Beer_n_Pretzels

JC, will you stop telling the newbies about all these neat tricks I'll never win a game now Seriously though, an excellent post although I believe 150mm rockets were historically used as a battalion (the equivalent of 4 to 6 FO's in CM terms). I'm sure either you or one of the Grogs can confirm. take care BnP

QUOTE]Originally posted by ScoutPL: Players who show up on the board with a tank platoon, a rifle platoon and 4 indirect fire observers, are just taking advantage of the game, rather then trying to play it real.

Hi John, this is a good idea. I'll have to think about it and see what I can do. I'm no expert but I'm sure the CM community could have a bit of fun seeing what the Grogs and experienced players come up with. take care BnP

Gentlemen! I salute you. It is good to see that you would not give up. You comments show that you would assess the situation, modify your plan, grit your teeth and then stride forward to tear the still beating heart out of your opponents chest. My next question is: If you have no armour, but your opponent does, how will this change your tactics in a combined arms meeting engagement?

Greetings CMer's My burning question for the day is: If you are fighting a combined arms meeting engagement, would give up (or ask for a ceasefire) when all of your armour has been destroyed, and your opponent still has armour available?

The 3" mortar is one of surprises in the British TO & E. It should be deployed in a nice position (preferably with HQ to do the spotting) and not moved. It is very useful to provide fast smoke and harassing fire. Three or four mortars firing together can practically wipe out an enemy infantry platoon, as their fire is a lot more accurate than off-map mortars. As Germanboy says, if you're going to move a 3" mortar, use a carrier.

Pillar and JC, Very valid theoretical and practical discourse about recon in the CM environment. Throw in ScoutPL's excellent infantry Attack Tutorial and this thread is liquid gold. However I have two contributions, so I hope you don't mind this intrusion. Firstly, I feel the goal of recon in CM is not only to provide information for your side but also, with full fog or war, to misinform your opponent of your strength and intentions. Secondly, Playing CM against a human opponent is a match of psychology as well as who has the better doctrinal 'toolkit' to counter unexpected situations. PLAYER PSYHCOLOGY AND DOCTRINE Player psychology is understanding that your opponent may have: 1. an affinity for a certain type of unit (ie. Panthers) or 2. or be demoralised by a certain situation (ie. last tank is lost) 3. or react to a particular action. (ie. showing some artillery 'teeth' by bombarding an infantry platoon in a supposedly safe hide). This can, and must be exploited to achieve victory. For example, The loss of powerful tanks or artillery spotters is one situation where an inexperienced player may throw in the towel. Experienced players are more likely to accept the loss, assess the situation, and either reduce the mission objective or change the mission. At the doctrinal level, adapting to unexpected change, and battle casualties in particular is one part of an experienced CM player's toolkit. IMHO Recon is not an end in itself, but the means to achieving the mission with the forces at hand. Both broad front and narrow front recon (a gross simplification of your excellent discourse) are valid in certain situations. I define broad front recon as the committment of split squads across a wide area with the minimum of support. I define narrow front recon as committing platoon or company strength force along a small part of the front with plenty integral support. Broad front recon provides the best chance of discovering enemy postions and intentions across the whole front. In this way a commander, each turn, can collate information from multiple sources and assess the threat potential to achieving the mission objective. The commitment of reserves, artillery or smoke may then be committed to eliminate or neutralise the threat. The disadvantage of broad front recon is that forces are committed piecemeal and may be eliminated before significant intelligence is gained. In contrast, the role of narrow front recon is to test part of the suspected enemy line and commit to an attack, either by itself or with the commitment of reserves. However an additional advantage of narrow front recon can be composed of a combined arms force that can provide mutual support. The disadvantage of narrow front recon is that in most CM games lots of artillery is available and that a narrow front recon would be an inviting target. RECON = INFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION I find it useful to look at a battle from your opponents side of the map. Your opponent may see a unit with the label Infantry?, then a Mortar? and AT Infantry? I suspect that an inexperienced player may believe that this is a full American platoon. However, it maybe a split squad, a mortar and a bazooka. Is this worth calling in an artillery mission? I suspect that with a broad front recon effort, your opponent would see a lot of infantry figures or symbols across the whole front. Until they can positively identified, they are multiple threats. In contrast to a narrow front advance your opponent sees the threat to one part of his line and can act to counter it. However could be used as a diversion, while another narrow front recon is the real attack. I hope you accept my apology that my contribution to this thread is a gross simplification of the well-argued concepts by Pillar and JC. If you want my humble opinion (instead of fence sitting) then the Narrow front recon is more realistic, but the broad front recon is more likely to win you more games. The value of the broad front recon is that you will get more information quicker without the need to make part of your force an inviting artillery target. cheers BnP

I have fired from an M2A2 105mm Gun/Howitzer and have seen it at the sharp end. Not very nice stuff and I can see why the enemy would not like it. The smell is pretty bad as well (worse than Cordite). However it looks pretty when it hits the ground...

Exactly, It is only fair that you give your opponent as much information at the setup stage as you would have yourself. I also think for non-tournament games, the person setting up the game should, as a matter of courtesy, give their opponent the choice of side.

