Kevin Kinscherf

Another nice touch is to add map landmarks to your maps. This helps frame the battlefield and orient players. This is done by cntl-left click and filling in the text box. So if the battlefield is near Faid Tunisia you could have a south edge landmark "Maknassy 15 KM". A east edge "Faid Pass 5 KM" etc. etc. for north and west edges as appropriate. Then place a landmark in the middle of the map to indicate a key town, road, and/or terrain like a wadi or hill. Take a look at some of the battles from the CD and you will see good examples of using landmarks. Have fun. Kevin

You have discovered a book many of us have an or have read. I got the paperback in the early 80's and had to replace it twice. Its one of the books that got me "into" the eastern front. Its a very inportant book to have in your growing library. You are right - I always look for maps in any military history book I buy and its many times the key reason I buy (or not) it in the end. Do a search for Panzer Battles et. al. and you may find a good thread or two in one of the forums. Kevin

I see what you mean with a few more clicks ...

Airborn - Getting convoys/trucks to move is impossible even with exit zones I think. This will be 2-player only. I will not recco AI convoy control. It's a 2-player TCP/IP taht canbe played in one evening. - Kevin

Using Hot Seat for tesing a 2-player battle I noticed that the overall breifing is displayed instead of the second players (Axis or Allied) briefing. Not a biggie unless you play via hot seat. The sequence is 1. Overall 2. (Axis or Allied, depends on what is selected first) 3. Overall 4. No more briefings and the game begins. Kevin

For Boots and Tracks I am currently finishing a battle somewhat based on the firefight "Convoy Raid". The map is not flat . It almost ready for testing. It will be available early January. Kevin

The original intent of the thread was to question if designers should incorporate air power into scenarios. Looks like people dislike how airpower is executed in the game rather than the random nature of the results. As someone said, once you start up CM you are in for random results. I think people want more control. For example, if my Tiger bogs I can at least blame it on me taking of the road into a damp field. If the arty falls short, well I understand the turns are running out and I had to take the risk. How to provide control without making it unrealistic and gamey is open for debate. How about "phase lines" where CAS will only strike in "boxes" for a certain window of turns. Perhaps phase lines would only be available if the airpower is "regular" or better. Kevin

Another good book is "Over Lord" with the focus on Pete Quesada's development of the air-ground battle team that saved countless Allied lives. The author is Thomas Hughes. Kevin Edited to correct spelling ... [ December 20, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Kevin Kinscherf ]

What is the key complaint: 1) CAS is makes scenarios too "random". 2) CAS attacks your own troops to often. Because of #1 designers are using CAS less and less I think since CMBO (don't have the numbers). It is never used in battles for 2-player or tournaments to my knownledge. Designers know people invest a lot of time in playing the scenarios. So random events - even though it simulates this aspect tactical warfare - can really piss folks off. Number #2 could be fixed via code I guess. Kevin

Hey it's Kinch here .. designer of Trig 29. I agree with Michael. Historically, crews tended to stay with their guns to prevent capture. The more expensive the weapon system the more they wanted to hold on to it - e.g. 88mm vs MG-34. Once an ATG runs out of ammo it only has tactical value as a diversion or if it could be supplied. The crews in a hopeless situation would head for the hills. Without a fallback position or cover to hide in their fate was grim. This was true on on the Eastern Front too. A captured fuctioning gun has value. But not tactically as modeled currently. Although it would be nice to have control of the crews, I am not sure it would (or should) swing the result of battles. Interesting ...

The town names in the "Thunder on the Dniper" text do not always jive with what are given on the maps in the book. I am trying to trace the front line as of end-August to fix it and then find topos. Just back from a long weekend ... - Kevin

Has this battle in the late summer and fall of 1941 ever received a formal and detailed treatment other than a chapter (or so) in a book? Has anyone seen a book devoted to the topic? I have "Thunder on the Dniper" "Panzer Leader" etc. I am trying to better understand the postion of units and where the small villages ringing Yelnia really are. Many thanks for the help if you can. Kevin Boots and Tracks

OK a Saturday morning bump. Kevin

I always tend to think it was Germany's weakness in the number of infantry they could place at the front as the empire expanded. Every time the panzer divisions were halted (eg Yelnia, Moscow, Stalingrad) the Soviet counteroffensives took a toll on the German's infantry that was impossible to replace compared to the manpower of the Soviets. Lend Lease probably shortened the war but the end result would have been the same. It was an interesting balance - the west trying to keep the Soviets in the war but not giving enough material to conquer Eastern AND Western Europe before the US and Britian landed in Normandy.

A bump for more feedback please. Thanks. Kevin

Then I agree that the best way is to use QBs to ensure the most balanced scenario for ladder play. The system we use in ROW allows us to use historical battles and maintain a fair tournament. Kevin

Is he talking about scenario designers when he says "map maker"? Many battles come with a play reccos i.e. "Best Played: 2 player, German vs the AI, Allied vs the AI". Are we talking about using the maps in QBs and a recco on how to use them? - Kevin

Please give us feedback over at the Scenario Forum on these new ones. Constructive feedback keeps us going. Enjoy! - Kevin

Really funny ...

Thanks ... I found all that. I still need more tactical detail on the action on the west bank. This is real mystery now. - Kevin

That maybe true, but this article looks more professional to me that an "under the rug" addition to a resume. Perhaps it may have been in preparation for years. But the bibliography is complete and current. Fort Belvoir is close enough to Washington for the authors to research at the Library of Congress. I still dont get it. The authors are civilian employees writing on Kursk in the year 2000! If this is a way to get ahead - I want that job. Taxpayers pay for this? - Kevin

OK ... maybe there is really is nothing out there. Kevin

After looking at the report more closely this morning a couple of things strike me. It was written recently in 2000 by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command,Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate. a) Why did they need to write such a report? Amazing ... my wife works at the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth NJ! c) I am looking to see how the authors backed into such a nice job. It looks like a general battle history with a focus on mines. Sort of like a term paper we would do in college. Looks like the key section is G. THE SOVIET DEFENSE SYSTEM AND MINEFIELDS. Much of this detail I think is found Glantz's studies. I will try to find out why the report was written through my wife. I completely missed the connection yesterday.

Tis the season. I had not seen this yet. Here is the link for those who dont have it either. http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/kursk.htm

Does anyone have information on the fighting on the west bank of the Berezine River? Was the west bank defended at all? There is much more info on the bridgehead breakout from what I gather. Any links will be helpful Thanks. Kevin Boot and Tracks