Grisha

Ahh, so the fact that the Soviets had some bad defeats in '43-'44 means that they were pretty poor overall? This near blanket statement doesn't sit well with me. While it is true that the Soviets could screw up even in 1944, they were also capable of operational excellence. Please read up on Operation Bagration of 1944, and the Vistula-Oder operation of 1945. Not only were they prime examples of tactical and operational maneuver, these two operations were also excellent examples of Soviet intelligence/reconnaissance(razvedka) and deception(maskirovka). These two operations are classic textbook operations fit for any country's military academy. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Congratulations, BTS! You deserve it ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Jeff, I'm putting my bucket of mud away If it's English-language books on the Soviet Army in WWII you want, you've come to the right man! Before anything, check Frank Cass Publishers as they have a nice set of books on the genre. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Thank you ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

I believe it's been stated that pbem games can be continued as online games. Is the opposite true as well: online games being continued as a pbem game? ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Jeff, I'm not disputing that the T-34 had problems, or that Soviet troops in '41 and '42 were for the most part ineffective. What I'm complaining about is the tendency to take everything the Germans said about the Russian front as the 'bible'. This is not so. David Glantz has an excellent article that addresses this so much better than I could, but in short what has happened is that postwar writings of German commanders planted the seed for many misconceptions about the Soviet Army. And, I'm seeing these misconceptions popping up here on this board. And about our game, I wouldn't call a minor victory as kickin' your ass ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-10-2001).]

jasper, Great stuff ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

With the exception of John Waters, and maybe a few other people, most posts are basing their statements with German sources alone. I think there needs to be a more balanced usage of Soviet sources in order to find the the most realistic assessment. To prove a point, if the kill claims of all the air forces that participated in WWII were combined they would've been several times the actual size of all combatant air forces combined. Even by 1942 the Soviets were using very innovative means of defeating the Germans tactically. I remember one account in Loza's book. A Soviet tank formation had to re-take a village recently captured by German armor. What the Soviets did was ingenious. Knowing panzertruppen behavior, the Soviets waited while the German tanks formed in the village center. The Germans then left a single crew with their tank to stand watch while the rest quickly went into the houses to raid them for food and drink. The Soviet tank commander was an old hand at this and had already told the artillery unit to lay in a barrage onto the empty tanks. At the moment the panzertruppen were in among the houses, the Soviet tank commander ordered the artillery fire to commence, then ordered his unit to attack. What followed was almost anticlimactic. The single occupied tank was suppressed by artillery fire and easily taken out by the approaching tanks while the remaining panzertruppen were stuck in the houses, unwilling to run into an artillery barrage to get back into their tanks. Soviet infantry assets quickly overwhelmed the German crewmen in the houses, and the village was taken. Now, I'm not saying the Soviets were all like this. Of course not. But I am saying the Soviets were anything but a walkover. Many commanders were unimaginative early in the war, but there were more than a few who were quite a match for the Wehrmacht. Yes, the Germans had the edge tactically over the Soviets throughout the entire war, and very much so in the early years. But the Soviets did have excellent commanders on all levels too with equipment that allowed them to make use of their talents. I will keep repeating this as long as people continue to make use of inaccurate recollections from German commanders or generals. If you are going to use German sources, then find Wehrmacht AARs, or the like. Most German general memoirs don't even have the benefit of WWII German military archival backing. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-09-2001).]

"Okay, I motion that the T-34 in CM2 be armoured with thin sheets of lead, fire big wads of tar from the cannon on a non-turning turret, that the engine be fueled with a mixture of petrol and good, black dirt, and that it be crewed by four squirrel monkeys, but that only two monkeys may be in the turret. How many vote, 'Aye'?" A large chorus rings out with "Aye!", then the BTS chairman counts the raised hands. "And how many vote, 'Nay'?" A horrendous, screaming cacophony erupts in the room. The BTS chairman makes several frustrated attempts at counting hands, then abruptly gives up. "Since you monkeys won't keep still long enough for me to count your hands, I declare the motion passed!" ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-08-2001).]

Hehe, sorry just had to do that. Referring to the Army TV ads, that is. "Follow orders ... but every once in awhile - don't." [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-08-2001).]

Hmm. okay, my bad. Skimmed too quickly over the maneuver thread initially. This time I went over it again, but more slowly. Maneuver warfare... Henri, I think what you are trying to explain is what Soviet forward detachments got very good at from 1944, on. Namely, decisive and innovative action through wide freedom of action, and a well balanced force composition. What you are talking about is not so much tactics, operations, or strategy as a command/control concept, or lack thereof. Kind of like the Dutch national footbal team of the Johan Cruyff days - the 'Orange Swirl'. Can CM simulate this? I really don't see why not, as long as it's player vs player. It probably won't work well with AI, but then present technology is incapable of creating the level of AI needed to do what you are thinking of. Present AI can make associations at best, but usually needs some form of distinct parameters to operate within. What you are looking for would require AI that was capable of jumping outside of its own parameters if it meant a better chance of attaining its objectives. Heck, a lot of people are incapable of doing that! ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Steve, I'm pretty much in agreement with you wrt maneuver & CM, and since it's all been said in the other thread I'll not take it any further. But I do have one question: is there presently a way for units to gain points by exiting off the map at specific locations? If not, will there be in CM2? I feel the type of maneuver Henri is talking about is outside the scope of CM's game level, but feel that having such victory exit zones would be an eloquent way of defining where tactical maneuver does meet with CM. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

