Armdchair

For first person accounts to read dealing with combat in the ETO, I would recommend "Roll Me Over: An Infantryman's WWII" by Raymond Gantter," If You Survive" by George Wilson," The Men of Company K:the Autobiography of a Rifle Company" by Harold P. Leinbaugh and John D. Campbell; for the Pacific, I'd recommend "Goodbye, Darkness" by William Manchester, and "With the Old Breed:at Peleiu and Okinawa" by E.B. Sledge. Canadian naturalist Farley Mowat wrote a memoir of his experiences of heavy combat in Italy, "And No Birds Sang". I'd also recommend any of the following authors' books that draw a great deal on oral accounts: Stephen Ambrose's books on WWII: "Band of Brothers","D-Day", "Citizen Soldiers", and "Pegasus Bridge". Gerald Astor's books: "A Blood-dimmed Tide: The Battle of the Bulge by the Men Who Fought It", "The Bloody Forest: Battle for the Huertgen: September 1944 - January 1945", "The Greatest War: Americans In Combat 1941-45"; Joseph Balkoski's" Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Division in Normandy"; John D. Eisenhower's "The Bitter Woods: The Battle of the Bulge"; William Craig's "Enemy at the Gates:the Battle for Stalingrad"; Cornelius Ryan's "The Longest Day", "A Bridge Too Far"; for fiction, I'd recommend Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" and James Jones' "A Thin Red Line", both written by Pacific vets.

Tastes vary. Tank battles in the desert don't appeal to me at all but other players, I'm sure, are jumping up and down at the prospect. Scenario design varies and also the intent varies. Some scenarios are designed more with "fun" in mind ( for instance, WBW's Ramelle-SPR, which I thought was a blast); some are designed with exacting historical accuracy in mind (McAuliffe's Bulge scenarios, for instance); some are hypothethical( an American assault on Berlin); I happen to find the idea of street fighting and jungle fighting interesting because I hope to gain a better appreciation of the real-life skill and courage needed to face these actual battlefield hazards. But like I said, tastes vary. Hopefully, CM will grow to encompass most of our tastes. The great thing about being able to create our own scenarios is that we can all try to build our own vision of what we'd like to see in CM. It's a truly amazing game.

Thanks, Wild Bill, Disaster for the feedback. Trying to do a different era scenario using CM 1944-45 Western Europe features is definitely an uphill struggle. I just thought it would be interesting to try after seeing all the comments on Mord's "CM Vietnamers Unite" thread. While I'm not holding my breath waiting for a CM Vietnam game I must admit some disappointment that the Pacific theater of WWII is going to be overlooked. If a CM Pacific version was ever released, it would be fairly similar to the experience of certain aspects of Vietnam combat,i.e., GIs, Marines battling amid enemy bunker complexes and tunnel systems in heavy jungle. More or less the same tactics were used. What's intriguing to me is the idea of having to move in dense jungle not knowing when or where the enemy might strike, either via ambush or by opening up at close range from well-camouflaged bunkers, pinning US forces down. This is also what appeals to me in the coming CM2 Eastern Front, participating in the claustrophobic, close-quarters combat of city fighting. I am hoping that BTS will find a way to model tunnels, bunkers, trenches, sewers, etc. Anyway - thanks again for the interest. [This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 10-31-2000).]

If anyone's interested I will be posting a Vietnam scenario at the CMHQ depot tonight. Title: Nam Mission Type: Attack (Fictional) Date: 1967 Location: South Vietnam Weather: Heavy Fog Length: 35 turns This is a crude attempt to replicate small unit combat in Vietnam. Crude because so much is missing: no helicopters, no air support, no tunnel or bunker complexes, no confusion of combatant/ non-combatant; elements that more or less defined infantry combat in Vietnam. I have had to make many substitutions and adaptations: pine trees for palm trees; marsh for paddies; small houses for thatched huts. Communist forces are represented by Axis forces: the Volkssturm as the Viet Cong; Volksgrenadiers as main force NVA units. I've used paratroopers to represent US infantry. Although the 101st, 173rd, and 82nd Airborne did fight in Vietnam, the use of paratroopers in this scenario is not an effort to portray one of their actual firefights but simply to try to give US infantry maximum firepower (there are no M-16s, no M-60 MGs, no grenade launchers, no AK-47s, etc).

If anyone's interested I will be posting a Vietnam scenario at the CMHQ depot tonight. Title: Nam Mission Type: Attack (Fictional) Date: 1967 Location: South Vietnam Weather: Heavy Fog Length: 35 turns This is a crude attempt to replicate small unit combat in Vietnam. Crude because so much is missing: no helicopters, no air support, no tunnel or bunker complexes, no confusion of combatant/ non-combatant; elements that more or less defined infantry combat in Vietnam. I have had to make many substitutions and adaptations: pine trees for palm trees; marsh for paddies; small houses for thatched huts. Communist forces are represented by Axis forces: the Volkssturm as the Viet Cong; Volksgrenadiers as main force NVA units. I've used paratroopers to represent US infantry. Although the 101st, 173rd, and 82nd Airborne did fight in Vietnam, the use of paratroopers in this scenario is not an effort to portray one of their actual firefights but simply to try to give US infantry maximum firepower (there are no M-16s, no M-60 MGs, no grenade launchers, no AK-47s, etc).

