Christian Knudsen

Hi all! I have uploaded my WIP map of Hill 192, west of St Lo., which was assaulted and captured by the 2nd ID on 11 Jul 44, to the repository - available here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3505 This map covers most of the AOR of 2/38 IR, but omits much of the contested area to the north of the hamlet of Cloville. I am currently working on an expanded map that extends the map from the current 1120x 1152 hexes to 1520x 2496 hexes, in order to accommodate the entire 38 Infantry Regiment AOR, including the infamous Kraut corner and extending down past Le Soulaire to the hamlet of La Calvaire on the St. Lo - Bayeux highway, which was the end-day objective for 2 Bn, 38 IR. This is all to support my (now paused for map and scenario making) solo campaign based around Broadsword56's CMBN adaptation of Joe Balkoski's boardgame St. Lo, as outlined in a series of excellent posts which can be easily found in this forum. Unlike Broadsword56, I have not skewed this map to match the board hex orientation, as my Google Earth-fu skills are too weak, but it is still fairly easy to match the board hexes to the ground (although I feel that the location of Cloville on the game board is actually that of the Hotel Siard some 300-350m east of the hamlet. But I digest...) I am close to finishing the expanded map, and once released, I may start to build historical scenarios based on the master map, ranging from the Coy assault on Kraut corner, to the 2 Bn regimental assault on the entire III Bn, 9 FJ Regt. But one step at a time... Let me know what you think - this is my first foray into map building, and I am definitely learning as I go!

We mostly play miniatures stuff, actually - stuff that can be played in an evening or a day. I am fortunate to have a friend that has been collecting and painting minis and various miniatures rules for almost 30 years, with a now astoundingly vast collection. Over the years we have played everything from fantasy to ancients to near and far future combat, in every scale from individual skirmish to brigade. Aside from that, my boardgaming is far too limited by kids and cats to sustain anything over an evening. My copy of Fire in the East went into the box shortly after i got hitched (my wife was unwilling to turn the living room of our apartment at the time over to the Ostfront, for some reason) and has, lamentably, stayed there. Thanks for amplifying your thoughts re suppression - makes more sense than just the hide/ambush combo. As for penalizing experience, I included it more as just another way of penalizing the suppressed troops; my thought was that this would be the most direct way to reduce their ability to hit the enemy! On reflection, however, I think you may have the right of it - after all, suppressive fire must be maintained throughout the assault both on the objective and in depth, as I was taught as a young section commander. Penalizing experience would create a heavy effect without actually having to maintain the suppressive fire. Chris

Fantastic post Broadsword! It really seems like you are conducting what I would call a "narrative" campaign - as interested in creating and telling a story than in playing a game. Your approach (which I fully agree with, BTW) is one that my local group of gaming buddies tries to follow whenever possible. Rules are necessary and great, but play second fiddle to our feeling of "what makes sense". While we usually have one fellow who acts as GM, rules questions are reached by consensus amongst the players based on common sense and experience - playing, not winning, is the objective. Thanks again Chris

So has there been any progress in the campaign? How are you translating the various damage levels from PC to CM? I see that you are using (very limited) hide commands to cover suppression, but how are you treating cohesion and step losses? I would imagine that cohesion (and suppression) would affect leadership, fitness, motivation, and maybe experience more than actual casualties, although cohesion losses do affect PC attack strengths. Step losses, according to the PC rules, represent an approximate 25% loss level, so that would seem to be fairly straightforward. Basically there are a few loss levels (for a 2 step unit) before being eliminated, which we can define by the PC rules as approximately 50% or more losses and broken. 1. Suppressed 2. Cohesion 1 3. Cohesion 1 Suppressed 4. Cohesion 2 5. Cohesion 2 Suppressed 6. Step Loss 7. Step Loss Suppressed 8. Step Loss Cohesion 1 9. Step Loss Cohesion 1 Suppressed 10. Step Loss Cohesion 2 11. Step Loss Cohesion 2 Suppressed Note of course, that any cohesion or suppression hits that a unit has when it takes a step loss are retained, so it is quite possible (in fact more likely than not) to move on this scale non-linearly. I would argue that suppression should affect leadership and experience - suppressed units are less likely to fire, and less effective when doing so. Cohesion should affect fitness, leadership, experience, supply level and motivation to a degree, although some losses should be applied to represent those who are not fighting for whatever reason - off dealing with wounded, conducting battlefield admin and resupply, etc, or just cowering in their holes. But what levels should one use to represent the above PC loss stages? And perhaps more importantly, how do you translate CMRT losses to the PC system? Thanks for the hard work! Chris

They had improved NVG tech since 1918, but the principle remained the same...

