Bruce Robert

This happened to me in a small AI game. After the battle my tank showed 2 guns but I only found one and everything else was accounted for. I can't swear I didn't miss something though.

Here's a variation on this theme: Send the sole remaining soldier from a hq unit, or, the sole survivor of a mg unit, particularly if it is german, and let the enemy expend all it's ammo in the usually futile attempt to eliminate, or break it.

I am interested in the complete "rules". I searched but nothing came up on Franko. Anyone know how to find the rules being discuused? Thanks

Is responding to the thread, "Is asking if things in CM are gamey, gamey" Gamey?

Discipline sounds like the answer to me. I tried to get the 105 to target itself, but unfortunately, that doesn't work. I did consider dropping some mortar rounds on him though. By the way, this was the only time I experienced something this extreme.

I had a Sherman 105, regular crew, unbuttoned, OK moral, on a hilltop looking down on small village with SS inf. I targetted a squad in a light building and my 105 fired one round, then retargetted a German HMG unit. This went on for 8-9 turns. Sometimes not taking a single shot at the target I gave it, but immediately switching to the HMG. But the HMG had one remaining soldier, was immoble in open ground, and had not shot at anyone for the past two turns. And never returned fire for the rest of the game. By the way, after firing all but three remaining HE rounds at the HMG, he never became a casuallty. He finally surrendered.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Priest: If you read the previous thread Steve already answered this and proved quite well why the FT teams are seperate and why it is realistic.<hr></blockquote> "...proved quite well...". If that is your idea of proof, I hope you don't make your living in the legal profession. "The FT should be the first to get hit". When you're in combat, your not shooting at a stationary target that is not shooting back at you. You are firing into an area - not at the whites of their eyes. If you really must, give a slightly greater % chance that the FT is hit. INTEGRAL FT'S FOR A MORE "PERFECT" GAME

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir Uber General: Would you consider this gamey? When defending I will often send crews from destroyed assets (ATGs, AFVs, mortars, etc) back to my local "command post" which is usually a building near or behind a flag in the rear of my main line of resistance. Here, they are placed under the command of whoever is available (company commander for example) and used for last ditch desperate local defence or to reinforce a hot spot that is in danger of being overrun? Cheers SUG<hr></blockquote> Good point, and it sounds reasonable. Also, if the AI sends the unit somewhere that it could effectively watch a flank, for example (even though the AI didn't send it there for that reason) would you consider that dinkum? By that I mean leaving the unit there to observe if it was reasonably protected. Thanks

I third the 37mm, especially on the M5A1(personal favorite for no particular reason). It's gun has a huge amount of ammo, fires quickly and accurately, and can be very useful if maneuvered carefully.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kmead: Using crews for reconn or search and destroy units is a poor, gamey tactic. I don't play people that utilize such tactics a second time unless they agree not to do so. IMHO I agree the game should only allow you to extricate the units from their difficulties and not allow them to be used in such a way. I don't think the game sufficiently penalizes such behavior or we wouldn't see so much of it occuring over and over. Nor would we keep discussing it over and over. We can debate the gameyness of it, but at this point I for one cannot be persuaded that it is anything else.<hr></blockquote> I agree with this point, that it is primarily gamey. Trained crews were too valuable to be thrown away when functioning vehicles were waiting for them in the rear motor pool. That's why tankers have praised the mechanics; their efforts allowed the tankers to keep fighting effectively as long as they had vehicles to fight with. They did not receive full infantry training - although the american arty were given basic small arms and some inf. training - but they knew how to operate, and equally importantly, how to maintain the vehicle so it could continue to run: Attrition occured for reasons other than AT guns; although not considered in the scope of CM. If the vehicle wouldn't start, threw a track, etc. it was of little value. That is what makes Wittman's story so important. He retreated to the rear where he could get another tank which allowed him to be so succesful. Scouting with crews? Who orders them to do so? What overall intell. on the battle do they possess to know where to scout and, as been stated, how do they communicate this info. to HQ? In the scope of this game, once their vehicle is gone they are largely out of the battle, so why not use them as inf? Because it is GAMEY.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dor: To the division H.Q. :my armor,my halftraks my truks are under my own fighter-bombers fire.My air force is helping the enemy.MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY!!!Get that bastards out of here,and I demand the air force general commander to be sent to the Court Martial! I'm waiting for a help while I am being slaughtered.Do I have to buy AA defence to protect me from my own planes?Nice,isn't it?<hr></blockquote> CM models this correctly, at least to the fact that it did happen: How often it happened is another matter. My Uncle -54th Field Arty- was straffed by allied air a few times. He said they even had some kind of "banner" device that they could display which was easier for the pilot to see. Whether they didn't set it up in time, or other reasons, the plane still attacked.

