The_Capt

57mm AT Gun

I think we all agree that CM is basted (not unlike a young pig on a spit) in the sweet juices of reality. Therefore I would like to start a thread were the truly amazing and incredible is voiced. Screen shots would be great if you can even think to take one when the absolutly unbelievable happens. I'll start, true story. I had a M8 Greyhound take out two (count em) two Panthers!!! It was that scenario (can't recall the name) where you take on this German supertanker and a couple of his buddies. It was based on a real battle where a German Sgt (Barksomething) got the Knight Iron Cross with blinking clusters etc. Well in my version a scout M8 Grayhound commanded by Sgt "Regular" Shnook does a deep end run, makes it thru a minefield and catches super germanboy and his buddy (elite and crack level) looking the wrong way. The M8 proceeds to take out both in about three shots!!! RIGHT THRU THE TAILPIPE!!! I couldn't believe it, needless to say the third Panther got my Greyhound but I'll take that tradeoff anyday. I finished the scenario with a total victory. So that is my story...what's yours?

To pass the time, I'll wade into to Russian contribution argument. A simple set of questions. What would have happened if the Russians had rolled over? What would have happened if the US hadn't entered the war. Tough to answer even with the hindsight of 50+ years. Could the Russkies pulled off a victory if the West had not landed at D-Day and bombed the German war machine into dust. Remember by then the Russian war machine had wound up. They had really mastered the aspects of Operational Warfare and brought their war industry online. These guys had faced the bulk of the Germans on a one front war and won but would it have been enough. Conversly, if Russia had surrendered does anybody think the West could have pulled off a landing in France facing the bulk of the German Army? What if the Germans had time to develop the bomb? In reality I think it is a lot like CM, you can play the same game several times and it never turns out the same. The only thing I do find annoying is the arrogance of the Americans in suggesting that they "won" the war, when in fact their contribution was significant but probably less so than others. A more serious question may be why did the Yanks take their time getting involved in two major world wars, when the industrial might of this nation may have prevented many more deaths in other parts of the world? Perhaps Korea and Vietnam were atonement for that mistake, though poorly executed and thought out. And finally, is the new president going toward the same isolationist mentality. It ain't easy being the only superpower left and I think that awesome responsibility is not something to be taken lightly.

I would point out that FO can spec fire w/o a direct LOS to a target (observed by another unit or just gut feel) I agree that the onboard 60mm, 81mm and their British should be able to bring fire down on unobserved targets. I am sure the Pl Comd has a map and can lob rounds (with penalty of course) just about anywhere within range. To offset the relative spotting question one could classify a "spotted" target as "command spotted" (ie someone with a radio can see it and relay the info) and non-command spotted, where a time delay would be imposed for x amount of time (based on distance and spotting unit) before the coy/Bn commander would become aware of its location. The time delay would simulate runners or flow of info thru units. Color coding targets would probably be the best way to relay the above info without over complicating the process. If a target is "command spotted" then a mortar under command of another linked command unit should be able to fire onto the target area. Of course if one used this system, the use of unobserved spec fire would still have to be withheld to ensure a player didn't just "psychically" link his forward element with a rear mortar commander.

SEND HIM TO HELL WITH A BIBLE STUFFED INTO HIS PANTS!!!!!

SEND HIM TO HELL WITH A BIBLE STUFFED INTO HIS PANTS!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read this very long thread and would like to point out one fact which seems to have been overlooked. THERE ARE OTHER NATIONS IN CM BESIDES THE FREAKIN US!!! In British and Canadian doctrines use of "recce" was and is often executed at the battalion (or Battle Group) level. Recce Pull vs Recce push is still a bone of contention as is manoeuvre vs attritionist warfare. Recce is not only planned for but part of a Battle Group in operations providing info on en locations as well as, Fire Base, Attack Posn and Lines of Departure in the hasty attack during the Advance and Assault. Liason and screening during the defence. I find it slightly offensive that ScoutPl would state that anything other than US doctrine is being "gamey" when decentralized recce is a part of at least to other nations being represented in the game.

For the love of Pete! OK I am willing to listen to a good critique and believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but this is freakin ridiculous. CM is a quantum leap forward in wargaming. It has taken the player from the "God on high position" into the trenches, where we can here the blood, mud and fire. It has presented an AI which for the most part is frightening in it's ability and rolled the whole thing into a good looking package. I've been playing computer wargames for 16 yrs and trust me this game will be looked upon as the "seed" concept for future wargaming. Now all you can do is bitch about the "look" of the tracers and whine about the lack of a "gamey" campaign!!!!???? Don't get me wrong CM is not perfect but if you are going to provide input to make it better at least make it intelligent.

Ok boys and girls this is going to be the last words I wast on this subject. One. Joint military operations are the pinacle of the art of war. They are extremely complex, take weeks/months to plan for and require a tremendous amount of coordination. Two. No online wargame will even begin to scratch the surface of this operation due to lack of training of the participants and time restraints. Inlike CM where a hasty Bn attack can be planned and executed within the scope of the game (ie 2 hrs) the Bliztkrieg of '40 will take years to even begin to do justice. Three. WWII online as described is a wonderful concept but a piece of fluff. Fun yes but resembling nothing (except maybe the pretty tracers) to the world which it is attempting to sell us. I find it very strange that this discussion is even happening on the same forum where the turret speed of the Panther is a topic of heated debate. Conclusion. Buy the game and pay the monthly fee but do not believe for an instant that you are being immersed in anything which resembles the military reality being "touted". No military simulation can be accurate if it doesn't take into account command, control and communication which will be impossible in the scope as presented for WWII online.

