ScoutPL

Thanks for the input. Not to sound contrite or like a real smarta##, but I'm not trying for an exact match to the units and circumstances that occurred 10 klicks east of Metz on October 23, 1944 at precisely 1400 hours. If I did that I'd spend way too much time buried in books trying to determine how many tanks were actually operating, what the average squad strength was, how everybody was feeling that day, etc, etc. I'm just trying to get a game going in which players can exercise a little operational talent, while maintaining as must realism in the TO&E as possible for a regimental task force. I've always said in the past that I disliked QB's because they attempted to make forces equal and no commander in his right mind is going to attack when his forces are equal to his opponent. But I didnt think that many would be interested in playing the campaign unless the decks were evenly stacked. That said let me take it by the numbers. 1. & 2. - Clear oversights on my part. I'll have to add more HT when I add the schrecks too. 3. This issue (as most of the rest are) is resource dependant. I'm limited to a couple books and wargames for resource material on TO&E's. I got most of my info from the Osprey Order of Battle series for the Ardennes campaign and from Talonsofts Campaign Series Order of Battle program. According to those resources the germans had a number of mortars in each PZGR company and the US had up to three AT guns in each Armored Rifle Company. There probably exists other resources that have entirely different OOB's listed. But alot can be said for the fact that the 21 PZR and 4th AD had been in combat for months so any official OOB you get out of a FM or other primary source was probably thrown out the window about a week after the units entered the theater. The US mortar imbalance is offset by their abundance of 60mm mortars. Not my fault the US adopted their popular light infantry mortar for their mechanized forces as well. The US preponderance of light AT guns is by TO&E as far as I can tell and helps offset the German armor advantage you accurately point out later. 4. I'll have to go back and amend the Rulebook, but I thought I had included it. Use of the mortars depends on the player. Company level mortars will always be on the map, but battalion level mortars can be either on map or represented by MTR spotters. 5. Scout dismounts will be represented by sharpshooters. 6. Another resource issue on the AC. I used the Tank platoon TO&E for the TD platoons and will take your word for it that they're four instead of five. Which makes sense since the US looked at the TD platoons as mobile AT guns (with four guns per AT platoon) doctrinally but used them as tank platoons in the field. 7. I'll have to follow your suggestion on the M16's I didnt realize CM didnt have them in the game. Plenty of german motorized AA though, whats that all about? The 40's? Another resource issue. 8. The thing with the GS/DS doesnt really seem to make sense until you look at the campaign. A player will probably only have one battalion sized task force to maneuver with. The rest of the regiment will be divided into 5 or 6 company teams doing security, movement to contact, and reserve missions. So with every battery in DS to a particular battalion or team some TF's will be without any Arty support at all. It'll be up to the player to come up with a good balance of GS and DS missions for his artillery to make sure everyone is covered. I'll go back and make sure the arty rules reflect this. 9. & 10. I took some liberty with 10 in order to cover some of the disparity of 9. From what I can tell the Germans didnt mix tanks at the battalion level, proabbaly due to logistical reasons. Something the Americans could do rather easily since all of their variants were based on the same weapon system. 11. Fight will take place mid October, 1944, west of Metz, III Corps, Third Army. 21st PZR wasnt in that area at the time but I wanted a formation similiar to 4th AD. Campaign will simulate the battles leading up to the november stall at the Siegfired line, just prior to the Ardennes campaign. Once again this is just a historical backdrop. I am not looking for historical accuracy in the actual battles around Metz. Just in the TO&E (this in an attempt to quail complaints or issues with gamey unit purchases). 12. & 13. Both are the prima donna mech regiments for their respective armies. And its mostly for balance. "Of course the intention may have been to show a clash of such armored forces, however rare that was." The intent is to add some operational flavor to the CM environment. Not show one particualr aspect of WWII combat. I suppose I could have went with two totally infantry forces, but I thought alot of players would have found that rather boring or too slow moving. 14. I wanted a player to be able to commit one battalion sized task force to one battle. If he wishes to attack a Sector with his tank battalion and leave his other sectors without tank support then I suppose thats a gamble he could take right? Just as a commander in 1944 could have done? 15. I do need to address the replacement issue. Though I'm not sure they would be that significant in a 48 hour period. As far as reinforcements go, the player will have set up his own reserves from within his TO&E. Just another added challenge. Hope that satisfies your questions. I realize this is kinda hodgepodge but this is really why I posted it so soon after creating it. I knew this would be the best forum for getting the kinks out. Thanks again. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: ScoutPL ]

If anyone is interested in trying this out, get together with an opponent and drop me an email. I'll send you the materials you'll need to get started.