I don't know about specific stats. or if CM models accurately, but I have a couple of ideas. All games are going to fall short of yours/mine view of historical reality because the game is a game, not the real thing. I don't mean to state the obvious but sometimes CM is so much fun and realistic feeling that I expect it to do more than a game can do. It is frustrating to be using what I think are historically good tactics, only to have the game mechanics, probabilities, etc. blow me out of the water. But it does seem to work both ways. I've gotten very lucky as well. As to U.S. killing German armor, I think there is more to it than field tests and lab reports. I read an american battle report from Cantigny War Museum in Winfield, IL. that had a M-10 fire an HE round striking a Panther in the front. The shell caused no damage to the tank, but the driver panicked, or was momentarily stunned, and drove the already moving tank into a house that had a cellar. The tank was immobolized, and the crew bailed. There is more than one way to get a kill! And to be realistic, the game would need more direct air support,and heavy Arty directed by F.O.s in piper cubs. That would offset any German armor advantage. Thanks

Interesting ideas about the map size, edge of the world, etc. As a miniature gamer, the table size was always an issue. We finaly made a 8'x 14' table - almost too big to play on - and still the false edge came into play. It seems that there is no way around the gamyness of a game. No matter how good the game, it always falls short somewhere. Not knowing that much about comp. games, I have a few questions: 1. Can you set up battles with a HUGE map, and place the flags in the center such that you could possibly eliminate the edge problem? 2. Is there any way to have off-board units, or units that can return to the visible map? Similar to having a map larger than the playing space, that would allow off-board map movement like some miniature battles do. 3. Is there any way to eliminate the "flag" in setting up the battle? A probe, for example, should have more of a open ended quality. "See if there is anything going on in that direction" without any specific locations that are established by a flag(s)? Thanks

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r: I was just wondering,why crews couldn't man their weapons (like AT-guns or tanks) again after abandoning them. Like maybe after getting into contact with an hq.like the HQ goes, "man that gun for goodness sake,the enemy tanks are full broadside to it and no enemy infantry has a clear shot at it!move it!..." or why cant crews abandon mg's? I mean they can no longer move after getting 3,4 casualties and are just waiting there for the enemy to overrun them. just some thoughts<hr></blockquote> It sounds reasonable, and certainly there are times when it would be tactically desireable. But a big question we, meaning other miniature gamers had to consider with any rule is overall importance of this effect to the "muddying up the game mechanics". We found many rules to bog down the game far more than was justified by any statistical significance. And of course, this became a decision that was made by the rules writer(s)-always a fine line between realism and playability. Assuming that this is not a playability issue with comp. games, it could be an interesting addition. Especially the order to leave a gun/position and return to it later: as was sometimes done during a large bombardment. It was usually the fine line issues that caused the most discussions with are WWII micro-armor group. But those games wouldn't have felt right without at least one "my version of reality/what's important vs yours"

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by benpark: Great post. I wonder how much time was between the WP rounds hitting and the FFE order. It must have been unnerving to get that first warning. I am going to dig out my grandfathers VHS tapes he made, recording his recollections of the war (he landed D+7 as well), serving as a Lieut. in a mechanized cav unit. I believe it was the 116th-The Red Horse. They saw action from St. Lo to Holland to Germany.<hr></blockquote> Time between first WP round fired and FFE was about one minute - but varied on spotter. Their guy in the piper cub was real good at finding and quickly zeroing in on the enemy. Just found out they were given some missions for direct fire, to support some action, etc. One time his Lieutenant asked him to take his vehicle to knock out a bunker. He didn't think there was any way the 105 was going to hurt the concrete bunker. The Lieut. told him to use the hill: drive up to the crest, fire and back up, etc. My uncle's thought was that that would only work the first time, and then the 88's would be ready to kill them on their next attempt. I don't know if the german 88 was that prevalent, he talks about it a lot, or if it reflects a very healthy respect for this gun. In any case, he asked the Lieut. if he was coming with them, and that was the last time he heard anything about trying to knock out the bunker. As to the tapes of your Grandfather, that is a "grand", I couldn't resist, idea. What about a forum for first-hand accounts from wherever we can find them. I think the single biggest problem with most warGAMES is the lack of human element. We talk about ranges and velocities and command structure, but all this still comes down to the person(s) who are out there trying to get a job done while staying alive. Perhaps some additional programing reflecting this, while maintaining the fun and playability of the GAME, would come out of this type of discussion. Thanks

