PiggDogg

With all due respect, except for two regiments of the US 106th Infantry Division which were surrendered and the US 101st Airborne which was surrounded and subsequently relieved, please explain how was the Battle of the Bulge an encirclement battle, legendary or non-legendary? With further due respect, it might be a bit of an overstatement to set for that in terms of men & equipment that the Bulge was "nothing compared to those big encirclement battles throughout WWII" on the East Front. While certainly being smaller than the commitment at some of the East Front battles such as Kursk and Stalingrad, the Axis and Allied commitment of men and materiale at the Bulge certainly compares in quantity with those of the East Front. Richard

Bless all those who fought. Richard

Colt, Go to the CM Anthology of Useful Posts Anthology of Useful Posts This is the best place to go. Read a lot. Learn a lot. Especially look up posts by JasonC. You have to spend the study time to get what you wish. It is not overly easy. Spend a lot of time reading, studying, and learning. It is up to you. Good luck. Cheers, Richard

This is an explanation of "grog" that I sent to some non-grog and grog friends to whom I send interesting news articles. Cheers, Richard [ December 13, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

For me, medium maps are best. Small and especially, tiny maps, allow no room for maneuver. On large maps, opposing forces can easily never come into combat contact. :eek: On some rare occasions on large maps, I have had such experiences where the opposing forces never came to grips. Those were some boring but fast completed games . Cheers, Richard

Sly, I am not sure about CM via tcp/ip. However, it think that the CM tcp/ip security is the same as in pbem CM. As far as I know, no one has hacked the CM code so that cheating can occur via that method. I have never even caught a wiff of this type of cheating anywhere in nearly 4 years of playing CM in all of its forms, BO, BB, & AK. Indeed, I have no concern about anyone being able to cheat in CM via code change. I suggest the same to you. However, I might be wrong and stand to be corrected. Cheers, Richard

If you have played against the AI a decent amount, start playing real live human opponents in pbem games. After a dozen or so games against the AI opponent, playing against humans will become a true revelation of enjoyment and a lot more fun. Against a human, you will learn things in CM that you never thought possible. :eek: In my opinion, CM is best played against a human via pbem. Cheers, Richard

Patrick, You are correct that a tcp/ip game is quite fun, exciting, stressful, and gives one a feel of real life command stress. It is a good experience to have a rushed tcp/ip game. I have done so a good number of times. However, such a game goes by so fast that one is not able to enjoy the whole experience of the CM game. Indeed, a pbem game allows one an ahistorical "too much control" over nearly every aspect of the CM battlefield. However, in CM, except for the CM units' fear/run away and shoot at the enemy attributes, one's units are as dumb as a box of rocks. :eek: For a major and critical example, if one moves his units carelessly and places his units in terrible covering terrain, a unit will remain in the terrible covering terrain a scant few meters from great cover. In order to keep things short, in my humble, but informed opinion and for my personal enjoyment and preference, I feel that CM is best enjoyed in the pbem format rather than in tcp/ip format. Cheers, Richard

Yes, you can "create mainly tank battles with some parameters and configurations to my own liking". The quick battle option and the scenario editor allow you to configure until your eyeballs glaze over & fall out. Also, there are a jillion scenarios available at numerous CM related web sites. Others will follow me and give you more details. Buy all the CMs. However, for a bit more accuracy, buy CMBB & CMAK. They are not perfect. However, without doubt, they are the best wargames ever produced on board or on computer. Cheers, Richard :cool:

Sly, You young whippersnapper. I've been playing wargames since the dawn of time, er, I mean since the dawn of modern wargaming. This was 1958-60 when I was 10-12 year old when Avalon Hill's Tactics II and the first time that the rectangular unit Gettysburg came out. Yikes, I feel old. Yes, this is true. However, generally in real life, in efficient and effective organizations, a commander or business leader generally only directly commands (has a command span of) 3 to 6 units/persons, which is “one level down”. In turn, each of those 3 to 6 units/persons have a command span of about 3 to 6 subunits each, which is “two levels down”. The commander can supervise the one level down and somewhat and less efficiently supervise the second level down, which are 10 to a max of 16 to 20. Generally, a commander cannot directly command three levels down, that is 15 to 30 units. Certainly, with your military experience, you have seen this physical limit. Examples, in efficient militaries, a fireteam leader supervises a total of 5 to 6 soldiers. The squad leader supervises his fireteam, and has less control over the other fire team. A platoon leader directly supervises his 3 to 4 squad leaders. Also, he is able to directly supervise at most one squad while leaving the other squads under the squad leader’s direct supervision. This rule might be called “the one level down 3 to 6 and two levels down 10 to 20 Rule”. This Rule works its way up the chain of command. In most reasonable sized and manageable CM games (at most about 2000 points), CM in all its iterations puts one in the position of commanding three levels down. However, due to the fact in CM pbem games one is able to expend a near unlimited amount of time planning a turn, a CM commander can handle the game commanding three levels down. Indeed, I don’t know if this responds to any of your opinions, but I just thought that I would comment. One thing for sure. I have played many a wargame. I have a whole closet full of wargames going back to 1958-60. One thing for sure, CM is not perfect. However, without doubt, it is the most enjoyable, as reasonably historically realistic, and relatively easy to play wargame to have ever hit the market on the board or on the computer. Hats off to BFC. And damn them for their computer wargame crack. Cheers, Richard [ November 26, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

I have used this description, which someone else had eloquently formulated, regarding offensive/attacking FT teams. If an attacking FT team actually survives long enough and gets close enough to somehow fire at a defending unit, it is shooting at a defender that was going to die anyway. :eek: Oh, yes. CM FT teams are "offensive". They stink. Cheers, Richard

FT teams suck. I never buy them. I only use them if the scenario gives them to me. In that circumstance, I am forced to use them. I try to use them effectively, but it is quite difficult. On defense, defend deep in the woods which forces the attacking enemy infantry into the woods. Place the FT teams right behind (as close as possible, 5-6 meters) a line of infantry. When the attacking enemy infantry blunders into the defending front line infantry, the attackers will fire at the front line defenders. This allows the FT teams in the second line to flame the attacker, usually to great effect. Despite these rare circumstances, FT teams are not worth their cost in points. They suck. Cheers, Richard [ September 19, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

As JasonC stated, in CM, FT teams suck. I have found that the best way to utilize FT teams in defense is to have them right behind (5 to 6 meters) a line of regular infantry deep in woods. When the enemy infantry gets within range of the defending infantry line (20 meters or so), the enemy infantry will see & shoot at the defending infantry line. Although some attacker fire scatter may unfortunately supress the FT teams just behind the front line, this setup hopefully allows the FT teams to remain un-supressed. Being unsuppress and when the FT teams feel they should or upon the player's direction, the FT teams will hopefully and probably fire their loads to great effect upon the enemy infantry. If the FT teams fire in this situation, they will almost for sure rout the enemy away with some or substantial casualties. CA, you are completely correct. Cheers, Richard

Moral to you story is: Don't buy silly uber tanks like JadgTigers or JadgPanthers. :eek: Buy cheaper JadgPzIVs &, especially JadgPzIV/70s. These TDs are nearly just as effective as those giant point wasting uber tanks, and you get more of them. Just keep these tanks' fronts aimed toward any potential enemy threats. Also, do not get within 200 meters of any covering terrain that might contain any enemy infantry AT teams. Cheers, Richard

In CM terms, once the PzIVs get a decent tank killing gun (L/43 & especially L/48), they are most adequate tanks. PzIVs are not invulnerable by any means. With the decent tank killing guns, used carefully, used in numbers, and used in close formations (hub to hub), PzIVs are most adequate and fine tanks. However, if without the decent tank killing guns, if not used carefully, if not used in numbers, or if not used in close formations, PzIVs will be barely adequate and marginal tanks. Cheers, Richard

