Steiner14

Steve, it definately was not depression about the EFFECTIVENESS, it was depression about the sheer AMOUNT of the material - and that certain normal things in France suddenly didn't function anymore properly (explained later). I have NEVER read about, or talked to a german soldier, that was stating, that the german artillery had not been superior to any other regarding precision, flexibility and reaction time. But i heard many complaints, that in France was no Luftwaffe at all which made unit movement during day almost suicidal. With 50% to 80% losses before the attacking positions are reached, there is not much left to show operational or tactical skills, if the same air superiority persists all the time. You wonder, why they had their biggest sucess with static defenses in France and that no counterattacks couldn't be sucessfully developed? Look into the air, there you will find the answer. Not on the ground. If around a third of all tanks are lost due to air bombardement without highly precise weapons for that task, and only 17% of the german tanks were lost due to direct tank to tank combat, you must get a feeling for the dimensions. Now imagine what such an incredible air superiority means for infantry, logistics and support. What every german soldier was indeed wishing for, was only a third or the half of the amount of endless ammunition and material the US-americans and soviets had. The amount of the ressources was it, that was depressing. That it was such an unequal fight like against a Hydra. I don't want to provoke believers in US-superiority, but a few hard facts regarding the view of the US-soldier seem to be necessary, before the US-self-adulation here sees new heights. And who is capable to judge an soldier, if not the enemy? On first place in the ranking of the enemies was - by far - the Russian soldier. Because of his braveness to hold even in obviously lost situations. Always. To the end. And also for his capability to bear all circumstances how bad they might have been. These aspects of the russian soldier are also the reason, why all german soldiers i knew and have talked to, honored the russian soldier as fighter. Compare that view of the german soldier with the antigerman propaganda that the german soldier felt as "Übermensch" torwards the russian. Ugly, very ugly propaganda. Congrats, that you have that as base for your understanding of the german soldier... The russian soldier was seen in that core aspects as equal, sometimes even a bit stronger (especially in the judgement of W-SS veterans, because they sometimes had made not good experiences with wehrmacht units that didn't hold when it was absolutely necessary and possible). Then follows the British soldier. He was received as brave in his broad mass and with a good morale, that could not be broken easily or by surprise. Then come the french soldiers from '40. Sorry, but the one with the least reputation is the US-soldier. The experience was, without air and artillery support, his morale didn't last very long. Especially when he was in numerical inferiority, he tended to be brittle (for example the Ardennenoffensive was built on that experience) I can understand if that sounds incredible and like blasphemy for many US-ears, because the western propaganda-machine makes you believe you have the best army and the best soldiers in the world. But that is the overall verdict of the german soldiers. Invincibility. You project a propaganda-tale of a ruling "Übermensch"-idea in Germany into the german soldier as a given fact and then you are making your conclusions from it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. My grandfather was in the 3rd Geb.Div., PzJgRgt (tank hunter regiment) and the Ersatzregiment was thrown in February 1942 into the defensive operations after the collapse of the 6th Armee to stop the Soviet advance torwards Rostov, which was a deadly threat for the Heeresgruppe Süd with it's 1 million soldiers to be cut of. Although he was in training since summer '42, he told me everyone of his comrades knew how extremely hard the fight in the east was, before they arrived in Russia. Around December '42 he also told me, that everyone knew that it was not looking good in the south, because the 6th army was stuck in Stalingrad and couldn't get out. I can assure you, the german people were by far much better informed, than the antigerman propaganda claimes. And you don't need to believe me, you can convince yourself: try to get uncensored and uncut German Wochenschauen. You will be surprised how well and objectively informed the Germans were. Because it fits here: the antigerman propaganda always portrays the germans as so badly informed due to the official censorship and because it was forbidden to listen to enemy radio stations (Feindsender): the intention of enemy-radio is and always has been, to reduce the morale of the listener. So the western propaganda turns once again the lie into a truth, if it claims, that their intention were free information. And it also is a propaganda-tale, that in '44 the german people wouldn't have known, that the war was not looking good and maybe could get lost. Everyone knew it. Therefore the development of groundbraking new weapon-technologies became more and more important as the last remaining realistical hope. And the training of the german soldier also was very careful to avoid a contraproductive feeling of superiority. That is simply another tale, that was brewed in the propaganda-kitchens of the enemy and you take it as fact... In fact the oposite is the truth: while in the US-army special forces have always been received as being arrogant, for the german soldier that was almost unknown (except individuals). It would lead too