Yes, I wondered about that too, especially with the terrain being so open in front of the woods, almost like you could put a KZ right there... The question seems to be how does the game decide which tiles to use in the scenario, and if the answer isn't "the ones the scenario defender can hit with direct fire", then there will be a problem. I understand that battles are to be 2x2 km, but surely LOS of the defending force would influence the choice of which 2x2 square. Perhaps the defender could be given the option, ie if you want to conduct defence in a woods interior (for whatever reason), or have no capability past 3 or 4 hundred metres, and want to avoid 15 turns of approach. Then you could choose to defend the forward square. I wonder whether it is an ownership issue, ie. the 2 bns "owned" that open terrain square just by virtue of moving into it without initiating a battle, which seems to be defined almost as a close assault. This could be fixed by giving units with any longer range capability a 1 square standoff distance in open terrain. I also wonder if we will be able to detach units ie. sections or half sections to 'hold' a piece of ground as a tripwire force, which would trigger the battle in the KZ square and then allow the tripwire to fall back to the main position. I wonder what this would do to the attacking AI... But make no mistake, I am still extremely excited.

Ok, I can no longer hold back. I have been eagerly awaiting this game ever since they did the initial announcement, almost three years ago. I have lurked through initial optimism, near-endless debate about maps and battle size, demand for CMBB update, a long development, forum 'speculation' about said long development, and finally concerns about Vista compatibility. Through it all I have remained cautiously optimistic, first that CMC would be a good game, especially vs the computer, and second that it would come to pass at all. Then the AAR. This game looks awesome. The scenario looked good, the maps looked decent, and the operational CMC part looked detailed and capable of doing a lot. I can well imagine happily conducting a single divisional size game for months on end. When (it's ready, I know...) is this game coming out? The game looks fantastic. The scenarios that the community alone comes up with are going to be great. I am throwing caution to the winds, and waiting eagerly.

D'oh Canadanish, actually, so no... Thanks anyways! BTW, does anyone know what happened to all those great Grossdeutschland mods that used to be on cmmods? I recall the GD early war inf mod and a great flag set among others.

Hi there! I just got back into Robo's Campaign, and am starting up a '41 onward campaign. I am interested in doing an AAR for the campaign. I am not sure whether for private for public consumption, as I tend to not always follow through with these things, but at any rate I was wondering if anyone has any examples of a standard combat report format that was used at the company / battalion level. Not a situation report, but a more detailed sort of thing. Any ideas?

Yes, but it seems that this would require a complete reworking of how the AI works in CMBB, and I think it highly unlikely that we will see that, given BF's current Schwerpunkt in CMSF. This is why I think we need to help come up with ideas that feature absolutely minimal changes to CMBB. Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to see CMBB reworked to CMAK standards and then made totally complementary to a perfectly realistic CMC. But while CMC will rock, I have a nagging feeling that we won't be seeing that major a reworking of CMBB. (Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong.) As for double-defenders, why even fight a battle? I would hope that it will be possible to have opposing troops in the same square without a battle being triggered - otherwise it will be too easy to attrit the AI - gain a quick lodgement in a square, take one flag, then sit back, play defense, and take advantage of those stupid AI tricks we all know and love...

True enough. I would not want the setting of a loss level to overly dictate how I play in CMCTAC. However, I would concede it as realistic if certain loss levels led to action from higher - I needed your batallion combat-effective more than I needed that junction, for example. The problem returns, however, to how to effectively handle AI defense and counterattack without having every battle degenerate into a meeting engagement. Clearly the flags that are owned by the attacker have to be negated somehow within the context of CMBB. This is easy enough to do*, but raises the question of how to handle a battle in which one force already in the square attacks, and then an enemy force launches an attack into the square later in the turn, thus in CMCTAC arriving as reinforcements. If you have set the first force as the attacker without flags, what does the new AI force attack? Of course, you could stop the first battle when the reinforcements show up, padlock and freeze everything, and launch a new battle that is in effect a meeting engagement, but that would be far too easy*... * easy for me to conceptualize and talk about, that is. Hopefully it will be easy to program, too.** ** but probably not.

