Stacheldraht

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now I agree that it wouldn't be too hard for them to incapacitate the crew ("Abandoned"), but actually rendering the HT inoperable ("Knocked Out") would probably take a bit of time and effort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a grenade tossed into the HT towards the front crew area would presumably render the vehicle undriveable, let alone kill the two or three crew members. Check out some overhead or interior pictures of HT's, and you'll see how fragile and exposed they are.

How about dummy minefields? I know the Germans used them in the West a lot, at least. They could be available for a nominal QB point cost and just look like standard anti-personnel mine warning signs, minus any mines. That could very well scare off troops that come in contact with the sign.

How about dummy minefields? I know the Germans used them in the West a lot, at least. They could be available for a nominal QB point cost and just look like standard anti-personnel mine warning signs, minus any mines. That could very well scare off troops that come in contact with the sign.

One effective way to use AFV's is not to bring them into the cities, but to leave them at the outskirts (after that area has been cleared/secured by infantry, of course), pointing down lanes between buildings. That will provide excellent cover fire for advancing infantry. If needed, they can move forward down the lanes/roads, but only with accompanying infantry scouting each building on each side, for reasons noted in the above post. Bringing any vehicle directly into a city is always a very dangerous game.

Like CMBO. Check out the BTS interview here: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2775850,00.html They say it will stay the same.

Here's a good site for Gebirgsjäger info that may be of use to you all: http://www.gebirgsjaeger.4mg.com/ A useful book is James Lucas' Alpine Elite (Jane's, 1980).

According to the manual, when troops are panicked, "The player loses control over the unit as self-preservation becomes first priority. Panicked units uusually try to run away from danger." Interestingly, in numerous accounts and psychological studies of combat, you read of training taking over during stress or panic situations, with soldiers acting in a machine-like manner, carrying out things they've practiced hundreds or thousands of time. That's of course what the military intentionally tries to inculcate. It seems in CM that this relates directly to unit experience level, where the more experienced troops have had more training and field experience and are more likely to have strongly ingrained "habits" that keep them acting in a militarily wise way while under fire. From that perspective, the foolish sorts of panic mentioned in this thread seem more probable when you're considering green or regular troops.

A thought: Arguing that "your" game is better than the other guy's is one of the surest ways to turn him off of ever trying it. Find out what someone else likes in games and then point out how CM accomplishes that in a way that he/she will enjoy. And if CM just isn't their thing, so be it. Bear in mind, too, that most gamers who aren't grogs who first glance at CM will come away very disappointed, in my experience. For a lot of people, it takes time and an open mind to really appreciate the game. We take the sub-par graphics and learning curve for granted; new players won't.

It would be helpful if someone could produce some of the psychological studies the military has done on these sorts of issues. What we estimate to be the case probably means very little in light of a (presumed) lack of direct experience in the matter here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That makes good sense, but the question is, when someone panics under fire, do they think rationally? The whole point of panicking in CM is that it makes the difference between taking cover and holding your ground, and just snapping and running away. Troops in good cover often panic and run away, because their instinct is to get away from danger. Instinct does not tell you the most sensible course of action when taken under fire by X number of troops bearing Y type of weapons from Z range. It tells you "danger, run away!". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Precisely, but in certain situations, such as the ones I mentioned, one would think that even a panicked person would instinctively run a few more meters forward to apparent cover and nearby friendlies than turn tail in open terrain. By definition, a panicked squad isn't going to be thinking clearly, or perhaps more precisely, not going to be following their training unerringly or unthinkingly, but nonetheless.... [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

It's a useful overview reference and certainly worth buying, though, as someone noted, it's not as good as the companion volume on German tanks, which is more detailed and informative, all told.

It might help to focus on both (ultimately related) issues individually: panicking and running backward instead of toward closer cover that may or may not be more dangerous. I've seen the latter happen many times, including in a game I just played. That was even when the units in question could see friendlies had made it to the same copse of trees ahead of them and "knew" it was at least relatively safe. Running away from incoming fire is one of the surest ways for infantry to meet their maker (Steve?) in CM. Better to move a couple feet forward to a treeline and hit the dirt than bolt screaming across an open field. [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

You can find details of the type and location of armor added to the M4 in Appendix 2 of Belton Y. Cooper's entertaining and highly informative memoir Death Traps (Presidio, 1998). Cooper was an ordnance liaison officer for the US 3rd Armored Division from just after D-Day until the end of the war in Europe, and you can learn a great deal about the armor war from his book. His story about how he designed improved armor for a Super Pershing and helped supervise its field application is particularly interesting. HVSS had stronger springs than the original vertical volute spring suspension and allowed single bogie wheels (of the four-wheel clusters) to be removed easily for replacement. Apparently this was still considered inferior to the torsion bar or Christie suspension used in German and Soviet tanks.

