The_Capt

Biggest problem is that weapons effects are not modeled properly. "My God what did that Heritic say?!!! Burn Him". CM is a game and must be approached as one. You are right that odds in RL do not equate on the CM battlefield. Here is why. 1) MGs in reality have a large beaten zone whivh allows them to spread their destructive power over a large area. MGs particularly on the defence are fired till the barrels glow and not in bursts. The net effect is that an HMG which is actually design to cover a say 50 by 200 oval and has an effective range of 500m is in fact neutered at range and forced to fire at on target only. I have played a lot of CM and I have never seen an MG surpress more than one target, when in fact an MG could surpress a platoon. Tank rounds and mortar fire are also a little on the modest side. I can tell you as one who has seen this stuff in action. 2) Depth, often a defender has to deploy in a zone which is very small as compared to the actual depth in which say a coy would have at it's disposal. This prevents a defender proper use of combat power to attrit the en as he is coming in. 3) Group morale. We see it on a large scale but in reality if a platoon watches one of there squads blown apart by a tank round, the whole organization will go to ground. And won't be up and moving. I guess you would call it shock but on a larger scale than that in the game. In reality the loss of a Pl HQ will paralyze squads for more than an additional 10-15 seconds. 4) Engineer works. Minefields are much deeper and more efective than that modeled in the game. An tactical AT minefield is actually about 1000m wide and 400m deep which is the size of some maps. AP minefields are much more effective as people tend to freeze up when they are in the middle of one. AT ditches will stop an armoured force if sighted properly and combined with a minefield. CM is a great game and I highly encourage everybody on the planet to buy it and have fun with it but do not try and make too many parallels between it and Real Life. In a real attack against prepared enemy you can expect 30% casualties or better. The 3:1 rule is there so you can actually do a second attack if you have to. That because in reality it is a whole lot more dangerous

Quick question on the Janapese/US debate. It is commonly held that Churchill knew about the raid before it happened and let it go on anyway without telling the US because he desperately needed the US to be drawn into the war. Now my question is; does anybody have any evidence that FDR had that info but also let it happened anyway as a method to bring the US into the war. I find it unusual that although significant damage was done at Pearl Harbour, that all of the carriers were out training. If one were to make it look real, but not cripple the US fleet doing so, it would seems that this was the way to do it. Just a thought.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (for what I hope is the last time). As has been echoed many times and I am not even sure if I said it first: Manoeuvre and Attrition are two sides of the same coin. The are methodologies and philosophies which encompass an entire school of thought and all of the shades of grey in between. They are twin children of Mars joined at the hip. Attrition often precedes and follows Manoeuvre and vice versa. There can be no extreme of any one camp. The trick is, and what seperates the great commanders from the good ones is knowing when, where, with who and why to apply them. Many of the answers to those question are unachievable and left up to the commander to instinctively know. We have taken steps to deliver a clearer picture of the two sides so that we can stop "hoping" someone "gets it" and trained ourselves and our officers to a higher level so that our chances are better that they (and we) will be able to better employ the principals. This is an art gentlemen not a science. It is like asking a painter to plan and describe why he has done something. Often "it just seemed right at the time".

I think that the meat and potatoes of Manoeuvre and Attrition as actual tools for deployment and employment of resources happens at the Bde/Div level. At those levels (if anybody else has had the opportunity back me up on this) there is freedom to properly try some of these concepts in anything other than a philosophical sense and how they are apllied to a given situation. At the platoon level, I think what we call Manoeuvre and Attrition are thought of in much simpler terms. Manoeuvre is what the old school call initiative "pull your head out of your ass and show some initiative!!" A quote I have heard and given many a time in training. Attrition is mission or direct order. Or more simply put "Listen to what I have to say and freakin do it!!!" I guess one can see how the two schools are opposed but even now modern militaries are pushing the Manoeuvre philosophy down all the way to sect. Manoeuvre says we should tell our subordinates why we are doing this, why our boss wants it dona and why his boss wants it done. We then empower our subordinates that on any given situation they have the right/duty to apply the intent of the commander to any situation even if it run counter to the actual mission order. Attrition basically say what I want done so do it and wait for more. Mission before all else. We adopt Manoeuvre philosophy because it shortens our action loop by allowing sub-units to exercise initiative towards a common goal which will support the overall goal all the way up at any given moment. A Simple example: A Battle Group (BG) is advancing towards a town at a critical cross roads. Your BG commander has said in his orders that the BG mission is to take and secure that junction. The intent is so that the Bde can have access to a critical avenue of approach in sp of a Div advance. Your Div Comds intent is a rapid advance with minimal tie ups so we can secure operational objectives. Your Bde Comds intent is to swiftly advance and secure an objective which supports Div with a by-pass policy of platoon and below. Your BG Comds intent is to ensure that the cross-roads is secure and not drain the BGs combat power doing it because he wants to be able to follow on in sp of the Bde so and fight the fight the Div Comds interested in. Now on your left a reinforced platoon is on a position which dominates the BG approach to the junction. On the radio your BG Comd says "En at grid 123456 destroy them!!". He is a man of few words. So you and your Combat Team prepare for a hasty attack. You are about to move to an Assault Position when Recce comes up and tells you the enemy has withdrawn across a river to a position on high ground but which does not threaten the BG advance. Now what do you do and why? To simplify let's narrow the options: A. You chase down the enemy and destroy them B. You occupy the enemies former position even thought is will expose you to fire and observation. C. You form a BG screen which keeps an eye on the enemy and ensures he cannot get back to the original position. What do you choose and why...at this lies the heart of Manoeuvre and Attrition. Note: this is a reproduction of a simple scenario in The Army Doctrine Bulletin but I have tinkered with it to make it a little more difficult.