Go to my website, www.geocities.com/fpd131 , and click on "Operational Campaign". Check out the files and let me know if you're interested in joining in the fray. This is not a tournament. Its more like a campaign in which a referee handles all the behind the scenes stuff. Check it out!

Maybe tournament is a bad word to use but I really didnt know what else to call it. Maybe more like a competition at first, then if the idea catches on we can switch players around. I'll start getting the stuff together and post it to my website, perhaps a few of you would be interested. The main thing I wanted to do was use CM to fill out the battles in an operational campaign, without all the miles of red tape that in my opinion drags CMMC way down. I left that game months ago and from what I understand now, the brigade I was commanding has yet to leave their assembly areas. Fun, fun! But its obviously enjoyed by those who are involved. I'm just wanting to start up something faster playing. I'll let you guys know when I'm further along in my preparations.

If there is enough interest expressed I think I will head up a tournament of my own. As you all would expect from ScoutPL this tournament will be historically based but with a twist on the usual. I propose setting up a campaign scenario in which the two players command a regimental armor/infantry task force. The scenario area will be roughly 20 x 10 km. The map (probably a .bmp map, not a CM one) will be divided into thirds. At the start, the western third will be controlled by the allied player, the eastern by the german player. The middle third is no mans land. Once the campaign starts the two players send me their orders and task organizations. The players decide if they will defend or attack, probe or assault. The starting forces will be the same for all players and reinforcements and reserves are set. How you manage your forces for the long haul will go a long way toward your overall success. I compare the briefs and decide when and where a battle will take place. Most of you have probably played Close Combat 4:Battle of the Bulge. This concept is much like the strategic level of that game, only you have total control of the make up the forces entering or defending each sector. The game will last 48 hours with 12 hour turns. With up to three battalion sized task forces a piece, the players could fight up to 12 battles. The player with the most combined points at the end of the 48 hours wins. The one with the highest total of all players, wins the tournament. I will expect historical play with sound tactics and techniques. A list of allowable rules would have to be agreed upon by all players to ensure fairness. I think there is a lot of promise behind this idea. I think I would enjoy discussing how the winners maneuvered their battalions and how they won the close in fights after the tourney is over, just as much as I will enjoy designing the scenarios. There is also the potential of team play (1 regimental/battalion commander and two battalion commanders per side). Please let me have it with both barrels. I know alot of you are involved in CMMC and I think we could get a lot out of a similar gaming experience that was on a much smaller scale and significantly streamlined. So tell me what you think.

If you are attacking with three to one odds and cant at least get a draw or minor victory then you dont know what you are doing. And that goes for real life as well as any game. Keeping in mind, that odds ratio would have to entail alot of things other then just numbers (Troop quality and experience, equipment quality, ammo supply, morale, leadership, etc.). A good player will use deception and probes to keep his main avenue of attack hidden for as long as possible and use supporting fires and indirect fires to isolate defending units to enable him to mass attacking units against defending ones. But all of this has been covered ad nauseum by myself and other players on this board and on other websites. The real truth of the matter is that defense just requires less skill and finesse and so often seems the easier of the two to win at.

DreadMarsh, Perhaps you should try to be clearer about what you mean by fair? Equality of forces? An amalgamation of terrain, troop quality, and assets? The way I'm reading your question, a bottom line answer is impossible. In combat, in my mind at least, a "fair fight" would always end in stalemate, since neither opponent could gain an advantage over the other. A force shouldnt ever attack a defending force unless they can mass superior numbers and firepower in order to ensure success (at least in their analysis of the situation). So an attack/defend scenario will never be "fair", quantitatively anyway. If you want the outcome (Victory Conditions) to be as balanced as possible then you'll have to really gain some knowledge on how CM is set up to handle that stuff, then you can design a scenario or manipulate a QB to take advantage of that. But I think you're going to find that its pretty balanced already. If you buy expensive troops, then they cost more VP when they are killed. If you buy a lot of inexpensive troops, then you have to expend more of them getting the job done and so you end up loosing the same amount of VP. Probably the only way to have a "fair" CM game is to have the AI fight itself with two exactly alike TO&E's. But then who wants to do that?