Cav-Scout makes a good point but I am afraid the reverse is true. A truly poor outing will be a black mark on what many already call a "fringe community". Hurting development in the long run I encourage and will always cheer for the under-dog but when the entire concept is flawed from the "get go", you are setting the stage for failure, hence "pipe dream". I did look at the website (where do you think I came up with my points?). The concept is unrealistic and flawed. I think a multi-player wargame is an excellent idea but trying to encompass and blend such a ridiculous scope is naive in the extreme and will hurt the credibility of other developers trying to break into the mainstream.

Spray paint your monitor

My My the good Col is one cranky bastard this morning.

Think ahead and drop smoke and HE on the enemy. This should get his head down (Note:not too close or you guys will be eatin dirt too) and give you the ability to break free. On-board (as opposed to outboard..sorry couldn't resist) mortars work best as they bring fire down immediately.

I would like to cast a vote for "pipe dream". A real large scale military opration takes weeks of planning and thousands of well trained men to (hopefully) carry it off. History has shown us that 9 times out of ten the operation still reverts to chaos when the two opposing sides collide. The command and control factor in this game is going to be immpossible. Why? Go and play Counter-Strike or another co-op online multi-player game and see how easy it is to try and coord the actions of 10 people. Now try and get 500 (per side) working together at the same time. I won't even get into the little pre-teen A##Holes who will have nothing better to do than to figure out how to cheat/TK or generally screw things up. Last point, scope. The scope of area, firepower and strategic/operational/tactical employment of everything proposed in this game is ridiculously large. For example, a battleship, a fighter and a GI, c'mon! You shouldn't use these words in the same sentence let alone blend their employment into one game. The scope of employment is totally out of whack. If I could make a constructive suggestion to the folks at Cornered Rat, narrow your scope to something in line with CM. A battalion operation (or even Bde) would provide more than enough interest for 500 people and could be done with some semblance of realistic scope...plus the CO could have anybody who wants to be a prick shot.

And while we are at let's talk about mortars and FT's

I just read the responses to the post by a jr member on reinforced rifle company's and..OK I am beginning to despair. After all of those fine posts about armour, arty blah blah. Let us not forget the mighty SAPPER! Any reinforced company who will most likely be employed in an independent role (based on all the hardware you boys have slapped on this thing) and won't be doing anything if they can't get from A to B or knock out hard points a close range. CM modeling of minefields and obstacles (though better than most war games) is "reaching to be average". An inf squad does not stroll through a minefield with a few casualties, it gets severely f#%^ed up particularly if they smack a bounding mine. Same goes for tanks(70% cas estimate for high density). The use of minefields and AT obstacles was prevelant in WWII and the Germans had it down to an art, hell they invented half the stuff we do today. For all that, we do have the engineer who can "clear" minefields and so should be included into any "reinforced" company. I would also like to see flail tanks but hey maybe in CM2. Finally, I will end my tirade with word of motivation for scenario designers out there. Put trees on the roads to simulate abatis, put AT ditches in with steep slopes and max use of minefields (a standard AT minefield is 400m deep and about 1 km wide with at least an AP row!), rubble buildings to block streets and build your bridges blown. CM as it is right now is a 2/3rds solution (dont get me wrong I love it) but if you want realism, crank up the GREEN SLIME!!!

Three words. "Keep em mounted." On tanks, HTs whatever. Hold em in res and rush em forward when needed. Flamethrowers are optimum in built up areas as they can stay under cover of bldgs and still "fry" enemy strong points. So let the grunts break into town, secure a bridgehead and then push FTs up to cook out hard points. Let's face it the best place for a flamethrower is mounted on a Churchhill (a la Crocodile) but hey we dont always get what we wish for.

Use your Shermans aggressively. Move em in close and around a flank under cover. Team up your tanks by twos onto a single Tiger and try for the shot. Jockeying can also work. Crest a hill and then reverse each Sherman usually gets a single shot off and then gets back under cover. Remember the Tiger is lethal but it can only target one thing at a time so try and hit em hard and at close range with as much as you've got. Get there firstest with the mostest.

I am currently embroiled in just such a situation but I have no armour and my Arty Spotters have "blown their load" or out of sight. What I did is to pull all of my 60mm mortars out of the platoons and group them under a company commander who then acts as spotter. You would be amazed at what three 60s will do, I actually destroyed a light building and supressed a couple of squads in a church. You the run (don't walk) at least two squads with an HQ into the building, preferably from opposite directions. As has been said if you can set up a direct firebase using an MG, bazooka or squads you even increase your chances. As a final aside the grouping of 60s in a company is in fact a real-world tactic as it concentrates the firepower.

First thing is to take a good look at the ground from the enemies point of view. Once you can take a stab at where he will be putting his MGs, squads etc based on dominating ground, enfilade and your objectives, you can develop a "RECCE" plan. The Recce (or reconaisance) plan gives locations which need to be "checked out". How you check them out is a judgement call. Spec fire, a platoon (I wouldn't use anything less except in a SMALL scenario) or recce vehicle can all be used in conjunction with "overwatch" and smoke. The key is determining what will conduct the recce and which route it will take. A covered approach as close to the Area of Interest (or AOI) is best but sometimes the enemy will tie in his flanks making that difficult. Don't be afraid to use smoke and indirect fire in high suspect ground as it will shake up the troops laying the ambush and may cause them to trigger early or if you are really lucky, run away. Hope this helps.