c3k

Gents, Awhile back we had several discussions regarding the relative merits of different small arms. Just this evening I read another thread about armor piercing ammo and its effectiveness against personnel. That got me thinking. I'd like to see a revised treatment of firepower and cover in the new engine. To expand on that statement, I'll first explain how I _think_ firepower works now: every weapon has a "blast" rating or a "firepower" rating. Their effects on a target are identical, given equal ratings. E.g., a 100 point blast is the same as 100 firepower, whether produced by SMG's or rifles. (There is some solid anecdotal evidence that certain firepowers are tweaked a bit - a .50 cal. MG with 50 firepower will produce more of a morale hit than 50 firepower from a rifle unit.)If a target is in, say, a heavy building, all firepower effects are reduced equally. Now, this is a great game, but I think that this firepower model can be improved. Namely, the energy of the rounds needs to be taken into account. Should a tile of woods block a .50 round as well as it blocks a 9mm parabellum? Of course not. That's why the kinetic energy of the rounds needs to be tracked and used. Every piece of cover needs to be given a rating. Call it an equivalent armor rating. Whatever. Use an equivalence of dried #2 pine or homogenous steel - it doesn't matter. Whatever the reference, all cover needs to be rated to that datum. For example, a light building might get 4" of pine (or 2mm of steel - whatever). Every round fired has to penetrate that cover to be effective. Some will do so magnificently. Others will tumble to the floor, spent. This approach would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different weapons. Sure, SMG's are great - if you're close and have little cover. But rifles and heavy machineguns will shred whole villages. Need to clear out that house? Set up a .50 and burn some rounds. This same approach of rating cover could apply to bunkers and pillboxes. Make them just like buildings, but with a limited entry. Any unit inside gains a certain amount of cover. With my use of cover ratings, any unit which is in concealment may get hit with a lot of firepower. The "Area Target" command could become quite useful. As well, infantry in foxholes would get pulverized by AP rounds. Just my thoughts. Thanks, Ken

MikeyD, Thanks for the comment. However, the 842 only referred to the Panther D variant. I put all the production numbers for each of the D, A, and G in different parts of my post. The total Panther production figures come to about 6,000. Of course, I've managed to lead about twice that number to their destruction! Ken

Hi, I've got a copy of Jentz' "Germany's Panther Tank". Looking at the Panther D in all its minutiae, indeed, it had a bow MG34. Although, it wasn't a fixed mount. It had a "Letterbox" opening. An open port in the glacis. The radio operator, who sat at the right front corner of the hull, had a rectangular opening in the glacis. It appears to be about 6" wide by about 12" tall. Those are VERY rough approximations derived by scaling it to personnel near the opening in various pictures. The opening is hinged on the top and swings up and out. The radio operator was expected to manually position his MG34 through this opening and use it. There is NO indication that, amongst the MANY production changes introduced, the bow MG port was ever modified or deleted in any of the 842 Panther D produced. Initial Ausf. A production (which followed Ausf. D - go figure!) used the same drawings for the chassis. The main improvements were turret-based. It wasn't until late Novermber/early December 1943 that the ball mount (Kugleblende) for the hull machinegun was introduced. Looking through the production tables, 2,200 total Ausf A. were produced. Of that, about 520 were produced PRIOR to the Kugelblende being introduced. (That's a rough estimate.) Therefore, about 1,700 of the 2,200 Ausf A had the ball mount. The rest were produced with the Ausf. D "letterbox" machinegun port. Just for the sake of completeness, the Ausf. G basically kept the Ausf. A turret but made many chassis modifications. It retained the ball mount. Total production of Ausf. G seems to be 2,953 vehicles. So, initially the Ausf. D came along. They decided to modify the turret and called it the Ausf. A. Then they decided the new turret design was good, but they needed to modify the hull, presto!, along came the Ausf. G. Regards, Ken