I'm going to stamp a ditto on The Commissar's comments. Attack scenarios aren't meant to be fair. If you were a commander given mission orders to attack, wouldnt you try to ensure you had every possible advantage before attacking? Otherwise you're sending your men forward like sheep to the slaughter. Giving the defender 10-20% more men doesnt make things "fair", it just makes the atttacker look like an idiot for attacking at closer to even odds in the first place. The attack/defense ratios are setup to show this. QB attacks are a waste of time. Mostly because when you attack with 3 to 1 odds or higher you have a fairly foregone conclusion. The attacker will sweep the field. If you want fair fights stick to meeting engagements. If you want to play an attack/defend battle play a historical scenario where you can gauge your success by looking at the real world outcome vs. your own. Or you can keep the game length down to the period of time you think the defenders should reasonably be able to hold. This will prevent the attacker from being able to take his time and wear the defender down. Then the game is decided by point loss and VP locations. If you cant hold in that time then you probably had a bad plan. If you still hold ground and have unbroken troops left at the end of the game then you've done well. This probably isnt making much sense but I just got off work and its 3 in the morning here. I apologize, just needed to wind down some.

CM1 board was up for a long time before I ever started reading it and I'm pretty sure I didnt miss anything of importance/value. So switching back and forth isnt a concern of mine. Once I get my hands on the game and try it out for a while, I'll probably be interested in discussing it, but not before. I just dont have any intereest in reading posts on a game that isnt even out yet, especially since most of them are for silly wishlists. What I hate is having to go through two or three pages of posts to make sure I see the new posts I might be interested in, because half of them are what I would consider "off-topic" (CM2).

Halftracks should be used for what they were designed for, getting soldiers to the battle AREA, not to the battle itself. In a CM battle the comabt is usually too close for Half Tracks to be useful. They were designed and included in Unit TO&E's to allow infantry to keep up with the tanks during those deep penetrations and exploitations (we're talking 10's of miles here not a few hundred meters), not to give the infantry a ride over the hill into the enemy's kill zone. So use them appropriately. If you have a reserve infantry force that you plan on using as an exploitation force or a counterattack force then put them in HT's near your friendly board edge, out of sight. When it becomes necessary to commit them, roll the HT's forward through terrain you know is secure and drop them off, out of your enemy's LOS, close to where you want to commit them. HT's are extremely vulnerable because they were designed as transports, not combat vehicles, most of the MG's mounted on them are for an Anti-Air role, not ground support. They can be used to support your infantry if you are certain their vulnerabilites wont get them destroyed, otherwise leave them sitting out of the enemy's LOS and consider their job complete.

Interesting look at a much lauded battle. I would argue that 4th Armor couldnt have maintained it penetration AND cleared the city of the 559 VG (or even contained it). US doctrine stressed(since the Louisiana and Carolina Maneuvers) that the armor formations were designed for an exploitation role. Now we all know this severely limits their use. There are a number of examples of a TO&E based on this single role failing the Armor Divisions when they were thrown into other roles, which was often necessary due to the chronic shortage of Infantry Divisions (the real issue here). What was needed, as JasonC stated, was at a minimum another brigade's worth of infantry to shore up the penetration's flanks. Destroying the 559th in Nancy would have taken at least another Infantry Division, if not more. So we come to the real crux of the problem: The US didnt bring sufficient assets to the fight. Another poster tries to blame Eddy for pulling away assets from the 4th and not bringing up more. I think a more accurate look at the situation would reveal that those Infantry Divisions on the flanks NEEDED those 4th AD elements to sustain their own fights. As far as bringing up more reserves to fill out the assault force? My bet is they just didnt exist. The Airborne Divisions, which usually acted as the theater fire brigades, were all involved in Market Garden. I think the failings of the Arracourt battles are more a question of Corps and Army resource management then anything else. I think this coincides with JasonC's argument I just raise the responibility a little higher. The AD TO&E was dificient in all roles except those it was designed for (penetration -to an extent- and exploitation). But I think most operational commanders were fully aware of this by 1944. They just failed to ensure there were enough reserve formations available to fully take advantage of the penetration once it was established. The reason for this was that the assets just didnt exist. And when faced with two options (sit and wait or do what you can with what you got) my bet is Patton would always choose the latter, especially with Monty in the process of destroying three Airborne Divisions for naught in the north. JasonC made this statement early on, which is really the reason I read the entire thing: "armor was the decisive arm in the whole war" But I think the rest of his article pretty much disproves that statement (on every front except perhaps the Russian, in most areas, and North Africa), whether that was his intention or not. One last Devil's Advocate point of view: I would be interested in learning what the threat analysis of the 559th was during the planning stages. I can see them being written off as unimportant due to their makeup and diverse personnel resources, so perhaps the plan all along was to not focus on their destruction. The fact that they were allowed to escape and then enjoyed some success attacking an Armored CC that they outnumbered 3 to 1 (considerably more in infantry) could be blamed on simple shortsightedness on the part of the planning staff. Which is relatively easy to poke at with 50 years of hindsight.