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Very good post. Did they ever use their guns in direct fire? Did they ever use indirect arty fire to kill tanks?<hr></blockquote> They fired indirect from behind some obstacle whenever possible. But they did fire direct when contacted directly, usually by surprise, by the enemy. He said there were quite a few times they were given bad orders/directions, but not necessarily because of poor command. The front could change so rapidly that info. they based there new orders on was outdated by the time they arrived. One time they took direct fire from Germans in a church steeple - he said the Germans loved using church steeples - and they responded with their small arms and direct fire from the 105's. The priest ran over to them and shouted at them to stop. He said I felt bad for shooting up a church, but we didn't have any choice. Their fire ended up catching the church on fire. As for enemy tanks, these were few and far between from his experience. As far as he knew, the 105's were used against infantry. My thought is that being only 105's howitzers, they used the 240's or 155's for enemy tanks. It is interesting to speak to a combat vet, their perspective is one of tunnel vision, compared to a war GAMER who too often opperates with a god-like perspective. Don't get me wrong though, I overwhelmingly approve of the GAME version versus the war version. Thanks for your interest, I will try to get more details from him when appropriate.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by M_Gonzo: Good Stuff.... Nothing like a first person interview.. Do you remember what unit he was with? Michael "Gonzo" Gonzalez<hr></blockquote> 54th Field Artillery, C Company 3rd Armored, 1st Army under Omar Bradley

He said they were usually very close the the front line, about 1 mile, but I don't think he remembers distance versus number of bags used. Also elevation of guns would have some effect. He told me which unit he was in but I don't remember. I will ask him again and post. I think it was 3rd armor, 1st army, but I will get better info. Thanks

My uncle served in France, landing 7 days after D-Day, with a 105 self-propeled arty unit. He said they operated just behind the front lines, never using 7 bags, 4 at the most, usually 2 or 3, and many times found themselves in front of the enemy because the front lines were changing so rapidly. They were strafed by allied planes leaving England. By the time the plane got to the target area, it had already been overrun by the allies. They lost some vehicles to 88's, and tried to set up behing hills whenever possible. There was a fair amount of anti-battery fire, including rockets. He said the rockets fell in a consistent pattern. If you saw where the first two landed, you knew if you were in or out of the remaining salvo. They used wp for spotting rounds only, and fire for effect was three rounds each from six guns. If this didn't do the trick, they would be ordered to fire for effect again, etc. The F. O.'s were very good at there jobs, some in piper cubs?, and the whole system worked fast and smoothly: communications, bracketing, etc. He said they never ran out of ammo, being constantly supplied from trucks, and never had smoke rounds. He doesn't remember exactly when, but they started getting H. E. rounds with proximity fuses? that caused all shells to be airbursts at about 15 feet? These were the standard issue, and were much more devastating. They were all trained in the use of small arms: cleaning, firing, basic tactics - and were expected to fight with these if necessary. Which occured a few times. I don't know how much value this has regarding CM, but I thought you might find it interesting. Thanks for the opportunity to be a part of this forum. NOTE: Use of question marks denote unsure of exact memory; " I'm 83 and it was a long time ago".

I have been a wargamer for many years -both boardgames and miniatures; mostly historical. one of the weaknesses in miniature gaming is the "general flying in a helicopter over the battlefield" as one author put it in a recent MAWN magazine. One of the strengths of computer gaming is for the comp. to minimize this: I always thought submarine type games ideal for the computer; keep everything hidden until it is known to the ship, etc. So I was disappointed when a buttoned tank firing at an enemy on a hill top started moving away and firing at a 2 man panzerschrek team crawling through woods. Did the buttoned tank, the team was approaching the tank from its flank, see the team? Did the infantry team 300 yards away see the 2 man team? And if they did, how was there instant communication to the tank; tanks would not be on the same net as inf. What about a true fog of war during the 60 sec. turn. Now when you use historically correct tactics the game will properly play it out. With instant observation/communication, you have to resort to fake game tactics. And at the end of the turn, to make it fair to the comp. all new info. on the battlefield would be available just as it is to the player. But at least during the 60 sec. turn, you can use historical tactics.