TheBlackHand

Whew, ask and ye shall receive! Posts noted, cut and pasted. Hopefully I'll do better next time around. Incidentally, I was able to neutralize the Hetzer in Bastongette Day 2 by flanking him with a HT and a squad of engineers. This caused him to retreat, at which time my Sherman got a good hit on his gun. I didn't realize I had damaged his gun until . . . I saw that he wasn't firing it anymore. The HT attack didn't kill the Hetzer, but it did distract him long enough for the other half of the "combined arms" to get a shot. I was hoping that he would turn to face the track, but he wisely kept his front to my Sherman. Nevertheless, the flanking move still worked in my favor. Till then, the Sherm's shells were, indeed, "skipping" off of the Hetzer. Now, about those two Panthers and Jagdpanthers that are making their way across the battlefield . . . well, I give up!

This was one of those "random reinforcement" battles. We both agreed that it should've had about five more turns. Also, I received a large reinforcement early on, whereas he received three tanks and a platoon of infantry rather late. This put him at a disadvantage . . . and perhaps, caused me to be a bit lax. The last five turns were a big rush on my part, because of the timer. I took some needless losses because of that. The old "flag rush" which is totally ridiculous, in "realistic" terms.

Hmm, good info. Most of my vehicle losses were HT's, but I did lose a few tanks. Two to the Hetzer and a few more because I stupidly moved into the path of his bunker'ed 75mm guns. I think I lost most of my infantry because I didn't use enough smoke . . . and, when I did use my artillery I FORGOT TO LIFT IT. Therefore, I attacked under my own 155's while taking fire from one, dug-in squad, which effectively wiped out a platoon! Stupid, stupid, stupid! I was also the victim of blue-on-blue from one of my fighter-bombers. Killed a HT and routed a squad or two. As usual, haste makes waste. I do think I tried a bit too hard to take the hills. Rushing units forward that really didn't need to be there. That did result in the loss of a few vehicles and men. Vehicles and men that I could've kept in reserve. I also could've made a better assault from the flanks, rather than going hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle . . . but I figured a flanking attack on this small map would be sorta gamey. I try to avoid using the edges, for the most part. This battle also left me wondering why flamethrowers are included in assaults (or, how to use them that way). I had plenty, but NONE ever got close enough to make a difference. They're just too slow and draw too much fire. The only time I've had luck with flamers is on defense/ambush. About the Hetzer, I must've misread the armor thickness. I thought it read 60mm up front, which seemed paltry, and led me to wonder how they were so unshakeable.

I just finished a 25-turn battle in which I pretty much ran my opponent off the field . . . and yet, this was scored as a draw. I am thoroughly confused as to how this could be the case. Here's the final tally: I did lose a large number of vehicles and an equal number of KIA . . . however, I was the attacker and it was a tough fight. Tough or not, the ending has left me in complete control of the battlefield. I was able to take both flags and even moved a platoon of engineers to completely envelop one of the hills, taking out a bunker in the process. I had a large number of vehicles (including tanks) remaining and many, many troops. He had about a platoon of infantry left . . . and they were holed up in a trench. One more turn and I'm certain they too, would have surrendered. Here's a picture of the battlefield: For the life of me, I cannot see how this is a draw. I was expecting a Total Victory, since I am in complete control of the battlefield. If this were a ladder game, I'd be pissed! Also, I've played two battles now in which the German Hetzer has taken frontal hit after hit from 75 & 76mm Shermans from ranges as short as 200 yards . . . and survived . . . and killed my Sherman. In one instance the Hetzer was hull-down, for the most part. So, I'll give that one the benefit of the doubt. However it was extremely frustrating to see him back away . . . take one more shot from my Sherman (not hull down) and hide behind a building (to continue killing my advancing HT's). The other instance was a straight on shoot-out. My Sherman was hull-down, his Hetzer was skylined . . . and it still came out on top. Luck of the draw (no pun intended) or is there something else going on?

Looking forward to lending a hand. The thing I'm hoping to experience with tournament/campaign play is . . . battling with the big picture in mind. One question (well, two actually), how does the game reporting go. Specifically, how do you use the Excel spreadsheet thing? I have the ability (ie. proper software), but not the knowledge. Also, do you report each turn to a superior before moving on to the next, or do you just report significant developments in the battle? I'm a bit confused by how, and to what extent, higher command gets involved in the individual battle.

