The Commissar

StugIII, Strange, because I am in a situation much like yours on a regular basis. Usually it doesnt take me much more then a look at the map and a slight glance at my units to remember where I thought the best route for advance is. Thankfully, even if your units all look the same, the random maps CM provides for us gamers usually look very different from each other. Try to connect unit movements with landmarks to remember better. Also, if you constantly use similar unit-specific tactics (ie: "sneak the SMG troops around and engage the enemy only close up", or "Use the Wespe to get into position overlooking the town so it can start blowing up buildings") looking over the map should instantly remind you which of your units should do what. Especially if, as you say, you pick similar looking outfits with every game. There's easy ways to get around simply problems like this one without the extra coding. Look at the bright side - remembering unit orders will help you stremghten your memory!

I suppose its possible, but...why? I usually find that I can remember all my "points of interest" in between turns. No one can limit how long you look at a map before you plan everything out (unless you're in a TCP/IP game of course). The only way I can see this being useful is if team multiplayer could be introduced as an actual feature. Being able to highligh things for your team mates would be nice.

Bits from the CG Online preview!! 1) "...Many Soviet units were filled with untrained farmers. "Right out of the field, they could probably lift a tractor up and see what's underneath it..." This sentence clearly states that CM2 will feature units which I can only describe as "uber-Russians". One can only imagine the earth-shattering battles that will occur when these clash with their northern cousins, the "uber-Finns". 2) "Vehicle morale is an option in the sequel, though, for players who want the added challenge—and potential frustration—of letting their digital soldiers have more of a mind of their own." We already knew that there would be vehicle morale, but I didn't know it was to be optional! The more custimization to one's own tastes, the better! 3) "...and many artillery spotters will have to rely on field telephones, so if they move they won't be able to call in artillery any more." Now that's something I haven't heard of before, but damn do I like it!!! 4) "Their next project is still up in the air, though a complete rewrite of the game engine is on tap for 2002-03." [girlish sing-songt mode] Tee-hee! We've got a date for CMII, we've got a date for CMII...[/girlish sing-song mode] 5) "One possibility is that Battlefront will release the Mediterranean game as Combat Mission 3, using the Combat Mission 2 engine, and then do the complete rewrite as a combination West Front and East Front game. Another is to do the Mediterranean title with the new engine." Sweeet!

I am not certain about this, but Im pretty sure they should adress this and many other arty-related issues in CM:BtB If someone can correct me on this (and I hope they wont, cause this troubles me as well), well, then we're in trouble.

I agree with you, simply for the sake of immersion and realism. I think many people wouldnt like adding anything which doesnt serve a practical gameplay purpose (like poles, streetlights, lots of other real world stuff you see everywhere) but I think it should go in. It makes the game much more believeable that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: Lend Lease of course. Besides, didn't you know there was an entire infantry division in the Red Army made up entirely of British and American bomber crews who crashed over Eastern Europe and took up grenade and rifle to smash fascism? The Soviets wouldn't give the troops back but they did permit the US send them enough equipment to function as a real infantry division. Rumor has it that this unit, the Uncle Sam's Guards Division, was about to break through and take Berlin, but Chuikov ordered them to secure the rear areas. [ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good one, Terence

As per your suggestion for taking tips from the History chanel, most people here are going to tell you that is about the last place you would want to get detailed info from. Around here, the HC is considered "history-lite". I believe that the tank you mentioned which could take off its tracks and ride on wheels could be the Soviet BT. I don't rightly know what model it is exactly, but I saw and read about these tanks in a WW2 encyclopedia a while ago. Dont have it with me at the moment so I cant confirm this.

Strange how I didn't see this thread! I throw my votes in with the many Soviet generals who usually get "overshadowed" by the votes of the Western majority on wargaming forums. I side with Grisha, von shrad, and Richard in proclaiming Zhukov as one who is amongst the best. Grisha, can you suggest some good reading on the other generals you mentioned which got less attention then Zhukov, Konev, etc? I'd like more information on them since the most Ive ever heard of them is brief mentions here and there.

Keep us posted easy-v, that sounds pretty darn cool! I'd love to see some reenactment pics because quite frankly I dont have the time or means of getting far out of state cheaply to see them.