As suggested on another thread, I am wondering what the feelings of the pro's and amateurs are on the RL application of what we do in the game to reality. Little, lot or somewhere in between? I will reserve my opinion but I think points that come out might be able to make CM2 a better game, provided anybody listens to our ranting of course.

Yup same game, Shadow I'll e-mail you with the concept soon, still looking for a committed GM (got one want two) Looks like we have enough players though

I'll put this discussion in the same file as "no running with an MG" which has also been hotly debated.

To clarify, that is one "game" per week not a turn..so 3-4 turns per day or a network game.

I'll out this out again. Concept: CM in a Bde setting. Two Bde clash against the other. I am looking for three people for a CM Brigade game. I need: 1. 2 x Bn Comds, any shape or size just be half-decent player. 2. 1 x GM or Ref, E-mail me or post a response here. I would like to get going on this. Members will need to commit to a moderate level of game play (maybe one per week) and be ready to act in the role as assigned.

Jason has graciously declined sighting personal reasons and a general problem with the concept in general. I respect that and have volunteered to "put my money where my mouth is" so-to-speak and take command of the Attritionist alliance. I intend to bleed white Fionn and his fancy feeted (is that a word)unholy horde. I intend to set military doctrine back 75 yrs and crush might with might on the battle field. "Recce pull", I can tell you what I think about that but it would get me banned like...well you know. Now I need some hearty volunteers ready to take on Mr Kelly and give him the thrashing he has been long overdue. Note: Fionn won't actually be in command of any CM battles so he will have to rely on his yet "untested" strategic ability. Please post your name on this board or e-mail me. I need sub-unit commanders who are master CM tacticians. Solid troops capable and immovable. Fancy feet need not apply.

OK, I am willing to take the helm of the other team and play an Attrition based game but now I need a volunteer to Ref the damn thing. I have a set of rules i'd be willing to discuss and have dicussed the the Great Prowler Fionn who concurs so anybody interested?

OK, I've pulled together a Brigade(Bde) model for a CM game. I have one Commander for one side and I am looking for another player who feels he/she is ready for Bde Comd. Bde Comd will command other players in battle against the other Bde. This is a simplified model which should be less cumbersome than larger historical ventures. I need someone who is ready to step up out of the trenches and take Comd of Battalions. I would prefer someone who is familiar with Bde level operations but right now any warm body will do. Any takers? Post a brief description of your experience and style ans we'll talk.

We have the one the only: Destroyer of egos; Profane blasphemer of forums He who was cast into the darkness He who has lethal happy feet FIOOOOOOONNN KELLLLLY!!!! 130 wins no loses, all Manoeuvre, he evens sleeps moving! Fionn Kelly defunct and banned bad boy of CM has volunteered to lead the forces of "decision" and defend the mentality of Manoeuvre or as you Yanks say "Manuhver". Fionn has gather a collection of hand pick evil disciples to do his unholy bidding in a bloody Operational Battle royal which will redefine "JOI DE GUERRE"!!!!! Now calling all followers of Attrition or anyone else who will stand against the Heathen Lurker...He Who's name shall not be mentioned? We need a great man..no a great killer who's desire to shed the blood of his own men is only tempered by the thirst for that of the enemy. Where is our Attrition Hero?!!

Still looking for an Attritionist volunteer. Going once!