And this is what I would expect when dealing with the auto-resolve feature. For it to work in CMCTAC, however, it would need an 'ignore losses' button, so that in an emergency you could take that important flag despite going over the casualty limit. To make things more interesting, I think that the percentage levels should not be spelled out, but instead be largely based on troop quality and commander traits. "Heavy" losses for a poorly led Luftwaffe infantry company and "Heavy" losses for an aggressively led SS Panzergrenadier company would likely be different. I still think that for this to be effective in terms of the AI counterattacking as a defender without flags, the 'ignore losses' button can only be accessible if one or both of the defender flags is either attacker owned or unowned - In other words only if the attack is making good progress. Either that or make it totally the players choice. You know (or don't) that the enemy has recieved major reinforcements, and that your attacking forces may be in danger. At the appropriate point, the game asks you the following: You are approaching an unacceptable level of losses. Do you wish to continue the attack? If you say no, your forces are withdrawn to an adjacent friendly square, maybe with some random losses that take place during the withdrawal. If yes, then you are locked in for the remainder of the 60 minute battle - for better or worse.

Well, I think the bounceback idea would work the best - not the perfect compromise, by any means, but one that would not hurt the game too bad. Make the casualty level needed to trigger a withdrawal dependant on an attack setting in CMC - probe, attack, assault, as well as ratings for the formation commander. Besides, this would lead to some fairly exciting and fluid attack/counterattack scenarios, in which an attacking force tries to take part of a square, is ejected by a sudden reinforcement, and jumps back right in the very next turn. Look at it as a quick reorganisation, if you will. Another possibility is to create pointless flags for the attacker. Leave flags that have no point value so that if the attacker loses them, they lose the quadrant, but the AI isn't trying to rush after them. Of course, the AI isn't going to be inclined to go anywhere near them, either... Oh well. I have a dream (a pipe-dream, admittedly), that BF will annoumce that they are releasing CMC with a reworked, patched up to CMAK CMBB. But if wishes were fishes, I guess we'd all be swimming.

Oh crap - I never even thought about the split map defender scenario. I think that the only way around this one will be to eliminate the attacker's flags - ie have a battle in which the only flags on the map are on the defender's territory. The downside to this is that it will in essence be impossible to lose ground so long as you are attacking - If the defender is reinforced in mid battle and takes a quadrant back, this will be very hard to portray in CMC, short of cheating by not allowing the reinforcements on until the following 60 minute turn. Another workaround would be a variant on the old 'bounceback' style rules, whereby if the attacker captures none of the defender's terrritory and losses are above a certain threshold, the attacker is forced to withdraw to an adjacent square. Basically, the only way in which all four flags will be on a map is if the defender holds the entire square, or if both sides in or moving into a square attack; ie. a meeting engagement.