Gents, As to this whole 6 battalion division thing. OF COURSE a 6 battalion division is not as capable as a 9 battalion division. Now, the Germans needed to reduce their divisions to 6 battalions. Don't get in a snit about how or why or whether that was a good decision. That's what they did. The next problem was how to organize them. The previous formations had 9 battalions. To ease manpower shortages and create new divisions, it'd be easier to just take a singly regiment away from each of 2 divisions and use these as the backbone of a new division. Just add some divisional support elements. Presto! It's quick, it's easy, and it didn't work. They tried. Precisely because each of the divisions only had 2 main maneuver elements/support echelons: the regiment. The divisions which had 6 battalions in 2 regiments didn't hold up as well as the 6 battalion THREE regiment divisions. The reason was the aforementioned ratio of supporting arms for each rifleman. So, divisions of 3 regiments each of 2 battalions was better than those of 2 regiments each of 3 battalions. Please carry on. Ken

Tankersley, Thanks! Just got the download. Now, I need to find some maps........ Ken

I concur. Between this - saving troops at the end of a battle - and saving maps, a great campaign can be created. By utilizing the editor function with saved troops, you can adjust ammo levels, perhaps even elevate HQ stats. Ken

Yes, I noticed the infantry HQ can put a vehicle "in command". Having not rigorously tested this (in fact, not testing it at all), it seems as if the vehicle needs to be un-buttoned for this to work. It could be that in the cases I saw, the buttoned up tanks were just too far away. <shrug> Regardless, doesn't it seem bizarre that the next highest ranking individual would not take charge? I.e., the others would defer to his leadership? (An argument can be made that HQ tanks were specialized. Indeed, early war HQ tanks had their main armament removed to make room for the needed radio sets. This is not simulated. Therefore, ANY tank of the platoon should be able to take over.) Just my idea for the next iteration of this game. The same "step up and take charge" philosophy could apply to infantry platoons who lose their HQ in a battle. Take some guys away from the squads or other HQ's and give the leaderless platoon a non-bonused HQ. Or use them to lead the human wave. Ken

Dan5681, The 15th Guards Rifle Division was formed from the 136th Rifle Division on 16FEB42. Since I live Stateside, I'll have to pass on any chance on the book. Regards, Ken

Gents, I'm in the midst of an operation. I have several German tank platoons and the Russians have Sturmoviks. We all know how this'll end. Yep, with their latest load-out of HARM's, the Il-2's have enerringly ferreted out, located, targeted and destroyed my HQ tanks. Just like it really happened. Okay, great. That battle ends. The next battle begins. In between, reinforcements appear, casualties are evacuated, squads are rearranged if they took too many casualties, ammo is resupplied, units get to relocate. The usual military stuff during a pause in a battle. BUT NO NEW HQ TANK STEPS UP!! Chain of command? Bah. This is what must've happened: "Hey, Hans!" "Ja, Franz?" "Did you see how Luetnent Jurgen's tank was destroyed?" "Ja, Franz. Many flames. Much fire. Bad for Jurgen." "Well, Hans, one of us needs to be in charge." "Ja, Franz. I say YOU be in charge." "No, Hans. It would be best for me if YOU took over." Instead, they agree to run around like a headless mob for the rest of the operation. C'mon. How about the lowest numbered vehicle in a platoon gets the HQ moniker with no command or morale bonus? The military is based on the concept of chain of command with lower ranks stepping up when needed to take command. Would a platoon sergeant NOT take charge of a platoon when the LT goes down? Same thing with tanks, especially given a pause in the fighting. Thanks, Ken

