Grisha

nitwit double post. [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

Most Soviet armor, as defined in this thread, were tanks. As panzerwerfer42 states there were a few armoured recon cars variants, but the vast majority of Soviet armoured vehicles were tanks. Support vehicles were either horse-driven wagons, or trucks. There were also tractors for pulling artillery, but there is nothing outside the armoured recon cars that compares with the large array of German light-armoured vehicles. An encounter with Soviet armor should be an encounter with tanks nine times out of ten, and recon cars for the remainder. And when I use the term tank please assume it to include such vehicles as the SU-76, SU-85, JSU-152, etc. [ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stixx: Or you could just join the CMMC. The largest and most well thought out campaign system for Combat Mission.<hr></blockquote> You still have to admit, this idea is a great refinement to the operational game process due to its simplicity.

I agree, excellent use of existing resources for a new direction.

Actually, the USSR rolled out more tanks than the USA. More than Germany too. ___________1939___1940___1941___1942___1943___1944___1945 USSR________2,950__2,794__6,590_24,446_24,089_28,963_15,400 USA________________c.400__4,052_24,997_29,497_17,565_11,968 Germany____c.1,300__2,200__5,200__9,200_17,300_22,100__4,400 From Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy [ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

Commissar, at the tactical level camoflauge was put to effective use by most combatant nations. Maskirovka as uniquely practiced by the Soviets was really meant to impact at the operational/strategical level. If one were to apply the effects of maskirovka as typically practiced by the Soviets on a tactical level, ie CMBB, then one should give the Soviet player massive numerical superiority at the setup of an attack/assault scenario, or assign substantial forces in a defensive scenario with the possibility of reinforcements.

Most of us are very familiar with the German memoirs of Guderian, von Manstein, and von Mellenthin. But how many of you have read Rokossovsky's A Soldier's Duty? It's an excellent memoir by Marshal Rokossovsky, recounting his experiences as a Soviet commander in WWII. Those of you not familiar with Soviet Generals, Rokossovsky was arguably the Red Army's finest Front commander of the war, and only Vasilevsky could be considered a better commander overall. A Soldier's Duty can be found through Abebooks.com, and though the book is Soviet-era material, the sincerity of Rokossovsky comes through quite convincingly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Everything's topsy-turvy, damn it!" he would exclaim in exasperation. "The devil knows what all our training was for! Communications are supposed to be established from higher echelons downwards, but here you have to go begging to the units to lay a line to the commander's CP...." _____________________________________ The division commander was relieved to find himself no longer on his own. We replenished his regiments with men collected on the road. As soon as stragglers learned that there were units still resisting the Germans in the Yartsevo area and along the eastern bank of the River Vop they flocked to us in increasing numbers, sometimes in units or groups headed by officers. As a witness of and participant in the events, I think it important to record this fact. Many units had gone through harrowing experiences; they had been scattered by enemy tanks and aircraft, yet they continued to seek leadership. They wanted to fight. It was thanks to this deeply rooted feeling that we succeeded in our organizational efforts. On the Yartsevo Heights, A Soldier's Duty, Rokossovsky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]

That feature does not currently exist in CMBO, but I believe it will be available in CMBB.

I'm pretty sure there will be sections of trenches you can purchase for scenarios.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: THAT'S what I meant. DPM. The one I said was that big 12.7mm mother, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, DShK was the 12.7mm HMG.

The Mosin-Nagant was the most common rifle(7.62) in the Red Army, and was bolt-action. The Tokarev SVT 40(7.62) though a good semiautomatic rifle was too complex for consideration during wartime production and was discontinued. The Mosin Nagant DP & DPM (both 7.62)were the main light machineguns, the most common versions having a drum clip on the top. Belt versions also existed. The most obvious difference between the DP and DPM was that the DPM had a pistol grip, but both were nearly identical designs. The DPM was in fact an improved version of the DP. For submachineguns, the initial main version was the PPSh41(7.62). It had a rifle stock and a drum clip. In 1943 the PP43 started coming out into main production. It had a folding stock and a banana clip.

I'm just looking forward to the road to Berlin. Kind of a dark version of 'We're off to see the Wizard!"

I think as Jeff D pointed out much earlier in the thread, the only way to better model gunner methods in CM is by actually modelling the way real gunners fire, ie 'bracket'. I'm not sure how CM is currently modelled to fire cannon, but if shell dispersion is a random process that is modified by a sort of RL_pattern parameter, then CM isn't modelling gunner methods. Of course, by keeping the hit function in CM's code to a minimal size by merely factoring accuracy variables is probably done to keep the game from being a CPU bear. To actually code a hit function that would incorporate the gunner practice of bracketing, then overlay that with variable gunner skill levels, would probably bloat the function/s by fivefold easily. If Charles opted not to make a RL hit function in CM, then it was probably for frame rate and CPU processing reasons, especially when considering that he's trying to keep this game playable for a wide range of computer systems. I'm certain it's not that Charles can't model RL gunnery methods of target acquisition. It's just that when combined with the level of graphics quality (3D accelerated environment), adding that level of AI might require a system more on par with current flight sims, ie PIII600+ with GEForce2 cards and 256Mb+ RAM.

Well, to be honest, I have very little interest in the West Front, and though I've enjoyed playing CMBO, it just doesn't have the appeal that the Soviet-German War has for me.

lol, Madmatt! Boy that made me laugh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fenno: The question was about masses concentrated in a small area, not about superiority. The nest iteresting quudstion in suchc coditons is the role of artillery, This might beoyond the scope of thiis game. Not just finns but also pacific front. Very hard to modell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Believe me, you want masses in a small area, Vistula-Oder has massive Soviet deployment by any standard per given area. If you spend some time and study this operation, you will not be disappointed in either masses of forces and/or artillery. [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]

I would say the Vistula-Oder operation in January of 1945. The build-up of Soviet force concentrations on the two bridgeheads were mostly undetected, and resulted in up to 16:1 numerical superiority. German line forces were quite literally swept aside as was an entire Panzer division in reserve.

Satisfied customer here as well. To Dark Knight's Dad: you are more at risk ordering food at a restaurant with your credit card, than you are by purchasing a game from BTS. This organization is independent with a small staff dedicated to making good wargames. And they are wargamers too.

The Soviets fought over their own territory for most of the war. They wouldn't have had the type of problems that invading armies had - at least until late summer '44.

After looking at Valera's pics of the T-34/85 and the screenshots I have to say that the CMBB model does appear to have a little too high of a turret ring.

Great screenshots. Found that one shot with the T-35/85s in the snow interesting. A squad of conscripts fighting in 1944. What are the odds on that? Hope there aren't too many of those type of scenarios in 1944, since its occurance would be about as common as meeting up with Tigers in WWII. Or were you guys just testing the 'mass attack' coding.

I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence. In non-operation games, this can be simulated by both limiting setup areas, then labeling those areas as "German postion," "MG nest," or "Bunker." [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]

If you want a Soviet perspective I'd say buy When Titans Clashed by Glantz, and Russia at War by Alexander Werth. The first book covers the enitre war as a military operation, and examines the factors responsible for the Soviet forces' victory. The second book covers the big political picture, and also the 'man on the street' angle as well. Mr.Werth was a BBC journalist, living in Moscow during the war, and had intimate contact with Soviet society during this time.

Actually, I'm very impressed that CM made that list. Very impressed. Look at the run of games on that list. Not a single true wargame-base game in the lot - except for CM. That's saying something.

Actually, I'm very impressed that CM made that list. Very impressed. Look at the run of games on that list. Not a single true wargame-base game in the lot - except for CM. That's saying something.