I think it was Svechin, a Soviet military theorist in the 20's, who said something to the effect of tactics are the steps from which operational leaps are made; strategy points out the path. Tactics can be as low level as in Combat Mission, basically squad to platoon level. However, tactics also encompasses the actions of up to division level in combat. Operations is generally at the level of Corps to Army, and cover military actions that contribute to the attainment of strategic goals. Strategy is at the government level, and is the method by which a country can attain its political/cultural goals. The term operations came into being after WWI by the Soviets. Thanks to Clauswitz, warfare had become a huge endeavor, requiring the total committment of combatant nations if they desired to persevere. Up until this occurance warfare was generally a limited affair, usually being resolved after a pitched battle, or two. When combining this new concept of total war with the Industrial Revolution, the result was WWI, a war too huge to conduct with existing military methods, as generals were still looking for that single event, the pitched battle, to end the war. Unfortunately, it took many 'pitched battles' before the Great War came to an end. The Soviets realized that another level of military planning needed to be added between tactics and strategy, so that battles would now be measured steps towards ultimate strategic victory. Hence, Operational Art. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 02-01-2001).]

Interesting idea. My understanding of decoy units was that they were used to deceive air reconnaissance as part of operational razvedka. Their use in tactical combat might have been very rare, and maybe inconsequential, since wherever decoys were that's where the Soviets were not focusing any major operations. Thus, any German actions in areas with decoys would be a Soviet maskirovka victory. In other words, the Germans had been effectively duped. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero [This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 01-29-2001).]

Rommel22, Make sure you get the flag right next time. Lots of red. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

CM2: It's Winter, and all Der Fuhrer sent was this lousy T-shirt

Without getting too nervous about the meaning of the word 'pacifist', I'd have to say that I am one.

Origins of the Soviet Berlin Colonization Project

Not that it really matters when compared to the game itself, but please consider a different title from the 'Beyond' format. Maybe a Russian title even, paying homage to their victory? ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

My suggestion for Soviet tanks would be: From 1941 to early 1943 Have a tank platoon commander with an effective radius much like infantry platoons. Any tanks within that platoon that are outside effective command range have large delay factors for its orders. From late 1943, on Make all tanks independent as they are now for all tanks in CMBO. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Grunt from SPI, back in 1973 ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

The Pacific was a brutal theater, but it was equally matched in brutality in the Russian front, maybe even exceeded. Below is the Commissar Order, given out during Barbarossa: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Staff Command Secret Document Chief Only Only Through Officer High Command of the Wehrmacht WFST [Armed Forces Operational Staff] Div. L (VI/Qu) No. 44822/41 g.K Chiefs Guidelines for the Treatment of Political Commissars In the fight against Bolshevism it is not to be expected that the enemy will act in accordance with the principles of humanity or international law. In particular, the political commissars of all kinds, who are the real bearers of resistance, can be expected to mete out treatment to our prisoners that is full of hate, cruel and inhuman. The army must be aware of the following: 1. In this battle it would be mistaken to show mercy or respect for international law towards such elements. They constitute a danger to our own security and to the rapid pacification of the occupied territories. 2. The barbaric, Asiatic fighting methods are originated by the political commissars. Action must therefore be taken against them immediately, without further consideration, and with all severity. Therefore, when they are picked up in battle or resistance, they are, as a matter of principle, to be finished immediately with a weapon. In addition, the following regulations are to be observed: Operational Areas 1) Political commissars operating against our armies are to be dealt with in accordance with the decree on judicial provisions in the area of "Barbarossa." This applies to commissars of every type and rank, even if they are only suspected of resistance, sabotage or incitement to sabotage.... NOKW-484. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

It would be a stretch to add partisans to CM2. Most partisan units were used as either operational razvedka(reconnaissance/intelligence), or for sabotage. Rarely were they used for combat purposes. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>well a "collapsing building" should'nt knock out a gun or kill infantry..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? I'm at a loss. ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero

Hm, CM2 is in closed beta?!? Then what do you make of this statement by Steve of BTS just a week or so ago? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe... thanks guys Yes, work on CMBO is basically done. We will keep an eye out for any serious bugs (not just "gee, I think this should be tweaked"), which we will fix, but other than that we are starting on CM2 very shortly. We are first going to figure out what exactly we are going to put into the thing, THEN we will actually start the coding and artwork. And yes... we have a list of about 10,000 ideas to sift through, so we have plenty of stuff to discuss already Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ Best regards, Greg Leon Guerrero