Ok Peter, I decided to give it a shot. I built a standard (so we think) CMC Map, 2000m x 2000m, 4 quadrant victory flags, farmland, small (normal) hills, light cover. Gave the defending Germans the west half of the map, a fortified batallion with armour and arty support. As well a 5000 pt bonus. The whole kit and kaboodle, in other words (but set up quick and stupid - no Observation Posts or forward defenses prior to Main Line of Resistance). Russians got a recce platoon and some scout cars. Gave them a 250m strip on the east side to set up in, as well as an exit zone running the whole east side of the map. Idea is, can't win, don't try, run away. What ended up happening (Played without FOW) is that the Russian milled around trying to take both flags, and largely got shot to smithereens, about 60% casualties. Considering that most of the Germans never actually fired due to the 1000m plus engagement range, these are pretty ridiculous losses. One might argue that the AI would handle things differently if fighting at night, or with extreme FOW, but I would tend to think not. If I were to try it again, I might shift the handicap so that the Russians can't lose. I suspect that this might not make a difference in how the AI reacts, however, as the 1200 points of flags too seriously outweigh the point benefits of exiting. What is needed is the ability to vary the exit points award. Say that each unit is given 100 times its point value for withdrawing, thus outpointing the flags. Big problem with this though. Say the AI is awarded 2000 points for withdrawing its troops in the above situation, assuming that no point handicap is awarded for either side. What will happen is that the game will hand the Russians a minor victory, (2000pts vs 1200pts) with whatever that implies. I hardly think it rational to be able to dislodge a dug in batallion by successfully recceing it with a single platoon. Even then, the AI will likely try for an even bigger victory by trying to grab at least some of the flags. At any rate, I think that as far as recce goes, CMC would be better served by abstracting it. Make small recce units hard to detect in CMCOP. Allow them to stealthily move stationary to enemy units and gradually gain CMCOP info on them, thus abstracting the whole patrolling process. In terms of armoured recce, allow it to gain broad info quickly from adjacent squares, but make it much less stealthy - both sides get info, while the armoured recce can fulfill its role of finding and screening large enemy concentrations. Similarly, I think that large force disparities should be handled abstractly. Let's say that our German Batallion is being observed in CMCOP by our Russian recce platoon. Suddenly, the Batallion lurches forward into the very 2x2 km square solely occupied by our recce gods. Yikes! In CMBB (barring changes), this would mean the certain destruction of the Russians. In this case I would understand and appreciate if the CMC engine withdrew the recce platoon to an adjacent friendly square, or even left it in place and have it pop up in the german rear after the Batallion passes. Much more fun and quite possibly more realistic too. The exception would be when a ridiculously smaller force is out of movement, or is being pursued by a quite faster force, in which case the annihilation of the smaller unit would be justified, and we can live with quirky AI tactics because they are doomed anyways. Anyways, while this test has confirmed limitations in the current CMBB engine as regards to CMC situations, I hope that it will not prove difficult to build workarounds into the CMC engine.

It surprises me that this post hasn't generated more commentary, as it points to a major potential problem with single-player CMC - how to make the CMBB AI deal with an extra level of operational requirement. Nonchalantly, I, with no concept of how to program anything more complicated than a VCR, wonder if a system similar to that in ROQC might work, in which every CMBB battle takes place in a simple operational framework that weighs victory points. Another possibility is to utilize the handicap system - does anyone know how the AI acts when confronted with an insurmountable points handicap? I suspect that another answer will be to abstract recce for the computer player - It will be enough for it to move recce assets near to human positions in CMCOP for the computer to aquire intel. I would be happy with this, for several reasons. First, a good recce isn't seen by the enemy anyways, and second, it will avoid "recce rushes" like John_d mentions. As regards the force incompatibility and retreat battles, I trust that Hunter and the rest of the gang will be able to implement some system whereby depending on the commander, intelligence, et al, the enemy will conduct an exit battle to its own friendly map edge(s). With regards to the other situations that John_d mentions (infiltration and ambush), I think that CMC will ned a powerful internal setup zones editor - like with the capability to make an ambush setup zone complete with flag(s) to anchor the ambush force... However, despite the difficulties raised here, I remain supremely confident that CMC will arrive and be a great game for single player play (I KNOW it will be great for MP). Incidentally, I wonder how many of mankind's greatest thoughts and inspirations have come while on the potty? There must be a self help movement to inspire somewhere in here. I can just see the infomercial... P.S. - Sgt Kelly, I wish I had time to play Onion Wars. Please keep it going, and in six years when both my kids are old enough to go to school, I'll be there with bells on.

My co-worker has one of those self-powered flashlights, and they are really neat - A relatively strong LED that will shine with only a few shakes. They are too loud, however, to pass the rattle test. The actual movement is quiet, but they make a good thump hitting the ends of the unit. I have not tried to see how long they hold a charge, however. Could you shake the crap out of one, then immobilise the moving part, then turn it on and have power hours later? I'll have to ask my friend. The other thing is that while it might be good for flashlights, I can't see the tech being used for other battery powered things that armies use - NVGs, Rangefinding Binos, Radios, etc. I can at least make a joke about shaking the bejeesus out of a flashlight, but that joke probably wouldn't translate around shaking a pair of NVGs, or a manpack radio.

And, of course, their fanatical devotion to the pope. Speaking of which, do you think the Killer Joke will have been perfected for Space Lobsters of Doom?