No, I wasn't...*laugh* but I have taken a couple of film courses. Here's a character's response to a bad war movie in James Jones' novel "Whistle"( The character's a recuperating wounded GI ): " He went to a lousy war movie. In it some green young Navy kid, stranded in Bataan, kept letting the spoons fly off hand grenades and counting to three before he threw them, usually just across a coconut log where evil-looking Japanese were shooting point-blank at him. It was so outrageous that finally about halfway through he had to leave. As he walked up the aisle he looked at the faces of the people bathed in the flickering light from the screen as they chewed handfuls of popcorn and watched the fighting with avid eyes, and for a brief insane moment wished he had two or three hand grenades with him, to toss in among them. And see how they liked it."

It's not about being literally faithful in every detail but an adaptation should at least capture the book's meaning and author's intent. Malick segues way off into his own philosophizing, which is fine but has nothing to do with Jones' work. The movie does not feel nearly as gritty or cynical as the book.

The movie "Thin Red Line"(written by director Terence Malick) bears little resemblance to the book "Thin Red Line"(written by Pacific vet James Jones). The following passage is from the book:" What power was it that decided one man should be hit, be killed, instead of another man?...If this were a movie, this would be the end of the show & something would be decided. In a movie or novel they would dramatize or build to the climax of the attack. When the attack came in the film or novel, it would be satisfying. It would decide something. It would have a semblance of meaning & a semblance of an emotion. And immediately after, it would be over. The audience would go home & think about the semblance of meaning & feel the semblance of emotion. Even if the hero got killed, it would make sense. Art, Bell decided, creative art - was ****...here there was no semblance of meaning. And the emotions were so many & so mixed up, that they were indecipherable, could not be untangled. Nothing had been decided, nobody had learned anything. But most important of all, nothing had ended. Even if they had captured the whole ridge, nothing had ended. Because tomorrow, or the day after that, - they would be called upon to do the same thing again - maybe under worse circumstances...It would certainly end sometime, sure, and almost certainly, because of industrial production - end in victory, but that point in time had no connection w/ any individual man engaged now. Some men would survive, but no one individual man could survive. It was a discrepancy in the way of counting. The whole thing was too vast, too complicated, too technological for any one man to count in it. Only collections of men counted, communities of men, only numbers of men... The emotion this created in Bell was not one of sacrifice, resignation, acceptance, & peace. Instead, it was an irritating, chafing emotion of helpless frustration..." This is very different than Malick's musings:" How did evil creep into the world?..." The only sense of Jones' book comes through intermittently, during the firefight scenes, and through the character played by Sean Penn, Sgt. Welsh.

Well, I tried the " Hide" order and that didn't work out too well. It really doesn't operate the same as "Ambush". Using the "Hide" order you run the risk that Crepitis pointed out: of letting the enemy get dangerously close to your positions. I'm also not too sure of Wehrmacht doctrine but my impression was that they tended to use more independent MG teams & MG nests than Allied forces did because they were usually on the defensive, and to compensate for the lack of manpower with firepower. This would also have applied to understrength Allied forces on the defensive in say, the Bulge for instance.

I guess "close range" isn't what I mean so much as lethal range. In my various reading of combat accounts, from WWII & in Vietnam, bunker complexes were often discovered only after they opened up on US troops at a killing range, killing some outright and pinning the remainder under murderous fire. Defenders gained a dual advantage: 1) of being in prepared fortified defensive positions: and 2), being able to iniate combat,i.e., take offensive action via ambush.

Why can't machine guns and bunkers set ambushes? Seems to me it would be much more realistic if they could; they would then be able to pin enemy units at close range. After all, bazookas are given this capability. Just wondering.

From "Apocalypse Now": "Hey, you stepped on my face." "I thought you were dead." "Well, you thought wrong, goddamn it." And: "You're looking at the heads...sometimes he goes too far." [This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 09-27-2000).]

Wild Bill, what with all the servicemen and vets (and veteran grognards too) on here I couldn't see giving myself a real tough name, especially as I've never been in the service or anywhere near a real war. So - Armchair for armchair strategist or armchair general, but not wanting to sound too much like furniture, plus being armed with my brain (albeit a blunt instrument) Armdchair.

. [This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 09-25-2000).]

He posted it at the CMHQ scenario depot on 9/3/00 as" A Quick Visit-Bruneval". Check it out, it's fun.