Combined Arms, You are correct but there has been heated debate as to which doctrine is or should be dominate. As well as which doctrine has been historically used. I am not going to force two commanders to "play a certain way". I instead plan to start with to opposing views and then watch the fireworks. Once the commanders are chosen and detailed hashed out, each side will need about five strappin CM volunteers to play sub-commanders. You won't own units but points. For example, if you are a sub-unit commander you will start on the board with 1000 pts. You will purchase units according to your pre-determined arm (combined, armoured and I am going to have to add Recce) then you will recieve orders from the commander and move on an Operational map. As the game unfolds and you start smacking the enemy (battles to be determined by QB) you will have to be resupplied (by points) by the commander. The commander will only have a set pool from which to draw from and distribute. To spice things up, deep penetrations will reduce that pool, modeling logistic units getting pounded. In addition I am looking at command and control getting scambled as an enemy gets deeper into friendly territory. The catch is that a penetrating unit will only be resupplied if it isn't cut off. If it is cut off it can't get points or reinforcements) and I will begin to reduce it ammo loadout. It will run out of gas eventually and die. This way we keep a balance between rapid movement and a need to maintain a logistics chain. I have a lot more but I am going to wait to talk it out with volunteer commanders so that we can all agree on the rules. As to a web site, I have absolutely no idea as to how to build on but I will keep the forum updated on the results. Now I still need someone who favours Attrition strategy.

Henri, I will just have to ask you to trust me on this one. I am looking at taking CM and moving it up a level. The concept is (and this is open to negotiation with the commanders) is to put the CM QBs into a operation setting which will mimick a Bde in operations. I really want to avoid over complication of this so I intend to simplify the "over-game" without losing the basic elements of warfare. It is very hard to explain here and I want to talk to the commanders Mr Kelly has volunteered to be the Manoeuvre Commander and now I just need an Attritionist to command the other side...Mr Cawley where are you? I don't really want to 'accomplish" anything but I think the expirement will be interesting and rewarding. Not to mention fun which is after all what this is all about. I think if we use CM as a tacticl engine we can command players on a simple field of battle and see what to radically different adherents to two schools of thought will do.

Ok to clarify, I am planning to setup an operational scenario in which the play of the actual CM QBs only provide results for individual battles between sub-units in order to model the effect the "Tactical" has on the whole. We are talking of taking CM and dropping it on a "GO" board type scenario. I will be adding a terrain factor so that everybody can try what they like. This is not the definitive answer but I think it may allow some of the more antagonistic members of the debate to release some aggression and maybe learn something. For Maj Tom, may I suggest you read the various threads on the subject. You will find that we have gone quite deep into that area and the balace of the two systems in warfare.

ALS Vetran, we are agreeing loudly. I totally agree that warfare is a balance between Attrition and Manoeuvre. Jasons position (which seems to have shifted) in it's original context is no more dangerous that the extreme of Manoeuvre which has sprung up. Both have to be weighed and used where appropriate.

OK, I think I have worked out a very simple method to emulate an operation. It is gamey in some respects but only to keep it simple. The aim of this exercise is to allow for a CM environment in which we can truly test Attrition vs Manoeuvre against each other. I am looking for two Commanders. Now before everybody jumps on this, I am going to be snobbish about who gets to command (there is room for decent CM tactician later). I am looking for someone who is either professional military or has a professional level of knowledge of what I am talking about. Mr Cawley springs to mind as the Attrition Commander but I will take other applicants. I am looking for a brief description of which side you prefer and why and why you should be allowed to command one side or the other. The Commander will be in charge of other players who will fight the QBs which determine the flow of the game. The 'map" is very simple and is in no way a "recreation" of Kursk, Normandy or some such monstrosity. I hope this will allow us to put to rest the continuing argument and allow us to learn the one true lesson which is CM.."Forgiveness" I will be talking details with the two Commanders and then will allow them to "handpick" a team of players who will fight the battles. Your thoughts,

I guess this clearly shows a seperation between CM and RL. Mortars are to be feared, in the extreme in Rl. 1. They give no warning unless you are close enough to here the "snap" from the tube and my opinion that is waaaay too close to the MG team covering the mortar. 2. They have a much smaller impact area than Arty. So when you are caught by a mortar barrage you know it's personal. 3. Their rate of fire is obscene and should be banned by the Geneva Convention. One minute all is quiet, the next the ground is boiling and you are trying to be a gopher. Arty is effective too but at least it gives you a little warning and it is an area weapon so you don't feel like you are being picked on. My thoughts