far to explain it now, but is has to do with the german culture, how the german idea of elite is defined since Prussia took the lead in Germany and how the Nationalsocialists educated the youth based on the Prussian virtues. Further with the tale about a believe in invincibility: When my grandfather came to his unit in February '43, he already knew, that the Soviets seemed to have endless amounts of material and his commander informed them, how difficult the situation was and that in the case of a Soviet breakthrough the war would be lost without the million soldiers that were standing down in the Caucasus. That was early 1943. When was the allied Invasion that - following your theory - showed a surprised german soldier he was "not invincible"? Or let's take the first winter '41/'42, when the Heeresgruppe Mitte was facing it's total destruction before Moscow: again EVERY German knew, how dangerous the situation was! The "Winterhilfswerk" collected clothes and everyone was worried about the outcome of the war. 1942. Watch the original german newsreels, read german newspapers from that time. You will be surprised! Or shocked - about the Matrix... "Sub Human". You show, that you may have read a lot of propaganda-books, but you have no clue about the thinking of the german soldier or the germans in general in these days. My family also had a "sub human" polish "slave laborer" how they are called in the "free media" of the truthbringers. Guess what? This "slave" ate the same on the same table in the same house and after the war the "slave" visited with his family my family. Almost every family here had it's personal slave. I don't say, that all were treated like family members, but you are so misinformed and full of hate-propaganda, it hurts. I already have written, how the german soldier saw the russian soldier. But interestingly it always have been the US-AMERICANS, that believe the world needs their mission and the whole globe is their country, while the "free" media manage it to make most of them believe, it are the others, that want to supress others. Let's take for example the fate of german 21. Pz. It was perfectly placed, because Hitler expected the Invasion exactly where it took place, and despite strong resistance of the generals, that time they couldn't convince him (he was suspicious about traitors in the highest ranks). In the night of the June 6th, the commander of a regiment of that division received radio messages from german units, that convinced him, that this was the invasion they were waiting for. He called his HQ (Feuchtinger) but it didn't answer. More radio messages were received and for the regimental commander of the 21. it was clear, the invasion was beginning. So on his very own decision he gave alarm and moved as fast as possible torwards the coast. That was between two or three o clock in the morning. While on the move he informed the HQ that he was now on the move torwards the coast. SUDDENLY the HQ was there and answered: stop immediately and turn around. Paratroopers were landed somewhere deeper in the country in your back. He followed and turned around. Around four o clock he arrived but - suprise! - no enemy, no paratroopers. Nothing. Only when the morning had begun, the commander of the 21., Feuchtinger, moved torwards the coast. The 21. was shot into pieces from the naval artillery and from the air and the attack was cancelled It is fact, that without the traitors the 21. would have taken it's positions on the landing zones in full strenght already during the night, while during the day the close distance to the landing zone would have made massive alliied air-support or naval support impossible. Heinrich Severloh with his MG showed, how fragile an amphibious landing operation really is. Now multiply that single MG with the firepower of a regiment of a Pz-Div and you know, Operation Overlord would have been a total failure without the help of the german traitors. What indeed was new for the german soldier in France, was the amount of the sabotage in the own high ranks. From the east the soldiers were already familiar with the fact, that the Red Army was prepared for every operation and that it knew all data and operational targets ("Werther"). Nevertheless the german machine was intact enough, since no total air-superiority made any success impossible and so the soldiers nevertheless could follow their orders. But in France the betrayal reached complete new dimensions, unseen in military history before. Not really surprising, if the own HQ is infitrated with traitors, who work for the other side, who direct the own divisions into wrong places, open the MLR, who delay the most important commands, who support the illusion with faked inteligence infos, of a still to come main landing. It says a lot, if the Oberbefehlshaber, Rommel, knows about traitors and sabotage in his staff, or leaves his position in one of the few nights, that were identified as optimum for landing, to celebrate a birthday in Germany. That's an example of what was NEW for the german soldier in France. After the war, when the german traitors like Speidel were rewarded for their biggest betrayal in war-history, with high ranks in the NATO, they even supported a doctrine to destroy Germany with nuclear bombs, if that deemed their angloamerican masters necessary. That's what REALLY went wrong in France. Betrayal is something, that is indeed a dark part of the german national character. We germans do not know something like "Good or bad, my country." Napoleon said, that for a slogan the germans prosecute their own german people more radical than their enemy. And Bismarck said: "If the germans stick together, they beat the devil out of hell." If the word if wouldn't be...