Pak40, Manx, you both make valid points. That's what constructive criticism's all about. I accept your comments in the spirit it was intended and have come to realize that I got a lot of learning to do.To clarify, company commanders did not have choice of battle zones, i.e., assaulting Siegfried Line, Hurtgen Forest, Winter Line, etc. If people do not like playing scenarios dealing with bunker complexes, limited maneuverability, etc., they are free not to do so. It's right upfront in the posting: bunkers, mines, etc. In my own case, titling a scenario "Head-On" is about as blunt and plain-speaking as I can be. It was an oversight on my part to lock all units in but i was reacting (over-reacting?) to having to re-invent the wheel, i.e., having to re-invent platoon structure. In a scenario (that shall remain nameless) I spent considerable time shuffling squads around in the setup; it was not unlike if you were playing Madden football and had to put together the offense, defense, and special teams squads yourself. I had meant to free up setup in new version of "Head-On", and thought I had (my mistake). "Spring Surprise", my first scenario, seems to have been well-received so I felt no need to tinker with it after posting it (it went through extensive testing & re-edits initially). I leave the big battles, the name battles to those who know how: the original crew of designers of CM scenarios, as well as others like Frank Radoslovich, McAuliffe,Pak40, GonzoAttacker, etc "What can I tell you, kid? You're right.When you're right, you're right, and you're right." - Jack Nicholson as J.J. Gittes,"Chinatown" [This message has been edited by Armdchair (edited 09-15-2000).]

I also plead guilty to designing scenarios w/ units locked into place, little maneuverability, etc. It isn't because I'm trying to create a mindless "shoot-em-up" but because my extensive reading on the subject of WWII combat, infantry in particular, tends to suggest that:troops had little choice about the where, when, how, why of combat assignments; and that while the US Army in the ETO was designed for maneuverability, it actually spent majority of time fighting grind-it-out battles of attrition, i.e., frontal assaults against well-prepared German defenses(see Russell Weigley-"Eisenhower's Lieutenants" on the subject, among others). This tends to be overlooked in Hollywood movies. As Paul Fussell, author, professor, and ETO vet explained, it's all very well to talk of fire and movement, but in combat it's very easy to get killed while looking for enemy's flank. While the more glamorous aspects of WWII (D-Day, Arnhem, the Bulge, elite formations of armor, paratroopers, Rangers,etc) have been covered by movies and Stephen Ambrose's popular works, for instance, the general brutal, bloody nature of combat seems to have been overlooked. I lack both the historical expertise of top line designers such as Wild Bill and his Raiders, Moon, Michael Hunkele, etc to attempt the big-name battles and the knowledge of armor tactics to design other than I do. I lock units into place because I, myself, hate having to sort out a battalion's worth of troops dumped haphazardly on a map. As far as voting goes, I would never vote for my own, I want an honest response. I currently have one w/ an average score and i know that's all it deserves. I may be spent creatively for now, as far as scenario design goes, but I wanted to offer my notions of WWII combat, grind-it-out infantry tactics based on research for screenplay I'm currently working on. All constructive feedback on my scenarios (Spring Surprise, Head-On, and Silent Night) is welcomed. Can be reached at armdchair @ aol.com

Yeah, in particular what effect does it have on the ammo loads of spotters,etc? especially as regards to operations created before 1.05? Do we need to adjust these ourselves?

There is a book out I have not read (available at Barnes & Noble's, among others) entitled: "The Jewish Brigade: An Army with Two Masters, 1944-45" by Morris Beckman, Sarpedon Publishers,Inc.,1998. Hopes this helps.

most definitely interested, send a map my way as well.

I'd like to see greater FOW, in particular, damage done to armored vehicles. Unless tank goes up in flames, its status should remain unknown. Abandoned vehicles should be capable of being re-occupied. In numerous accounts i've read GIs speak of German tanks being re-occupied by crews and express regret at not having disabled tanks when they had the chance.Bunkers also should be capable of being re-occupied as well.

I haven't read "War of the Rats" so I can't make a comparison, but "Enemy at the Gates" is outstanding. Great mix of historical narrative and oral history. The story of the Soviet sniper Zaitsev and his German opponent Major Koenings's duel is in there, as well as other memorable accounts (see Soviet Capt. Ignacy Changar's account of a week-long battle for a corridor). I'm terrified Hollywood will screw this up- as they have with every war movie, including "Saving Private Ryan". War is not about the value of the individual but rather the reverse: twice in th 20th century, world wars wiped out some of the best people in their generation. To seize on exceptions (as Hollywood does) is to ignore the heroic sacrifice and horrifying cost of war: the Soviets lost 750,000 at Stalingrad alone.

I'm interested in playing it. Please send me a copy at armdchair @ aol.com

Scepter, groundpounder, thanks for the feedback. My buddy Mike Gonzalez aka GonzoAttacker will be pleased to see this. I had the privelege and dubious honor of playtesting "These Hills" for him, as well as a brutal new Vosges scenario he'll be coming out with soon. I warn you he's getting better and more vicious as a designer. That learning curve is working all in his favor.

I too was crushed like a bug in Singling Shootout, so imagine my surprise when I opened my newly bought copy of Closing with the Enemy: How the GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945 by Michael D. Doubler and read on page 1 how German General Fritz Bayerlein watched in admiration and awe as the US 4th Armored attacks and declared later:"an outstanding tank attack, such as I have rarely seen, over ideal tank terrain." Just another reminder of how good the real guys were and how high the bar they set.