I've signed on to the Lauban forums. Looks like a good show! I've given the rules a once-over and it certainly appears that you guys have done your homework. Very detailed. Looks like just the sort of thing I'd be interested in. Immersive is right! I'd prefer to start at the bottom as a tactical player for either side. As I learn the ropes I may look forward to advancing as a ME commander & on up. However, I don't know if I'd have the time for that sort of commitment at the moment. I can get in two or three turns per day. I am VERY dedicated. If you send me a turn I WILL get it back to you as soon as humanly possible.

Welp, in the last few weeks I've written at least a half-dozen emails, not including these posts, requesting to participate in a tournament or two. Not one response. Nice. Is it me? Do I smell? I mean, I'm a "dedicated" player and all. Been playing CM since day one with years of Close Combat prior to that. Real life USMC experience as well. I build military models, with some in museums. I have an extensive library including all of the best from Fedorowicz, H&C, etc. etc. I even have Dorosh's book . . . but . . . not good enough for a tournament. O'well. I tried.

That tournament sounds great! I'd like to sign up. Sending you an email.

I would be interested in the tournament thing. How does it work? I'm a member at the Blitz. I'm actually a better player than my record shows. The timer has robbed me of a few wins . . . as it probably has with most of us (on that note, my most recent opponent and I have decided to get rid of the timer in our next battle by setting it to sixty turns/sixty minutes) I'm not really into the ladder thing, but the tournament idea sounds interesting. I'd really like to play a part in a larger campaign. I recall something like that done before. Would this be similar to a tournament? K, I just signed up for an ongoing tournament. Blitz Byte Brawl (or something like that). I see zaraza is a part of this tourney. Cool, he and I have been playing QB's for the last six months or so. We've been allowing the PC to pick the units. This was his suggestion & now I think I know where he got the idea. It's a great idea. I really like it. Theoretically, the PC picking units keeps things fair. However, this method contains an easy cheat. All a cheater would have to do is reload the game until he gets a favorable setup . . . then send it to the opponent as if it's a "random setup". Therefore, I think a third party should set up the battle for both opponents. Possible? Are the tourney's set up this way?

Gosh, thanks man, I had almost forgotten all about those Kuwaiti oil fires that I slogged through a few years back. Anyway, some of this conversation reminds me of . . .

Don't forget the "Hide" command. I always try to put my defenders on Hide, along with cover arcs. Sometimes I forget one or two units & they'll open up from a distance, giving my postion away. I hate it when that happens!

Between Mon-Thursday I can get in two or three turns between 10am - 1pm in the morning and as many turns as can be cranked out between 10pm-2am. Unfortunatley, most people (with normal jobs) are fast asleep or working hard during those hours. I work out of town between Fri-Sun, so I can't do any turns then. I wish I could find someone with a similar schedule. Also, size of the battle does make a difference. If it's a big one with dozens of units to micro-manage, well, that could be a two turn a day deal. Lately, I prefer smaller 1000pt/30 turn battles.

Any time I see a WW2 game box with a dozen Tigers and Shermans duking it out over a couple of city blocks while hordes of infantry scurry all over the place and a couple of Jabo's swoop in from above, I automatically tune out. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to COH, as I do with any new WW2 "strategy" game. The hype sounded great. "So realistic!", so it usually goes. Then I read a recent PC game mag review. In this review, the reviewer praised the game. It was sounding real good until the last paragraph where his squad of Airborne troops was taken out, smart-weapon style, by . . . a f*cking V1!!! That was when I knew this would be just like alllll the others. No, I havent played it. No, I don't think I will. Looks nice though. Too bad it sounds like just another bubble headed bleach blonde with big boobs.

I always buy a couple of jeeps and maybe a HT or two to move my support elements up. Those vehicles are worth the price. Using them you can quickly set up a good base of fire for your assault. Just be sure to keep the vehicles safe! Otherwise, you're back to zero.