Steve, that convinced me. I will download the demo again and give it a try. What makes you so sure it will not frighten off WWII-only-players from buying CM:BN? Are there any plans to introduce (much) more uncertainty and misidentification already into the Westfront-family? Or is that something not trivial to implement and will that take definately a longer time until it will see the light?

One quick question: Is there a game-mode in CMSF called iron-mode or do you mean Franco's "Iron Man rules"?

JonS, when can we expect installments 7 & 8?

Yes, they were even marked with a big white "HQ"! Do you really think it is that hard to put the same antennas on all tanks?

But every HQ, forward observer or HMG unit of the involved armies had binoculars in WWII. So maybe the distance of BogID shrinks from 1000m to a fraction thereof. But even only 100m could be enough for gamey HQ-turkey-shooting.

I haven't played more than maybe one or two hours CMSF since it's early patches and i will definately wait for the release of CMBN to make my own opinion, but if that abvoe statement is true, then this could be a huge problem for realistical combat. Since nobody contradicts this statement, it seems to be true. But then i don't understand why so much time is invested in discussing other features, if main aspects like IDing do not work in a realistical way? The first thing i would do, if IDing works that way, i would concentrate all firepower to destroy his forward observers. Say goodbye to the precious artillery rounds... And before a close attack i would try to destroy the platoon's C2 capabilities by focusing on the HQ units only. I may be wrong, but couldn't engagements of tanks also be done like this: use a ATG-unit to shoot out the HQ-tank first. Afterwards engage with your more precious tanks, when the platoon is stripped of his C2 and special capabilities... This was not at all possible in CMx1, a ten year older engine! It was not easy to ID HQ-units and you needed at least already several seconds of close combat to get that info. ps: i too have the impression that several beta testers are of the kind of yes-men

ROFL! Only girls and whiners complain about Borg ID'ing!

But it was not the command structure that was lose in the German army, it was they way how and what kind of orders could be given to all subordinates and that they were perfectly fullfilled, while in any other army such kind of orders lead to inactivity or chaos.