Jason, I find your intransigence intriguing - I do not doubt or contradict your basic point that to not fully mobilize early or to prepare only for the best outcome was folly of the highest order (And a damn good thing for all of us, too!). Yet I wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to those who attempt to discover a rationality behind Hitler's actions. I think that to dismiss Hitler as a nutcase, etc., while not too far off base in terms of labelling, is incorrect. Was Hitler a nutcase? You bet. Should that lead us to stop attempting to attempting to figure out his internal rationales and motivations? No. I do not believe that Hitler was so far gone as a nutcase that he was operating without an internal rationale or logic system, however skewed. I don't think that suggesting possible contributing factors to stupid decisions subtracts from the validity of your original point, after all. I doubt anyone here thinks that Hitler was correct in giving primacy to societal comforts over war production before 1943-44; but to discount the idea that potential unrest and resistance to the war was a worry for the Nazis and contributed to the decision seems to limit a more developed understanding of why the decision was made. Admittedly this 'why' falls outside the scope of the original question, but that is still no reason not to try and answer it.

Heh heh. I thought the 110 scenario was tough enough without messing with the facing - If you haven't tried the others yet, you may be in for more frustration. If you've read over all many pages of the original training scenario thread, you will have gathered where I had problems, if not... 312 and 315 took a couple of tries for me, as well as the 300 AT defence vs Tigers. The toughest for me were 200 and 400. These, however, proved to be easier once JasonC let me in on the trick for winning them. I still haven't beat 401 or 402, more for lack of trying than anything else. On the other hand, I dusted off my Soviet ROQC game, featuring a supported Guards Mech company currently in Feb 42, just to see whether the tricks I'd learned made me more effective in the attack (admittedly vs the very stupid AI), and I found that these scenarios have made a huge difference. My infantry handling is so much better now, especially as regards integrating supporting arms. I still have a way to go, but these scenarios have helped a lot. I think that these scenarios would benefit from a briefing that includes a spoiler how-to on the second page. So for instance 110 would describe the basic scenario on page 1, and then on page 2 would outline how to go about achieving the objective - ie. covered approach, proper interval, need to stay in command radius, platoon advance drills, need to achieve spotting range, etc. Much of this could be collated from JasonC's and others' posts...

Well, I know that I was blown away by the speed, pleasantness, etc. shown by Ed at Battlefront sales. Yet another reason why I can't say enough about Battlefront, and why I will continue to support them as my pocketbook, job, and growing family allow.

I had the exact same thing happen to me recently - horror! If you bought yours from Battlefront, email sales@battlefront.com with your purchase info (name, credit card info, mailing address, approx. date of purchase), along with any updates to above, and they will send you a replacement CD for a modest price (US$10.00, for me in Canada, including shipping). Of course, I am not too sure on their policies regarding shipping to Europe, or what happens if you bought from CDV, so I hope I have not raised your hopes falsely...

OK, finally, after three previous attempts, I got a major victory at 400. Actually having the 76's play a role was the crucial difference. The one totally destroyed the objective building along with the HMG in it, which made quite a difference early, then took out both tanks quite handily. The other took out the bunker and then kept enough fire on the gun woodline to keep things interesting. With the bunker and the center HMG gone (and the support weapons hammering the two right HMGs), I was able to advance much more easily in the center. I used platoon/company fires to suppress the hell out of the forward german platoon, which put up a bit more stiff of a resistance than last time. With the +2 morale HQ, the squads were occasionally bouncing back from even two Maxims area firing at them, but I took my time and switched a platoon onto whatever poked its head up, and eventually the lead platoon broke and took off. This allowed me to advance across the wire, and after some reorganisation fully engage and destroy the center squads and coy HQ. I was less satisfied with my use of support weapons in the center and left this time - unfortunately 2 of my mortars (1 82mm, 1 50mm) got KOed by enemy arty. Speaking of which, the enemy arty was made much less effective by my use of the one unit per covered tile rule, which makes a great amount of sense now... Anyways, thanks again JasonC for your scenarios and your advice. On to 401 and 402!