Eichenbaum, First, this campaign idea is very good and your execution of it has been well done. I have some comments regarding A1. *** SPOILERS *** * * * * * * * * * The following are meant in the manner of constructive criticism. Overall, I have enjoyed the first operation. Thank you for setting it up. I have obtained the access code for the next operation after completing 2 battles. I see no contact point on your website to which I can address an email containing that information. (I do not wish to join yet another internet forum with all the attendant codes, passwords, usernames, eula's, etc.) A simply "email eichenbaum" button on the home page would be great. In both battles I had encircled the Soviets in a tight pocket. Then the battle ended. The pockets remained as non-Axis setup zones. I set my forces up for the crushing destruction of the many trapped Soviet infantry squads and tanks. Nothing there. This is a combination of issues with the CMBB operation engine and your design choices (and my speed of play). I think tweaking the battle lengths a little longer would be a good idea. My guess would be a 25+ turn length. (Keep the variable ending.) This increase would also allow the German to actually use some offboard artillery in an on-call situation. As it is now, the battle will end before most, if not all, artillery missions can be completed. (Unless they are preplanned.) Other units would also benefit from more time to get in position to be useful. (Towed guns, etc.) In battle 2, my forces have been hit hard by Soviet airpower. In fact, my ONLY vehicular losses have been due to the IL-2's. I have kept them dispersed and tight against woods and in scattered trees in an effort to shield them. In other words, I have kept anti-air tactics in mind throughout my advance. I may have just had bad luck. I would either reduce the Soviet air support or increase the German FlaK defense. (My quad 20 has managed to knock down one IL-2.) These are mostly minor gripes and are offered as such. Again, this is an original idea exploiting the strengths and weaknesses of the CMBB engine and I think you've done a great job. Thank you, Ken

Just thought I'd chime in a merry "woo-hoo"! This looks to be fun. Thanks for the HUGE effort. I'll let you know how I do. Ken

Gordon, Yes, very good to see you're still here! A hearty "Thank You" for all the work you've done for us. Thanks, Ken

I can't speak on the other scenarios, but I did play "A Morning at the Zoo" vs. the AI. I was the attacking Germans. I won. Some sort of decent victory - not "Total", but there weren't many, if any, good order Russkis left. The time was a tough constraint. I did get a lucky break here or there. I thought it a very good scenario. Well balanced. Ken IMHO, YMMV, IIRC, ETC

Thanks!! Ken

Gents, I studied Russian for a year. I remember a smattering of words and phrases. The ones most clearly remembered are "I don't know" and "I don't understand". That's because I used those two phrases to answer 90% of the questions asked of me. That was over 10 years ago. My Russian linguistic abilities have not improved over time. My German is limited to asking for basic directions, ordering beer, and trying not to go for scenic strolls through minefield belts. I have learned many nouns through reading many TO&E tables. None of this helps me understand my poor Landser. I love the immersion of the natural languages. That adds to the game. I hate that I have no friggin' clue what they're saying. That detracts from the game. A mod which translates it would be great!! (For those who point out that written translations are available, that is of no help. It assumes I could hear something, transcribe it mentally to a written equivalent, then find it in the translation listing. I certainly wouldn't be doing that in the midst of a game, would you?) Like any mod, once I've learned that "Hilfe (?)" means, "Arrggghhh, I've been hit!", I can go back to the normal WAV files. Mod-in, Mod-out. A mod is a mod. You German, Finnish, Russian, Hungarian, et al., speakers, I envy your ability to know what's happening. If YOU don't want the mod, well, don't download it, don't use it. If someone offered a zebra-striped Panther mod, would you ignore it? Or go on a crusade deriding it and try to quash it? Probably not. This idea of a language mod is the same. Choice is a good thing. Don't be so arrogant as to limit my choice in how I enjoy this game. Thank you, Ken

Shift-V is great. Another solution is to draw a box around the vehicle. Any still usable units will be selected. Ken

Gents, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel the need for a test coming over me. Something involving, oh, a regiment of elite Soviet infantry, some minefields, and a commander with who is stubborn, pig-headed, determined, and, of course, ruthless (and curious!). I'll post results in a few days. If the minefield depletes, that'll be a new piece of info. (BTW, the crew involved in my question was 2 men strong, stumbled into the minefield, had 1 man left. No one else ever touched the minefield.) Ken

Gents, Thank you for your thoughts. I feel the need for a test coming over me. Something involving, oh, a regiment of elite Soviet infantry, some minefields, and a commander with who is stubborn, pig-headed, determined, and, of course, ruthless (and curious!). I'll post results in a few days. If the minefield depletes, that'll be a new piece of info. (BTW, the crew involved in my question was 2 men strong, stumbled into the minefield, had 1 man left. No one else ever touched the minefield.) Ken