You might also try The Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club. I've found all of my opponents there. Everyone's been great fun to fight with. I've played everyone from beginners to experts. Playing the better players has been an excellent learning experience & they've all been happy to offer tips on how to reverse the outcome (though, not during the battle . . . nothing like learning the hard way.) Plenty of people there will offer you a sort-of tutorial game. They'll walk you through an ass kicking just to show you everything you're doing wrong & how to do it right. (Basic tank/infantry tactics. Though not everything works as it should in practice, which is what makes this a good game, despite it's small faults. Such is life.) I'm not much into the ladder thing, far as winning or losing goes, but it is fun to keep track of your stats. I started off playing 2000pt, QB Meeting Engagements. This has it's drawbacks though. It's too much of a "race for the flag". Whoever gets there first usually wins. So, I've been playing two battles at once with the same opponent. One attack battle & one defend. Both on similar maps. This way you get to work both sides of the aisle. It takes longer, but seems much more fair & balanced. A more fulfilling experience.

Yeah, the drawings definately don't match up to the original. Speaking of porn, I'm diggin the nudie frauleins in the original document. Maybe if they'd have included that sort of thing in my Marine Corps field manuals I'd have paid more attention. (For any former Jarhead's, what was the big green book called? The one with all the regs in it. We called it something. Now I can't remember. I can't believe I've forgotten, since it was such a huge fact of life back then. Now it's going to drive me crazy till I recall.)

I scanned those images from a Japanese/English book that I have. "Tiger an der Front Bildband und Tiger Fibel im Bild" by Tomioka Yoshikatsu & Kobayashi Motofumi. The text indicates that they're from the German training manual for Tiger tanks. "Tigerfibel". Here's a link to the original Tigerfibel.

Man, that's some thread! Thanks for that. I just read the first page. I'll wade through the rest this afternoon. In the meantime, is there any specific info on shooting while moving? Specifically, in regard to the German tanks? According to ALL EXPERTS, in regard to the Tiger, "Fine rotation of the turret, and elevation of the gun, was by hand; the tank could not aim while moving." Looking through my own library I found this from "Weapons of Patton's Armies", a report on US Army Observations of the Panther tank: "Because of no periscope sight for the gunner and lack of the gyrostabilizer on the Mark V, firing with any accuracy during movement would be impossible." I havent found any similar info on the PzIV, but I assume it's the same. Some more images from Tigerfibel:

Check that, the search function did turn up some answers on the Gun Damage question.

Fire only after stopping? Doesn't seem to happen in CM. Maybe this is an old topic but I couldn't find anything in the search on it. I've victimized and been a victim of the amazingly accurate German shot-on-the-move. I've always been under the impression that, historically, German tanks didn't have gyroscopic sights and therefore, couldn't hit the broadside of a barn while the tank was moving. I always thought that German tanks had to stop to shoot. Even with a vintage gyroscopic sight I'm thinking that shots while moving would be much less accurate than shots while stopped. Am I wrong? I just got zapped from about 250-300yds. by a PZIV that was moving full tilt. To make it even more incredible, my Valentine tank was placed between buildings & the Panzer only had a few seconds to make the shot. One in a million? (Playing PBEM "Caged Beasts" from the Scenario Depot.) Also, I've always wondered why "Gun Damaged" means "All Guns Damaged". I can understand how a tanks main gun could be put out of action, but why does that always mean that the MG's go with it? I'd still like to use my tank as an armored MG platform. Why can't I do this? Am I missing something?

I never knew that & I'll definately give it a try. I've got a defensive PBEM starting tomorrow. This must be the "something new" I've learned today. Thanks!

Hmmm, thanks for that info. I won't start a whole new thread on the topic, but for me, it isn't gamey. I mean, if you were planning a defense in real life you'd build alternate/fallback fighting positions, provided you had the time. In a "Defense" scenario in CM, why shouldn't you be able to do the same?

How about using split squads to prepare dug-in fallback positions, then regrouping in the front line position? That thought just occured to me. Possible? I've had pretty good luck using split squads in defense, so long as their Lt. stays alive and in contact.

I've been a loyal follower of the CM series since I first heard of it way back when. I bought all three games within weeks of thier going on sale. I probably won't be buying CmX2 until it becomes CMx2WW2. The modern thing is just too . . . eh, what's the word I'm looking for . . . sterile? I remember trying to enjoy Steel Panthers when they went modern, but the hi-tech weaponry just literally killed it for me. But, as has been stated, I hope it does well so that when they return to thier roots this grumpy old gamer will see a dream come true. How about a Korean War add on, if not a whole game? Heck, you could do the historical war with the old gear, then you could do a modern, theoretical version with all the whiz-bang stuff.

If you want photos get this one: Operation "Citadel" Vol.1 The South by Jean Restayn. The book is the best.