You can use these HQ units to bolster solitary field/AT guns, MG's etc. when on the defense, too.

I don't believe this was mentioned, but those 150mm IG's, despite firing only about two rounds per minute, come well stocked with around 40 rounds of HE ammo and a few C rounds for armor threads (though a 150mm HE round will blow light vehicles into the stratosphere). If you can somehow keep the gun active awhile, that's quite a bit of anti-personnel damage you can dole out.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

A simple way to increase the difficulty a little bit is to turn off detailed armor hit messages and turn off the show all paths/target lines feature. You can access these all from the main command menu. Playing well-designed scenarios as the attacker also helps. To get the full experience, play against a human.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When a Sherman goes WHOOSH nothing happens to the infantry nearby. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One thing to bear in mind, too, is that the Germans were fully aware of the Sherman's tendency to burn and would typically continue shooting at them even after knocked out to make sure they ignited, making them unsalvageable. As such, you'd think any nearby infantry could be sure of one hell of a bang in one way or another.

One way to aid the survivability of howitzers/IG's is to keyhole sight (or site, in this case) them, where their field of view (and consequently the places they can be viewed from) is limited, like down a town road with rows of buildings on either side, down a narrow valley, etc. That way, you can defend a vital lane into your defensive position with ease while devoting more forces elsewhere, plus you won't have thirty enemy units all spot the gun at once and eliminate it in a heartbeat. From what I gather, this sort of positioning isn't necessarily historically accurate for German forces, at least according to doctrine, but they lost, so don't pay them much mind See the Handbook on German Forces, Ch. IV for some details on defensive positioning: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Thanks for all the excellent suggestions. I'll probably end up reading all of them Btw, most of you have probably seen these at your local library or used book store, but the Time-Life multi-volume series on WWII offers a fine introductory overview of different theaters, battles, and topics. Most importantly, the books feature some really amazing photographs that speak far louder than words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a scenario designer, you can put guns and bunkers/pillboxes into houses, by placing them on the map first, and then putting the house on top of them. I have done that in scenarios for guns, not for fortifications yet though. I have no idea how that would impact on chances to spot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very cool--I didn't know that was an option, as I've never seen it done before. From what I've read, the Allies ran into this sort of disguised gun emplacement repeatedly as they advanced from the Normandy beaches toward Germany.

Precisely, plus I already own or have access to numerous books on specialized WWII topics and would like a single volume that will both provide a good read in its own right and be a suitable quick reference.

Fwiw, the Germans had more than their share of Jackson-like open-topped TD's, some of which are represented in the game (Marder II, Nashorn). Often it's easier to think of this type of vehicle as an AT gun that happens to be self-propelled and can fend off small arms fire. With that mindset, they'll generally be of more use. If you're going to use them, ambush when you're distracting the target vehicle with a fast light tank or armored car, perhaps. Then relocate under cover of terrain or smoke. Shoot and scoot, as they say.

Any recommendations for a quality single-volume history of WWII, preferably one that's in print? I'm looking for something that's factually accurate and well researched but also written with a strong narrative voice. (I.e., Ryan or Ambrose style history.) Clear maps are a must, lots of quality photos are desirable. Thanks. (I tried a search of the forums, but it timed out.)

Fwiw, for detailed info and diagrams about German defensive doctrine and positioning, see the Handbook on German Forces, Ch. IV, pp. 20ff. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 Interestingly, it says that a standard defensive sector for a German company was 440 to 1100 yards across, 880 to 2200 for a battalion. This section of the handbook discusses defensive obstacles, mine placement, terrain usage, camouflage, registered artillery, combined arms, and more. Very informative. Chapter V is all about defensive fortifications, with many detailed diagrams of bunker layouts. [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]