Therefore they lost 2400 fighters within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa and 3.5 million soldiers within the first six weeks? And therefore they needed a Land and Lease act, that alone helped the Soviets to survive? Take the US-deliveries away and the Red Army wouldn't even had shoes to walk in. Or without the US-vehicles they would have been practically immobilized... Wheat, steel, aluminium - in tremendous quantities for one of the biggest and ressource richest countries in the world! Because the strategic planning of the USSR was that great. Come on. I find it always again very interesting, that even people with much detail knowledge about WWII have absolutely no knowledge (and feeling) about the REAL dimensions of the enemy forces the germans had to fight. There is absolutely no feeling for the overwhelming material wave, that buried the german army. The USSR had alone more T34 than all german tanks together. Look at the globe and the ressources of the USA, the USSR and the Commonwealth and it's colonies at that time to get an impression. And only that forces COMBINED could defeat the German army. Great strategic planning! Incredible. Take only the USA out of the equation and the USSR would have not survived 1942: The eight red armys at Stalingrad were FULLY supplied from the "neutral" USA. Every idiot thinks he knows it better than Hitler, while the same idiot claims Stalingrad being a "glorious victory" or "great victory" of the Red Army - with losses of over 1 million! 30% of all german military losses as a glorious victory! How cynical or perverted or disinformed is that? It's good you are making a tactical game... The Germans attacked the Soviet Union, because they had been encircled and no alternative: their time was running out, with Stalin to prepare to conquer Europe and with the huge and always increasing military output and expenses of the USSR in his back (IIRC 36% of the BNP already BEFORE war!), against the quite tiny Germany compared to the USSR, the Commonwealth and the USA and without any ressources except coal, being fully dependant on the oil from Romania, that was heavily threatened by the USSR, while Germany itself was even bound in the West, was still facing the bombardements of it's cities, after the air superiority over Britain's coast couldn't be as easily gained as necessary for a fast invasion - before Stalin was ready. And Hitler knew it's not wise to wait for the Soviet attack like a lamb, as long as there was the threat of the western front after an invasion. So what was the alternative? Throw the strongest down first, before the others can react! When the campaign in northern France was finished, and after all german peace-offers had been rejected or were not even answered by Britain's Churchill, Hitler knew, at least Churchill and the forces behind him (the financial centres of London and New York) wanted the destruction of Germany at all costs (the new german world-trade barter-system locked the international bankers out). What was Germany's alternative? They didn't take the German offer during the polish war, of immediate ceasefire and an international peace-delegation and full reparation payments from Germany, if the problem of Danzig and the suppressed Germans is solved. They didn't take the generous offer, after France was defeated. Churchill didn't stop to bomb german cities, even after Hitler warned him, that he will start bombing british cities, too. So what was the alternative for Germany, facing such a hateful and foolish crusader in the west on his isle, while the red giant in the east was preparing for his jump? If you can answer me that question, i'd be thrilled to hear the alternatives for Germany. So what was the only realistical solution for Germany to avoid a two-frontier war? Throw the continent-sword, the USSR, of the freemasons Churchill and Roosevelt, out of their hands, before London and New York were ready to invade Europe. It's well known and most probably correct, that Hitler himself stated, that the invasion of Russia was the hardest decision in his whole life. Guess why. Not really because he believed it would become an easy in and out...

Indeed to massacer hopeless weaker oponents without adequate weapons from distance is not really war, although the well known "peace and freedom" bringers prefer to call it that way - and are shocked, if bullets suddenly do not fly only in one direction...

If there were only ten meters in a superior position allowing to predecide a battle? Why not? Sure the tank got knocked badly. Because the poor crew wasn't in a keyhole position and you used 1 against 3, and so all the returning fire was concentrated on it. When you are fighting, do you prefer to fight alone against three, while praying, or do you prefer to have as many helpers on your side as possible before you begin? What would you do, if there were nine Shermans down there? Then you would attack with three? It's all a matter of statistics: With three attackers hull-down - the probability for the first shot is on their side - assuming only a extremely low "Ersttrefferwahrscheinlichkeit" first hit probability of 30% over that distance, the probability is very high, that only two enemy tanks will be capable to return fire, while one is knocked out immediately. And that returning fire needs to be spread over three tiny hulldown targets, with armor that almost cannot be penetrated.

