Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Kevin Kinscherf

Members
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Kevin Kinscherf

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...