Jaochim, Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of the ability to clear minefields with explosives. That was not the case in this instance. A crew staggered into the minefield, took a casualty, stayed there and the minefield disappeared a few turns later. The crew stayed there through the rest of the game. Viewing the map at the end of the game showed that there was no minefield there. Regards, Ken

Jaochim, Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of the ability to clear minefields with explosives. That was not the case in this instance. A crew staggered into the minefield, took a casualty, stayed there and the minefield disappeared a few turns later. The crew stayed there through the rest of the game. Viewing the map at the end of the game showed that there was no minefield there. Regards, Ken

Gents, I just played an operation, 21st Army Counterattacks (by Andreas Biermann - nice). In it, I discovered an enemy anti-personnel minefield by my usual method. Sorry men. Okay, the game puts a big "Achtung Minen" sign there. No one moves into that area - again. See, their welfare is my highest priority. After a few turns the mine sign goes away. Poof. End of game: There is no minefield there!! I played vs. the AI with Extreme FOW. I see two possibilities: due to EFOW, there never was a minefield present; or somehow the minefield got "used up" in an attack. I've never seen a minefield, once ID'd, be revealed as a mistaken ID. I've also never seen a minefield get depleted to the point of disappearing. (If it can be used up, time to use the "Human Wave" a bit more!!) Anyone have any ideas as to what could have happened? Thanks, Ken (P.S., saved game files available showing minefield and its absence.)

Gents, I just played an operation, 21st Army Counterattacks (by Andreas Biermann - nice). In it, I discovered an enemy anti-personnel minefield by my usual method. Sorry men. Okay, the game puts a big "Achtung Minen" sign there. No one moves into that area - again. See, their welfare is my highest priority. After a few turns the mine sign goes away. Poof. End of game: There is no minefield there!! I played vs. the AI with Extreme FOW. I see two possibilities: due to EFOW, there never was a minefield present; or somehow the minefield got "used up" in an attack. I've never seen a minefield, once ID'd, be revealed as a mistaken ID. I've also never seen a minefield get depleted to the point of disappearing. (If it can be used up, time to use the "Human Wave" a bit more!!) Anyone have any ideas as to what could have happened? Thanks, Ken (P.S., saved game files available showing minefield and its absence.)

Ligur, That was great!! (Even with my 56k modem.) Now, if BFC will include that, with full color pictures, in their next manual..... Regards, Ken

Oh, my. It seems my beautiful thread is in danger of morphing into an examination of the differences between blast and firepower effects. To reititerate, I was, and am, curious about the differences in effect between different sources of FIREPOWER. (Although, admittedly, I learned something interesting from JasonC's post. Thank you.) I ran a simple test. I created 4 separate firelines. The target end had a small heavy building surrounded by water. (Every man's house a castle - with a moat!) In each building I placed a German squad with zero ammo. Then I placed the following units in the firing lanes: A Soviet '41 rifle platoon; an SMG platoon; a 14.5mm HMG; a 37mm AA gun (with HE ammo to zero - nothing but 200 rounds of AP - big bullets!). I positioned each unit at a range such that they could put approximately 50 firepower on target. For the rifle platoon, I split each squad and put the LMG section out of sight. That way only Mosin-Nagants and SVT's were firing. The 37mm AA gun did not have a firepower rating. Again, it only had AP rounds. After running the test a few times, I could not see any immediately apparent differences between effects. I _MAY_ have noted an increased morale effect on the target by the 14.5, but I'm not convinced of that. The 37mm AA did have a good effect, but, again, nothing that could not be within tolerance for random results. I would've thought that there should be a decreasing effectiveness, in order; 37mm AA, 14.5mm, rifle platoon, SMG platoon. If anyone wants a copy of the scenario and would like to run tests and apply some sort of analysis to the results, please email me at the address in my profile. Ken

SFJaykey, I just browsed through the editor and, indeed, I was wrong. You can assign a positive or negative point bonus to the Axis side to make up for an otherwise unbalanced situation, but only in a Battle. For an Operation, it would have to be balanced by design. Thinking of that, flag placement, reinforcement schedule, terrain, defensive positions, TRP's etc, seem to be the best way of going. I'll be looking forward to it. Good luck, Ken