ScoutPL, this is a fantastic contribution to the CM literature. In conjunction with the stuff from Fionn, Pillar and others anyone interested in sharpening up their CM skills is spoiled for choice. As a former Bombadier, I salute you Sir BnP

Hi Check6, I don't have the info in front of me, but I'll I think you will find that the M1917 is the water-cooled version of M1919. As such it is a heavier 30 cal (or 0.30) sustained fire support machine gun. This is different from the 50 cal (0.50) which actually was designed as an anti-tank weapon. I do use the M1917 because it carries a lot more ammo and it slightly more relaible than the air-cooled M1919. Just set ip up with a long field of fire and go for it. Don't bother moving it

Mr S, It is Boags Premium and it is nectar of the gods. I have the odd one or two every Thursday night when I have a few mates around to play World In Flames (for the newbies, a board wargame). As for the animal, it is a Tasmanian Tiger. At the moment there are some plans to use recovered DNA to recreate the species... which is fine by me as I can throw a Tassie Tiger steak on the barbie while I'm having a beer!

Hmmm good point. I'll put that in. cheers BnP

As one of these ugly Australians pointed out by Steve (Except for Kwazydog, of course, but then he's probably a Tasmanian like me ) How about we leave this flogged-to-death, and-stripped-to-the-bone horse with Tiger's brilliant little cartoon. To use a bit of Aussie Slang: Strewth mate, my arse (not 'ass' as you ungrateful former British colonists say) is getting sore on my ringside seat at this little blue, So how about we call it day as I'm sure we've all got better things to do (like either design CM2 or play CM1). Frankly, let's give v1.1 a fair go. For those people who do have a problem with v1.1 I suggest two avenues: A. Do your research in a scientific manner, write up your findings, contact BTS and then using an appropriate positivist or interpretivist standpoint, explain your findings and make suitable recommendations based on those findings. B. If you think A is a bit too hard, then I suggest you throw out everything you know about CM and start again . Read Fionn's AAR's and posts about doctrine and use of infantry. Then play 10 combined arms meeting engagements as the Axis against reasonable opponents and see how you go. I reckon you will win more than 50%. take care everyone and be nice otherwise the not-so-cuddly, entrail-loving, nails-on-whiteboard screaming Tassie Devil will get you

I live, therefore I CM.

BTS, Good Stuff. Jeff H, I can see your point of view, but I'm more than happy to play the Germans in a 1000-1500 point QB. From what I've seen from experienced players like Fionn etc, The game will be won by the Infantry. Armour just gives you something to do while the infantry are yomping towards the objectives

Hi Atlas, you shall soon see the light The Churchills are excellents tanks, but they have their limitations that any good opponent will exploit. For me, they are too slow, they don't enough ammo and anything with 75mm L/70 or above will eat them for breakfast.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Be sure to escort them with inf, because they can't fight back against shrecks or fausts very well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spot on. Or keep them waaaay back from any sneaky Jerry Infantry. Also once their cover is blown they become enticing mortar targets...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bimmer: Another point: I am one of those players who tend to purchase in reasonably historical measures...I have found no real disadvantage to this in play, and I prefer the simplicity and inherent flexibility of coherent small unit organizations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is very good point. The more specialised 'toys' you buy, the more micro management that is required. I have found that this can often be a distraction in a very tense battle. It is also possible to run into trouble by purchasing units to counter enemy units you suspect your opponent will purchase. Nothing worse than purchasing a Hetzer and your opponent had bought infantry...

My First wargame was Terrible Swift Sword, 1st edition. I think it was released in 1977... My first miniatures game was Warhammer 2nd edition. My first Roleplaying Game was DnD 2nd edition Not as grizzled as some of the Grogs around here

What about the Archer of Achilles? a 17pdr gun scares any German Tank. The Achilles is nothing more than tracks under a normal 17pdr gun, While the Achilles is a M10 with a 17pdr. The british Tank destroyers never seem to be without Tungsten either. My preference is for the Archer because it is so cheap and specialised you can't really use it for anything else other than as an AT weapon. The Archer is an ambush weapon only. With the Achilles, because it has a turret, you can get into big trouble by using it as a tank...

Aw shucks Thanks Karch. OK guys let move onto CM

OK. following on from Jarmo, I would choose this 1500pt British Attack Force (all regular unless stated). Infantry: - Inf Coy - Vet Inf Platoon Artillery - 3" Mortar FO - 4.5" FO Support: - 2 x Vickers MMG Tanks: - Archer - 3 x Sherman V Vehicles: - Humber Scout car - Wasp Flamethrower Carrier - 2 x MMG Carriers - 3 x M5A1 Halftracks

ScoutPL, very nice stuff indeed! A well executed defence despite losing and ATG early because of the !@#$% Transporter! Great work and something I'll have boomarked for as long as a play CM...(which will be until CM2 comes out )

Hi Medlin, no hard feelings mate. I appreciate your apology. I have just visted the Quick Battle Play League website and I would suggest to any CMer's that if you haven't seen this site: Go an see it, it is well worth it. Alright guys, enough Drama let's get back CM... take care everyone BnP