Kevin Kinscherf

I was a beta tester and have a P3 500 256 RAM, 16 megs video memory and lots of hard drive space. I would not get a new PC just for CMBB. Sure as the map gets larger and the texture density thicker the graphics will slow down. In the editor large maps take a while to load - good excuse to grab a cup of coffee or a beer. The PC calculation of each turn is slower than CMBO. However, you can get your $$ worth of enjoyment with these PCs for sure - IMHO. I would like to hear the opinion of someone who has a better video card in an older PC and see if that helps. Kevin Boots and Tracks

Good point .. luck does play a roll in warfare. - Kevin

Hi Jim - Interesting observations. I will take them into account. All I know is playtesters cut through the Germans like butter until the final changes. It is a tactical problem. However, it has solutions. None of which are covered by the book per say. I think this is not a positive nor a negative given the US Army's need to adapt and innovate on the battlefield during the WW2. They often threw out the book. If you get a chance add Doubler's book to your library if you dont have it. It is a classic. - Kevin

Jim - I will take your views into account big time. Please let those who read this thread understand what you mean by "book tactics". There is plenty of opportunity for an US dismounted attack. Sure...timing is critical. By the way ... there are three bridges to cross. Ever try ...? - Kevin

Jim - Thank you for your candid appraisal of "Wake up Call". I welcome it and will use it to design battles in the future. I knew the battle would be controversial. That’s because it is different. Without feedback, designer’s can't hone their skills. The objective was to provide a short battle that folks would want to replay to try different tactics. It is hard for many with limited time to replay larger battles. Battles have to be hard to win or no one would replay it. I in no way wanted to make a “gamey” scenario. Depending on how the play goes, many CM battles end with “rush to the flag”/”rush to the exit”. I see no way around this in a tactical battle where objectives are within running distance on the final turn and important elements in the final score. Many times in wargames like CM we are presented with a situation that appears impossible to overcome. “This can’t be how it was”. But we often win or draw the battle due to non-real factors like the way the program calculates victory. In almost all CM battles, the casualties are so much larger than any commander would accept before they withdrawal. Is this real? We try to design for as much realism as possible –then move on. The unit points are 675 US/ 654 German. The “firepower” edge goes to the US. They were not outnumbered where it counts. To provide any challenge to the human player the German side has to be beefed up to compensate for the the limitations of the AI. This is a standard practice. I am not sure what you mean by proper tactics. Use any tactic to win a battle. How many times have the NCOs told the young officers to “throw out the book”. In “Closing with the Enemy” Michael Doubler writes at the close of his introduction: “An analysis of combined arms operations in the European Theater dramatically illustrates how the American army adapted during wartime to meet unexpected challenges and shows how armies function in battle rather than in peace time maneuvers or terrain board exercises”. It boils down to maximize your firepower while minimizing the enemies. If you do this in Wake up Call, the US stands a great chance to win. No time to make a proper approach because the avenues were all cover? I wonder how many times that has occurred in military history. Units are ordered into impossible situations (at least to those who directly involved)all the time. In order for the team to win some have to take it on the chin. The US runs into a hornet’s nest for sure in this one. Remember many hours went into designing and testing this battle for the enjoyment of others. I welcome the feedback to stay on target. Please post again on my battles and others. Thanks again. Kevin

Who cares about the World Cup?!? Go Ted Go! Is a sweeper like a Hetzer operationally? - kevin

Ted - Thanks for making the design and testing process so smooth. It was a model operation. Let the battles begin! - Kinch

Here is what I found this morning ... The new tanks began to appear as the Germans hit the second (operational)line. Loks as though some units had more and some less. Below are two battle where they were used in numbers taht caused them to be noted in writings. Early T34 Battle Tolochino (or Lipki) 3 July 1941 (18th Panzer) Early KV Battle Daugava River (or Rasennai) 25 June (6th Panzer) Glantz "Stumbling Colossus" p. 117 New KV and T34 med. tanks were in esp. short supply, with only 1861 in service 22 June. Of this total, 1475 were distributed unevenly to Corps in the western miliary districts. Page 118 Because the new model KV and T34 were secret, by June 22 only 20 of Corps personel had any experiance operating with them. P130 KV tanks were in service before 27 June Fugate and Dvoretsky "Thunder on the Dnepr" p. 107 The new T34 and KV tanks that were being produced would outclass anything the Germans had in the field at the time so it was decided to reserve them in order to stiffen the back of the operational echelon along the Dnepr-Dvina line and to provide the cutting edge of the eventual counter offensive. Western historians had chided the Russians for not forming the new tanks into proper formations and not bringing them to the border areas in June, but there was method to there madness. In June July and August the greatest benefit would have to be derived from the older tanks to slow down the panzer and harass their infantry.

Here is the link ... http://www.militarygameronline.com/combatmission/

We can't tell you by who. But we have good intel it's a scenario designer known around the globe. Gee ... Who could that be? Kevin "Kinch"