If one uses enough barbed wire, that is, one long connected strand in front of a defensive trench position, the attacker had better destroy or surpress nearly every single defender who can fire into that wire. Any infantry unit caught in the wire and fired upon will get slaughtered as was the real life use of wire. If I am not mistaken, infantry in wire has a 100% exposure which is a death sentence for such exposed units when fired upon. :eek: Thus, the short moral to the story with some slight exaggeration is: kill all of the defenders in LOS before attacking infantry goes into the wire. If not, the attacker will be sorry. On defense, I just love wire and trenches. On attack, I just hate wire and trenches. Maybe, I am wrong. However, such has been my experience. Someone, everyone, please comment. Cheers, Richard [ October 08, 2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Gambara, Some knowledge might be gained by studying some, actually almost any, history that accurately covers the Italian army in WW2. As JasonC and others have stated, the Italian WW2 army was almost always miserable with a few infrequent times of bare competence. I am an American of Italian extraction (Cuccia as surname), and I have no ax to grind against Italians. I would love for the WW2 Italian army to have been good. However, to put it bluntly, they sucked. Hey, the Romans conquered and controled the civilized western world for about 1000 years. Also, their Roman civilization is the basis for present day western civilization which is the best and top dog in the world today. So do your homework, learn, and be unbiased. Cheers, Richard [ March 23, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Guys, Just went to RD. It does not look good at all. Indeed, CM has been around for 3-1/2 years, and the ardour is waning. It has been a great ride, and I await the next CM. Cheers, Richard

Dave, Pretty good game, eh. The interesting part is that the CM community, though somewhat diminished, is still going pretty well after nearly four years with the original game (BO) and its successors (BB & AK). Cheers, Richard

Panzerfest, Your photo show that peculiar and unusual flammable snow common to European Russian. :eek: Indeed, be careful and wary next time. Cheers, Richard

I did not make this clear in my earlier post in this thread. However, I never, ever buy FT teams or FT vehicles for that matter. Despite the few times that they work spectacularly well, usually they die before they can do anything. They are way too iffy for the points spent. Cheers, Richard

Over a long stretch of CM play, on attack and on defense, in woods, place FT teams as close as possible, right behind (4 to 6 meters) one's front line, good order infantry. The enemy (somewhat less than 25 meters from your front line infantry, probably 15 to 20 meters) will be tied up shooting at your front line infantry, and the FT will have a chance to fire their napalm. :eek: This has been the only consistent way that I have found FT teams able to fire and not get whacked before they fire. :eek: By the way, at least in that small patch of the fire fight that is within the FT team's range (30 to 50 meters), the FT team's Greek Fire will most frequently turn the tide of battle into your guys' favor. The enemy squads diminished and at least panicked will be running to the rear with hot pants ablaze. :eek: Cheers, Richard [ March 07, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Rob, Through many CM games, I've never seen anything like your Spw's escapade. Indeed, that Spw "IS" the Energizer Bunny's personal vehicle. :eek: Cheers, Richard

633, "I'm attacking. I'm defending. I'm counterattacking" "This is not a brothel. This is a var." :eek: "Steiner, Steiner." Cross Of Iron. :eek: Cheers, Richard

Guys, I have played hundreds of CM games (BO, BB, & AK) almost all against opponents. In all of those games, I don't think that I have ever seen a squad become fanatic and go charging at the enemy or do anything for that matter. Maybe, I'm blind. :eek: Indeed, I have seen a fair number of squads be fired at by many, many enemies and hang onto a well covered position long past the point of supposed sanity. These guys might have been considered fanatic ... or stupid. Anyway, has anyone ever seen a fanatic/beserk squad? Also, what did it look like? What did it do? What happened to it after the enemy took a whack at it? :confused: Cheers, Richard