m1927 infantry gun as well-liked and used in great numbers. Fleischer & Eiermann in "Die motorisierte und Panzerartillerie des deutschen Heeres" mention that the 76mm guns used in divisional artillery battalions were not well suited for indirect fire, because the small size of the explosion made observation difficult.

Jochen's Finnish Stug succumbing to a 45mm ATG because he is a nitwit.

von Luck 'Panzer Commander' may have some info, although I think he was busy around Pegasus Bridge?

And I would, if I was not so busy being important. Maybe tonight, if not, tomorrow night.

I'll remember that for the next gaming weekend at Jim's. Note to any of the other potential attendees reading this thread - join Jochen's side if you enjoy losing. So not you, Mark.

Michael If it makes you feel better, I caught the tonsil hockey part. While having breakfast, thanks. Not that I know a lot about NKPA tactics, but IIRC the first units that launched the war were using some quite robust late-war Soviet tactics/operational strategy. Once those had been dispatched of, things went downhill, and the Chinese army was the one you always hear of using human wave tactics - I am certain too that Yacinator's understanding of the difference will only be surpassed by his mastery of grammar and his succinct delivery of simple truth that is known by all.

Any better sources then Beevor? Also, you are aware, if you have read the book closely, that the major action in Stalingrad occured in 1942? Also, you are probably not aware that in Stalingrad the Red Army pioneered MOUT tactics that are still used as an example in e.g. the Marine Corps Gazette, namely the use of specialised combined weapons assault groups? It was of course easier for the losing Germans to blame their defeat on either human waves or unskilled labour (Romanians), but it is also so much more face-saving when you are being simply outfought.

That is of course perfectly true in a world ruled by field manuals. On the eastern front, where your 1/3-1/2 strength battalion is today (anyday 1944) holding 4km or more of not particularly well-suited for defense frontline with only a tenous hold on the flanks, it may not be.

Good thread. Regarding splitting up the MG BN, this may have happened more in defensive situations with light coverage of the front by the PBI. The 78th Division's account from Termoli (a place now very familiar to some on this board ) indicates that the Vickers were split off along the frontline - which was about a Brigade+ worth of PBI in a not very enticing situation, holding a bridgehead against German paras and 16.PD.

Inbetween selling my flat, moving, job interviews, and life, that is not very likely at the moment. I also think I have lost all the info that Berli sent me in a HDD crash, and my CD of CMBO stopped working a long long time ago. I can try and raise our very own Desertfox for you, no guarantees though.

TDs are open topped. If you detonate a 12,8cm HE/Shrapnell round over them, it is very bad news for the chaps in the turret. Probably much easier to achieve a result then by hitting them directly (all you want is for the TDs to go away, killing them is a bonus). The 8,8cm Flak manual, of which parts are reprinted in this book details when to use time-fused airburst. Tried and tested technique.

T'was David Aitken. Michael, I take your point about it being unlikely that a 5m (or even 10m) tile would be the only change. That still does not invalidate my other points though - namely that in many cases it is not needed to enhance the simulation (although in some it would do wonders), and that there are other, more pressing issues that need attending to first.

Are Mollusks a unit type in CMAK?

Maybe, maybe we just have a different approach. Smaller, while generally good, is not necessarily required by me, or indeed the simulation. In many cases you would just get eye-candy - nice to have, but not fundamentally advancing the simulation. I am not fundamentally opposed to moving to smaller tiles - just saying that without a vastly more powerful solution for the 'brush' than the one we currently have, in particular when it comes to the laying of roads, railroads, fences, etc., it would be a feature that would be completely counterproductive. IMO. At the moment, I guess I easily spend 60-80% of the time on settlements. With a 5m tile system, that time requirement would be infinitely longer. Probably so much longer that I would consider giving up on designing stuff altogether. It would just be a chore, if all other things stay unchanged. YMMV.

I am trying to imagine doing a 2.5km by 4km map with 5m grids. Makes me want to crawl in a hole and take up FPS games. Without the ability to handle swathes of terrain better, and more flexibly, moving to a 5m tile would be a designer's nightmare, IMV. I also think that I am capable of churning out decent maps with the current editor. Not so much of cities (although even there you can do quite a lot, and what I can not do is more related to the elevation problem than the 20m tile), but of pretty much everywhere else, except mountain ranges - there a 5m grid would be great - but also, there you may only need a 240x240 map to have a believable situation. The 5m tile is no silver bullet, and for me not even the first thing I would consider changing about the map editor.

I did - all the time while you were gone. I was wondering - why only 30 days. Why not go the whole nine yards and get rid of that troublesome little dwarf for ever. But I decided to not hang you out to dry. Yet. Now send me an email you looser (sic!).

I think a pure 5m grid would be unworkable. As someone designing maps I would hate it. I want the 5m ability in some circumstances, but in others, 100m squares are perfectly fine. Basically I want a mix of Mapping Mission and the CM map editor. On my Mac. Sergei is bang on about many European cities at least having parts that are on grid square. Rshev for example was mostly on a grid system. I suppose many other Russian cities/towns from that era would have been as well. The Prati area in Rome, which was built up in the 1920s, is on a regular, almost grid system. Many parts of Berlin are on a very regular intersection system as well that can be portrayed quite well in CM. I think it is pretty much possible to construct realistic looking cities now. Yes they are not perfect, but the far bigger impediment I find is that I can not put large buildings next to an abyss. If I had the choice between being able to have significant height differentials in built up areas, and a more flexible grid in the map editor, I'd go for the former anyday. The CM editor gives a lot of power to map designers at the moment. I think there is a lot of room for improvement, and I am sure that BFC will look at this. It should be an easy win in terms of time invested vs. benefits gained for them. One thing to consider though is that even with the best map editor in the world, you still need map designers who know what they are doing. Michael's recommendation that BFC should look at aerial photographs is very sound. Europe does not look like North America. When looking at pictures from the war, people intending to design maps should stop looking at the kit portrayed, and focus on the landscape.

I think 'Oi! Ref!' would also be appropriate, or: "Schiri, wir wissen wo Dein Auto steht! Fahr Bus & Bahn, fahr Bus & Bahn!" Although that may interfere with the code limiting the name length.

I thought I should send you something that, while looking better than the posh parts of Tampere, would at least not make you so jealous that you emigrate immediately. Seems I made the right choice.

lEEt! w00t! r0x0r! Or sumfink. Oh Lorak what have I done. Say Sergei, if losing against me affects you that much, should I just let you win this time? Do you promise not to toss your toys out of the pram if I do? Now go and play in the street.

I think I'll appoint you as minister of double-posts.

Mike has the Horsemen right. BFC: Martin (Moon) Matt (Madmatt) Dan (Kwazydog) Charles (Charles) Steve (Steve) Fernando (Fernando? He does not post often enough) Not sure about Rune's status. Then again, neither is he.

Or else we will send our heavy equipment to your way... </font>