I'm getting tired of having to wade through all this detritus for a game that hasnt even been published yet. Any chance we could move it to another board (universe)? Thanks, Scout

For God's sake, WHY?

My computer is now disinfected, as is the game file. Download it! You're missing out on a challenging map!

Once again it depends on what sort of playing experience you want. If you're interested in just trying out the game mechanics and getting to know the system then a QB will definately give you all of that you can handle in 30 turns or so. If you want something a little more "historical" then I would suggest going to some of the CM sites online and downloading some scenarios. www.combat-missions.net is a great source for scenarios. They come with screenshots and a short narrative, perfect for getting just what you are looking for. Though most of them are based on historical situations they have been tweaked to provide balanced play. Great place to start.

I'll stick to my other earlier comment: I dont play QB's. I really hate Jason spent so much effort on his reply earlier, but I really dont care to respond. I'm sure everyone understands where I stand in the greater picture and to be honest I hate conversations that entail percentages and odds ratios and all that. I play for the tactical challenges not to figure out the fairest numbers game. And I'm not taking a jab at Jason here either, if he wants to devote his precious time to that then please do so. I'm sure everyone will benefit in the long run if he is proven correct. He is right in saying I was mixing apples and oranges (although he took an aweful long narrative to say it). Bottom line: I dont play QB's for all the reasons discussed here, so I really should back graciously out of this discussion. Scout

"Actually, I am surprised there is not more grog furor over the blind map in QB's." I think you will find that most grogs dont play QB's that often, for the reasons listed above. Another example of "if it doesnt do what we want then lets find something that will". I'm in total diagreement with JasonC's comments. I dont play QB's so I dont place myself in situations where I'm in a game with poor force selection re: ground (unless the historical scenario just calls for it). And I've never had a problem with the defence. If I do lose its because of an error in my plan, not because the bad guys are good at hiding in the trees. I suggest those interested read my defence tutorials. In them I discuss how to use indirect fires and obstacles to MULTIPLY the combat power of the defender. Just buying more rifles isnt the answer. I dont think CM is that off balance that it cant be played realistically (to a certain extent) mostly because the expose % Jason is talking about works both ways, the defender can take advantage of it just like the attacker can. Yes there are some problems, the chief one being that in CM obstacles just arent substantial enough. But that horse has been beat to death. As far as a mostly infantry force being unable to defend in generally wooded terrain then I would submit you were probably trying to defend too much ground. QB's also place the VP locations rather randomly and you can come up with some rather impossible situations. If you insist on playing them I would suggest just defending one or two rather then trying to cover them all. As a rule of thumb the more restrictive your terrain is the tighter your defence should be. A good rule of thumb is that if your units dont have LOS to one another then they are too far apart (this reflects real life as well). Its all about Mass after all. If your units cant support one another in the defence then it is rather easy for an enemy to mass his forces against one element at a time and he never has to fight your force as a whole.

No Lloyd I wouldnt expose my can of Raid Wasp and Hornet Killer to take care of a fly I can handle with my fly swatter. My little "personal narrative" was focused more on the use of AA guns in the defense in general. If you want me to go into TTP's I'd be happy to oblige. But then I'd probably bore the hell out of 99% of this posts readers.