I would have added something witty and laugh provoking, but I was just wondering where you would wear such a T-shirt. I can just hear the "What the @*$% is CM?!" "Who or WHAT the @*$% is Peng?" and "Get a @*$%ing life you crazy bastard!" as you stroll through the streets. However, I live in NYC, so people react that way to just about everything. The gawkers in your town might be nicer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manx: 4.) - Heer Face Portrait, by Paul W. Roberts <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to be disrespectful to Mr Roberts...but what the heck kind of mod is that? He didn't like the 2 extra wrinkles on the guy's face which he removed? Normally I wouldnt mind, seeing as how if I dont want it I dont have to get it, but I think your valuable webspace can be used for more useful additions, no?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: Back to Zhukov... it's not one of my favorites, (maybe I lack some knowledge on is tactics), but I specially like that propaganda photo where he is "flying" in a withe horse... what was the name of the photograph ? Michael Dorosh... Thanks, yes it's a very good candidate for the list <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I don't know the title of this photo, I do know that the Russians are famous for "glorifying" their generals with their propoganda. For example, some 130 years ago during Napoleon's invasion of Russia, Ive seen a few illustration of Kutuzob, the head of the Russian army, in a pose similar to the one you describe. Interestingly, in the illustration Kutuzov had 2 eyes, while in real life one of his eyes was destroyed and his face scarred. Since the illustration shows Kutuzov as an already elderly man, I think this really was a bit of propoganda to make a general look more "presentable". Id like to find this picture though, so if anyone has any tabs on where to find it, Im listening myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Commissar -Sorry you are a former communist and proud of it - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before everyone else along with the kitchen sink jump on me about that statement, let me clarify that I am proud of once being a member of the Soviet Union, which Westerners refered to as communists even though it was really more of a dictatorship. I do not believe in communism, which is impossible to achieve for reasons I care not discuss, but I am not ashamed to mention that I was indeed someone the West would have refered to as communist - something other people make haste to clarify that they are not. If that made any sence...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kburns24: Yes, Zhukov may have won many battles, but at what cost? Yes, battles were won and Germany was defeat. Great. He is my pick because of the utter waste he displayed at throwing men and material at the German war effort on the East Front. A great military mind puts into consideration all aspects of a battle. One being, victory at what cost? Zhukov knew that he had millions of men to pull from and he was reckless in his tactics when employing them. I suppose you'll be defending trench warfare and its effectiveness in WWI also? Another great waste.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What utter f@cking idiocy! :mad: I suppose it would have been better if the Soviets decided to not pay the cost that they did and fold. Yes, that would have been a jolly lot nicer. Hell, let's just send all our Jews and Slavs and just about everyone else to get killed in concentration camps. Its a lot better then fighting for your life and having a fightin' chance, after all. Let's just lie down and take it in the nads, like the rest of Europe! Now tell me, Mr. burns, if you were a general and had your country with its military undergo such reforms and purges that your army required major refurnishing, your doctrine was dated, and just to stop the German advance somewhat you had to send it poorly equipt troops which were basically conscript farmers. Why, I suppose a military genius would take all this into consideration and say "To hell with this, Im surrendering!" Evil evil stupid Zhukov! How DARE he keep on fighting without taking into consideration the cost in lives?! Sure, those lives would have been lost anyway thanks to the Nazi stance on "none-Aryans", but common, what kind of an idiot was this Zhukov guy? Oh, and Roberto, I appreciate you taking the stance up on this, but some of your info is also wrong. "Zhukov used his assets: lots of warm bodies, lots of good, easy to produce tanks, lots of lend lease materiale, and a culture that had a cheap opinion of human life. The Russians bled the Germans white. There was no other way for the Russians to win. If Zhukov had to send 10 Russian to kill one German and had to lose 5 of those Russians to kill the German, his country was willing to pay the price." The Russians never had an advantage of 10 to 1, overall. The population of Russia when compared with Germany's was only 2 to 1. Now, it is true that Germans sent some troops to other fronts. However, the major superiority was achieved through Russian operation skill, where they would break through German lines en masse after a successful concentration of forces at an enemy weakpoint. Its rather foolish to think that during the whole war Soviets wasted 5 to 1 men when compared with the Nazis. "In fact, the Western allies did basically did the same thing as the Russians except with finesse: overwhelm the Germans. The Western allies simply saved the high butcher bill by having and using effectively a whole lot of artillery and a whole lot of infantry killing Sherman tanks." Ah-huh. Finnesse, is it? I guess the Soviets didnt have this finesse because unlike the other major Allies (Brits and the US), they didnt have an ocean seperating them from Germany. That way, they couldnt hide behind it, in Britain's case warding off an ocasional Air attack, build up their industry and train their soldiers. In the Soviet case, Nazi's were Blitzing through Russia and they had to use whatever they had to stop them. There was no time for "finesse" as you say, because "finesse" takes a jolly lot of time to develop. The other Allies lost so little because they didnt have their civilians brutaly murdered and their country pillaged while still having to try and stop the Germans from reaching your industry before you could have some hope of doing something with it. Do you even realise that the Soviets used a helluva lot more Arty and tanks then the other Allies? Do you really think it was "finesse" that saved the other Allies and not the fact that the majority of the German army was strugling against the Soviets? Right, Ive said all that was needed at the moment. Sorry about the cursing and the sometime harsh use of language on my part. I just despise foolish misconceptions. Oh, and by the way, I AM Russian and I WAS a former communist, and damn proud of it, too. So there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kburns24: Zhukov has to be up there as one of the worst commanders. After the Stalin purges, this idiot is given the reins? Stalin wouldn't have had nearly the amount of losses had he not killed his best military minds early in the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just couldnt let this one go past. ZHUKOV?! You mean the same guy who was the first general to ever use massive tank and infantry formations to "Blitz" through the enemy lines before the Germans got the gist of it, against Japanese held Manchuria? The guy who was largely responcible for many a successful Soviet operation, which was the major contribution to the destruction of the German army? The same guy who (although of course not singlehandedly) transformed the badly lead, equiped, and mis organized Soviet Army of the mid to late 30's into perhaps the most powerful force at the war's end? Yes, I realise he had his share of failures. Operation Mars probably taking the cake for his worst blunder. However, when you fight a war this long and against such a foe with such eqipment as was available, it is a miracle he did as well as he had. If you wish to pick on Soviet generals, there are plenty incompetant ones to be found (although most are at a lower level then the Generals, I believe). Zhukov, in my not so humble opinion, does not deserve to be among them. If anything, he should go up as a "military great". Its unfortunate how the Cold War resulted in undermining the actual performance of the men who won the war in the East, in eyes of the historians.