First of all I am Canadian and contrary to popular belief we are not the 51st state and still use the proper English spelling. Or at least till they give it up and we all talk Yank. I think it may be time to settle this like men and CM it out. I am trying to develop a CM Campaign system which would allow us to test these theories but I am having a hard time. It needs to be very simple but built around CM battles. Let me chew on this and I'll take suggestions. Mr Cawley, Everybody hold your hats but I think I agree with most of what you say. Even though the length of the disertation was extreme. I think there are some serious dangers associated with the "cult of manoeuvre" which can lead to disaster if not tempered with a healthy dose of realism. I shy away from the "bleeding of the screen" idea however as it smacks of real attrition. I think the Manoeuvre is the "desired end-state" of any strategy, operation and Tactic. The ability to hit the soft underbelly, smack the chin, get the ball behind his defence or whatever. It is Manoeuvre which (it is believed) will win wars by getting the enemy in a reactionary stance and keeping him there. It is a good philosophy but a little narrow (as American driven philosophies tend to be...cheap shot but I couldn't resist), as you have pointed out Mr Cawley, often Manoeuvre is not possible. We have listed several reasons: Troop Quality Differential: If our boys are a poorer quality in training, experience and motivation, the system by which we attain Manoeuvre will break down. Our jr leaders cannot be entrusted or empowered to execute intent over orders, a tenant upon which the whole freakin house of cards rests. Duration of conflict and Political will. As conflicts protract without the quick victory our "Nintendo generation" has come to expect, the will to conduct bold, risky plans really falls flat. In fact current political climate favours attrition far more than Manoeuvre. I will use a case which will raise eyebrows, Kosovo. The attrition strategy worked. Let's bomb em from high altitude until he's had enough and leaves. It even led to a loss of political power. I think we won that one but it was't Manoeuvre. Manoeuvre was the Russians rolling into the airport at Pristina (sp?) saying, "go ahead send in the airborne...I dare you". That was risky as hell, could have cost them a lot of lives but paid off in political consessions. American Manouevre would have been a major Airborne operation onto the border of Serbia, followed by amphibious assault link up. We would of caught most of the Serbian forces in Kosovo before they could withdraw and set the stage for a push into Serbia and settled this once and for all. Problem is most North Americans (including myself) would call that insane. Why should we get a few thousand of our boys killed when an air assault can do the job? Let's commit the ground troops after they have been bombed into submission, a much better plan but not bold Manoeuvre. Technological Tempo; if our kit allows us to move, see, think and plan faster we have a better chance at Manoeuvre. If it is the other way around, you have a problem. I think time to front or reaction also falls into this category. Opportunity or timing; a very "touchy feely" concept but one must be able to know when the conditions of Manoeuvre are ripe. Is it a gut feel or a checklist of conditions. I am not sure and contrary to modern doctrine, neither are they. In conclusion, I think that reality is "shades of grey" in which both systems will be employed. An attrition defence may provide an opportunity to conduct Manoeuvre. A Manoeuvre may set the stage for Attrition. It is the use of both of these tools and what I believe is coming (the techno hybrid of Attrition control/Manoevre mentality) which seperate the winners from the losers in future wars. Finally to Mr Abteilung, this is not "b*llsh*t" nor is it simple. These types of discussions elevate our concepts of warfare and put us on the road to a professional viewpoint rather than an amateur one.

AT guns are deadly but only when sighted in pairs (or even threes). Keys to taking them out is isolate and destroy or heavy arty. Smoke em off and get a platoon (at least) within range and assault. May I also suggest a flank approach. You can use armour but always ensure you have at least one more gun firing at them than they have at you. Two regular tanks can usually take out an AT gun if they can both see it. That is the trick. A good defender will place his ATs in positions where the only tank which is going to see him is a dead one.

I may not know a thing about WWII armour penetration or the effectivness of the old grenade against an HT. But... A satchel charge is about 12 pounds of HE, which even if it doesn't blow a hole in the tank, it is going to a) concuss the occupants to the point that they will become casualties and Anything not welded onto the inside surface where the charge is placed, is going to fly around in there. Creating an early version of a blender. If a engineer assault in which one or two charges actually hit the tank isn't causing a veh casualty there is a serious problem with Close Assault.

Sorry, Yup that's it. I forgot about the follow thru and hiding the Platoon HQ. I've actually done that in the game and got the whole mortat group wiped out by counter-mortar.

Mike, Double click your Platoon HQ so that the mortars are "boxed" too and give the target command. Also make sure your mortars aren't hidden. This feature is to duplicate the need for the mortar group to be "under command" of the HQ with LOS.