I've talked about this before but it was close to a year ago and most of the people on here I no longer recognize from those glory days anyway. So here it goes. While I was serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in the late 80's, the division's AA battalion still had a number of 20mm Vulcan cannon in its TO&E. These were six barrel cannon with a rudimentary targeting system mounted on a wheeled trailer. They have since all been replaced by stinger missile variants. But while they absolutely sucked at engaging fast moving jet aircraft they cut slice through a helicopter or a vehicle with one well placed burst. They were awesome to listen to, too. Sounded a lot like what Odin's zipper might have sounded like whenever he had to take a break from the party up in Valhalla. Anyway, we often integrated them into our Anti-armor defense. Mostly because an Airborne Infantry Battalion has practically nothing with which to fight tanks, so they have to use everything they can get their hands on. And they would get a couple kills when the enemy armor came rolling across the wide open Drop zones on Fort Bragg. But they inevitably died inglorious deaths, victims to overruns, arty fires or main gun tank fire. But since the grunts all usually died similiar deaths minutes later no one really seemed to notice... I guess what I am saying is that AA guns can be used in a defense if the situation is desperate enough, though I wouldnt call it a regular everyday thing. If they made great tank busters, the army would just start issuing them to the infantry instead of the AA units. Also everyone seems to have overlooked the most awesome tank killer of WWII, the German 88. These weapon systems could count for a large number of enemy armor kills when well protected and well sighted. But they also fell swiftly once the enemy had crossed the killing ground.

OK it should be out of the new zip file. Someone let me know if it isnt.

I'll get the virus out of there, thanks. Been too busy to deal with it lately. It's in my word program and doesnt transfer when I copy the text file to wordpad and convert to .rtf. I'll update the zip file ASAP. Scout

I look forward to checking out your tutorial Panzer Leader. The thing about TTP's is that they're a lot like opinions, everybody has one. Until PL gets his posted those of you having trouble may want to visit my website and take a gander at my own tutorials. www.geocities.com/fpd131

Just a couple quick jabs... I find it interesting that he is now offering ways to counter "broad front recon" that a year ago (has it been that long?) he would have heartily applauded. The more things change... If you insist on playing someone who plays this game because they like to win then you shouldn't have a problem with either of you using gamey tactics. The ones who play this game to win every time usually do so by taking advantage of all or some of the "gamey tactics". If you want to learn to beat Gamey with real world then good luck. The bottom line is your entire outcome will be skewed by the gamey tactics to begin with, so whats the point? I play this game all the time and to be perfectly honest, I've lost just about as many as I've won. But thats because I play games that are usually fairly historically accurate. The problem with that is, history is usually written the way it is for a reason: given the circumstances, the outcomes will be changed only slightly by skill or chance. In other words, a QB meeting engagement in which both sides start with an equal number of "points" is actually one of the rarest things you will find on a battlefield. Attackers almost always out number defenders, and if they outnumber them by enough they will almost invariably carry the field. The enjoyment I receive out of playing historically accurate scenarios comes from holding the ground a little longer, losing less men in the assault, or reaching the final objective with more time to spare then the real world commander did. These are signs of good tactics and techniques. I encourage you to look for gamers with similiar attitudes and quit worrying about losing one. A truly enjoyable game is one you can walk away from totally defeated, saying to yourself, "Man, I wouldnt mind doing that again!" Not because you're a masochist, but because the quality of the game was at such a level you just enjoyed playing!

OK! Well I'm finally back. After a rather disappointing attempt at CMMC, I have withdrawn myself from that high maintenance/low reward relationship (sounds like an old girlfriend of mine). So I'm back to creating TDG's for the enjoyment of those who like to do things tactically, rather then those on the other side of the gaming abyss (yes, I'm talking about those "It's just a game, guys!" whiners) who probably never set their mouse icon in my website, and quite frankly shouldn't! I posted the german setup for the last game as requested and have added a new TDG. This one is a whopper and has been set up to allow the gamer as much leeway in planning as possible. Enjoy!

Go straight to www.geocities.com/fpd131 or check out my post in Tips and Tactics.