Im not very familiar with American arty doctrine, but if it was indeed done this way, then by all means it should be implemented. However, since CMBO won't be updated anymore, Im afraid we will have to wait till another version of the Western front shows up. I dont think the Soviets had that much radios and were not very flexible with their arty. Pls correct me if Im wrong, of course.

*Bump* Cause I want to see this happen

Done! Because Im a big CM lovin' bastage, I sent it in 3 times from 3 different e-mails! Take that, you faery-loving pansies!

I could also contribute to this. Two of my great grandfathers fought in the war, one of whom died.

Yes, I like this grass quite a bit! Although it does have that "mowed football field" look, Im willing to forego a little realism in return for easily seeing depressions and hills on the ground from a higher view. Please do publish it, Tom!

I believe there should be an FAQ answering questions that appear like this over and over and over again. Oh, wait, there already is. Then maybe we should have a permanent link to the unofficial FAQ in big red letters on the forums somewhere, visible at all times. To your question, the answer is that NO, there will be no campaign. Id fill you in on the numerous details of why not, but then Id just waste more time then I already have. To put it plainly, no campaign.

I bet about 99% of the people here wish they had a spouse/gf like yours, man! You my friend are truly lucky. Of course, I imagine with both of you hooked on the game, there wont be much time left for...other activities.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-34\85: Was this Soviet practice? Cool. Would it still be practice I wonder ... right now I'm picturing an M1A2 Abrams being melted down after its smoking wreckage was picked off a battlefield in Russia; after its platoon was annihilated by a company of T-90s <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, don't take anything I say without a grain of salt, pal. Im simply thinking logically here. If I was the Soviets during WW2, I would have the Panthers melted down (after testing them out, of course). However, historical events are not always logical. Maybe the Soviets didn't melt them down. Maybe they put them on their front lawns as decorations If you want to know what really happened, ask John. He probably knows the actual historical way of things Oh, and just as a side note about something I do know, even if KO'ed, an M1 would probably not burn. They have an automatic self extinguisher installed and the shell-holding compartments are built to prevent detonation. [ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Commissar, disagree away, I disagree with most of yours as well . When I refered to Plt's etc I'm refering to that; tanks don't fight alone, not that a Panther Plt or a T-34 Plt acted alone or faced each other singularly. They fought on an frontage as an Abt or Brigada broken down into Company's then into Plts, then pairs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes indeed. You will surely agree, however, that no matter how high up the organization tables we go, we see more T-34's then Panthers. This was thanks to the ease with which a single T-34 could be manufactured when compared with a Panther. Other factors, like better Soviet industry factor in, of course. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: As to Soviet AFV losses the loss data concern's Soviet AFVs; lost, as in knocked out at least once, with crew fatalaties, as well as lost; as in totaly destroyed & or captured. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In terms a none-grog like myself could understand, I see this as one would see in CM. If a KO'ed tank burns, it is "destroyed". If it just sits there with a hole in it and a wounded/dead crew member, it simply KO'ed. Ive noticed, and I am sure this has historical basis, that some vehicles are rarely completely destroyed by a shot. Most of the time, they just sit there damaged and abandoned. Perhaps I am misinformed, however, and the T-34 is a super-Ronson when hit. Maybe they go up in fiery fireballs and are incenirated. I dont know. You'll have to tell me, because I dont see a loss of a crew member and a hole in the turret/hole as something that can't be patched up and repaired relatively quickly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: As to vehicle recovery don't even get me started on that especialy concerning Soviet practices or lack of. As to kill ratios etc, pls Commissar, the data was given as an example & to pose a question, it is not anecdotal it is official claims, now if you would like to disprove the claims, I'll be the 1st to listen to your reasoning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh but I am afraid I will have to get you started up, pal. It just doesnt seem reasonable to me that a perfectly good tank, with a slightly damaged interior would be abandoned and thrown away, so to speak. So go ahead, enlighten me. Official claims, is it? Kind of like those claims in CM where every US gunner ID's a PZIV as a Tiger? Im sure that this occured on the Eastern Front as well. Oh, and I dont think I'll be completely reliant on German sources. People who get the floor wiped with themselves usually tend to be rather less then nice to the people who did the wipeing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: One thing to remember is the ppl writeing them wrote them from their POV which reflect the times, nor I'II bet they wern't expecting a bunch of geeks to be reading them 60 odd years later either . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, but I bet they were expecting their higher ups to read them. I also bet that the more they wrote about their heroic explots, the more shiny metals they got. In wars, especially in a situation where you are slowly losing, extraordinary reports usually are well rewarded, something the German soldiers probably knew. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I get the feeling ppl are starting to think their just gonna jump into the Soviet side & stomp the Germans, which I'd hate to see their faces when they see the command penalties, or the 2 man turret delays, or the out of contact penalties etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking for myself, I know I'll stomp the Germans. However, this might be simply due to me 133t $ki11z <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: And as to invincible tanks you will have tanks that are pretty much immune frontaly to the others wpns Ie, the T-34 & KV1 will run amok till the appearence of the PAK 50, & 7.5 cm L/43 tank gun. While the Panther & Tiger will run amok in their respective periods etc. [ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, sorry, dont think any big cats are going to be "running amock" at any time in the Eastern front. Handy things like the IS-1, 2, T-34-85, SU's and others will take care of that, much like they did in real life. It all depends on how the player uses them, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: You have lost me here as tank engagements were not single German tanks vs Soviet Plts they were Panther Plts vs T-34 Plts Ie, medium tank vs medium tank & more often then not the Panther Plts decimated the T-34 Plts. Russia paid an horrible cost in tank losses over 98,000 AFVs lost from June 1941 - April 1945. Now these wern't all tank vs tank losses Ie, Stug's accounted for over 20,000 Soviet AFVs the Tiger Abt's alone accounted for another 10,000 etc this doesnt even include the Pz Div tallies or the German AT arm totals. So if every Panther was killing 3 - 5 T-34's before being lost, what is the price then? is the Panther then worth the cost to produce? would the design then be worth the effort?. Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, I would have to disagree. For every Panther platoon, there was a company if not more of T-34's. I highly doubt that the Soviets would continue pitting T-34 platoons against Panther platoons after the initial realization that one on one, the Panther was usually superior. No, I think that the 3-5 T-34's destroyed before going down for the Panthers is a good deal too high, although researching this would be very interesting. I doubt that the majority of Russian AFV losses were even from serious combat. You drive a machine which was quickly made through mud, bad roads, and other hazardous conditions, and you have it breaking down quite a bit. Not to mention combat against Panthers. Also, we must consider what AFV losses means for the Soviets and what it means for the Germans. Let me elabortae: In a Soviet offensive, a company of T-34's is issued in support of a certaint amount of infantry. They encounter a platoon of Panthers. Battle ensues, and the Soviets lose 2 of their platoons but manage to totally destroy the single Panther platoon. OK, now, the battle is over and the Soviets advance. The knocked out Panthers, no matter how badly off they are, are captured and melted down for use in Soviet industry. They are quite truly lost. However, the knocked out Soviet tanks is a different matter. Sgt Sugachenko had a track hit and his machine was listed as "lost". Sgt Bolkonsky had a turret penetration which injured the tank commander slightly, along with the gun, and the tank was listed as knocked out. Sgt Boguchov's machine lost a track while circling around the Panther platoon's flank and was listed as KO'ed. Out of all the Soviet losses, only 1 or 2 machines were really seriously damaged. Now, all the Soviets need to do is repair that track, or gun, or whatever else, and the machine is as good as new. The Germans cannot do this. Even when they can somehow recapture their KO'ed machines, they have a MUCH harded time repairing them. So, for the Germans, the majority AFV losses are truly losses. For the Soviets, the majority of AFV losses are merely repairs needed to be done and crew members replaced. Oh, and btw, the losses I mentioned for this hypothentical engagement arent even accurate. The Soviets would have probably lost only 1 or 1 and 1/2 tank platoons, not 2. So now, we can make our little estimates and historical guesses again. How good was the Panther when it was not able to be repaired most of the time when KO'ed, as compared to the Soviet machines which were? Oh, and a bit off topic, but can someone provide some numbers to overall German AFV losses on the Eastern Front? Just interested.