Buggeration and Hell! I have to go back to work for a week or so, and won't be back until Boxing Day. Anyone who wants to donate a capable laptop so I can play CM while away but not actually working is free to do so. Send me an Email and we'll arrange details. in fact, if anyone wants to pay me to play CM full-time, I am also open to that. It'll be relatively cheap, I figure we can get by on $Cdn 35,000 a year or so. This used to be about $US 0.72, but since the Canadian economic surge has inflated to about $US 5.26, honest. Any takers? At any rate, thanks for the response, JasonC. It is a relief to know that I am both in a sense getting it and at least somewhat aware of where my failures lie, even if not neccessarily how to fix them. I think that I really need to work on my terrain appreciation. Is there anywhere that has a listing of the standard LOS blocking effects? ie. how far will scattered trees block? How far pines, how far brush, etc? This would be helpful, or I guess I could just attempt to try and take more notice of it in-game... As well, what is a safe 'packing' distance for infantry in various cover? You mention one squad or det per tile, but have mentioned 14m in cover as a guideline to avoid neighbour suppression elsewhere. Does the type of cover make a difference for this? The info regarding movement rates is solid gold as well - I had not realised that it was so easy, mathematically. For infantry, what are the ratios vs move for other types? ie. how much faster is run, et al. I realise through searching the board that there may not be readily available answers to these technical questions, so failing these I guess I am just going to have to develop a feel for it on my own time. Damn, I have to get a job where I actually live. See above if anyone reading this has excess cash and/or a taste for philanthropy. I felt that I used my arty and heavy weapons well last time, although I was rapidly running out of support ammo by the end. The question I have is what happens when your squads run out of ammo? Clearly the answer seems to be insert the reserve platoons, but then you run into a couple of problems, one being that you have to bunch to do a passage of lines, and two that your FP is going to be reduced while this passage is going on. This is where I get a bit confused. You talk about not pushing forward until conditions are good to do so, but about running out of ammo while you are waiting? I admit that it would make a big difference to take out the Bunker earlier, and use HE to punish the objective HMG, but... Wait a minute, I just answered my own question, didn't I? Ok. At any rate, I won't get a real chance to try this out until after Xmas, so here's hoping that all who read this have a great and safe holiday season. Chris.

Managed a draw for 400 for the third time through. I made a few changes to the setup, mainly moving the 76s to the left side in order to give them shots at the bunker and moving the infantry and especially the support platoons up close to the start line. The advance went well, with most of my forward platoons up to the level of the wire obstacles with only minimal interference from the HMGs by the time the arty started in turn 8. I tried grouping the 122s in the center as suggested, and this worked well. Unlike the 2nd try, however, I did not waste support fire from distance at the HMGs, preferring to move the support platoons up to the 250m range suggested. Why then, did I only get a draw, when things were going well? 1. Again, I was only able to get the 76s involved minimally, although one was able to take out the MG bunker around turn 24 or so. I think I am missing something with this. JasonC, you describe being able to get the 76s into decent overwatch positions by turn 15 or so. How? This time I tried to do it on the left, and the movement was painfully slow, even without interference. I was able to get them up to about the level of the mined woods, but they were never able to see the tanks, and put out no real fire in support of the infantry. Perhaps they would be better utilised on the right, but one would think they are better used supporting the centre. 2. I was basically unable to advance in the open at all once past the level of the wire. This was mostly true on the right, especially out of the woods. Very true on the left, where I had skirted two platoons plus support to the left of the mined woods. I was able to smash up the platoon minus on the left, but was unable thanks to the center HMG and the MG bunker, to get anywhere close to the woods. I was eventually able to get in there by moving a reserve platoon through the covered low ground (hmmmm...), but by the time the left platoon position was destroyed the tanks had shown up, which halted my attempt to roll up the center. In the center itself, A brutal 105 barrage caught the better part of a company just about to advance on the largely trashed center position. It took me about 5 minutes to rally and reform, and when I was able to resume the advance, the rattled troops had no staying power whatsoever; while I was able to get them forward, they basically ended up broken and routed just shy of the village center. Aside from the left, the real success was in the center right, where I was able to get 2 1/2 platoons into the scattered woods and light buildings to the front right of the large building, which was by that time merrily ablaze. They were not able, however, to withstand the withering fire from the last defenders in the center (basically the coy cmdr and the rallied remnants of the center position) and from the right position. At least not and get close to the flag by turn 35, anyways... 3. My inability to suppress/destroy the right position. (See above). I put 2 support platoons on the right, and all that fire, delivered from inside 200m, with a full 120mm barrage, was unable to destroy the enemy ability to cover the open ground. I was able to get two squads from the center right into the woodline, but they panicked and were killed. This brings up the subject of bunching, and of using reserves in sufficient time. I find that it is difficult to avoid bunching platoons - Basically there is only enough space and cover to safely advance a few platoons at a time, especially with the wire, so others are less effective. Anyways, I think I will put this one on the back burner and see what I can do with 401 and 402, and then come back to it.