But you didn't concentrate your fire... What do you need to work in? You had one vastly superior decisive hull-down position against three rabbits in the open field! Within 10 meters there's place for three of your JPz to appear simultaneously... They don't need to maneuver into depth, they only need to take that position once, clear the field from the Shermans within one or two minutes and retreat. Job finished. Battle won. Next AAR. :D

Very interesting OBR. Good marketing idea. JonS, i have a question regarding your tactics: What i can see from the report, you're not following one of the most important rules in german doctrine: Schwerpunktbildung. Concentrate fire: if you have more than one, then never use tanks/TDs alone. Two of them are not 100% stronger than one, but ~130-150% stronger, three of them already are roughly 400% stronger than a single one. Two, even better three of them, in a good hulldown position against Shermans without air support in open field? Like presented rabbits. Or is there a reason you don't follow doctrine?

There's a lot of talk how CM could model certain fine details of tactical combat, but one of the huge main problems of CM as a tactical simulation, has not yet been solved: the problem with map-edges if a scenario-map shows a fraction of a MLR (HKL). The possibilities of scenario-design are quite limited, when it should be simulated, that the best position for an attack is the middle of the map. In case of terrain, the designer has free hands, but what if a real geography should be modelled? Or what if the terrain is flat and open and the map edges are in LOF of adjacent enemy units? To prevent players from using the map-edges as gamey support, since there can be no threat from outside map-edges, scenario designers work around that limitation by designing the map accordingly. That can be a problem, if a real-world battle, or real-world terrain should be modelled. The not so elegant solution with what CM offers already is, that scenario designers use mine-fields or obstacles. But not everyone likes that. It creates a quite artificial impression, that the scenario designer tries to prevent you from moving at the map's edge. And another problem is IIRC, that they are not bound to the map. So in case of QBs, the map-edge problem persists. The idea to overcome this problem softwaredesign-wise: New terrain elements, that represent incoming fire from outside the map (and that create these effects). Two types should be enough to cover most situations: a) Fire against soft targets only - in case it should be simulated the adjacent MLR contains no AT-capability - for example only a few infantry and HMG. Fire against soft and hard targets - in case the adjacent area contains PAK/TDs/tanks. One additional variable of the fire-zone-element, say from 1 to 10, determines the probability, that a unit in this area will suffer losses (the amount of incoming fire). The lowest level would represent a very weak adjacent MLR. The attacker can move units in this area (or whereever the map-designer has placed these areas) and may suffer a few losses. At the highest level of incoming fire the attacker will most certainly lose all units in that area within a minute or two. The adjacent MLR or units off the map are so strong, that movement in that zone is suicide.

Can anyone imagine such kind of doctrine in an army, where the mass of the soldiers couldn't even read or write? They are also instructive movies, because they demonstrate in minutes why the german soldier could only be overwhelmed by tenfold material and ressources.

Because i have my creative phase right now, here's a suggestion to combine full battle replay with optional battle-rules, that are discussed in another thread: In the last replay file of a battle, CM adds a key to unlock the battle-rules for unrestriced replay and movement on the field. As long as the CM-player (the software, not the player) doesn't find that info in the last file, it only can show the replays the way the battle-rules allow (locked to unit, restricted overview levels,...), just like a replay within the normal CM-game. But if a valid key is found, the CM-player can unlock the battle-rules in every loaded replay-file and the replays can be viewed without any restrictions. In more detail: Assumption: CM has to read the applied battle-rules from every file, like it has to read the status of a unit to display it correctly. Additionally to the battle-rules, there is also one single but very powerful option included: unlock battle-rules. To activate that option a (secret) key is needed. But only the CM-game, that creates the files, contains the procedure to create the key. The CM-player frontend does NOT contain this routine. It can only READ the key - if it was included by the main-program. For example when the last replay of a battle/campaign is created, the CM-game also includes the secret key for the CM-player-frontend to unlock the battle-rules during replay and includes it the last file. The player-software checks if a file with a unlock-key is present (the last replay file) and tries to unlock the battle-rules with it. If the key fits, the CM-player-software asks if you want the replays being free from the restictions of the battle-rules. As long as the last file with the unlock-key is missing, the replays can only be viewed the way the battle-rules allow.

Do you know the next/previous chapter keys on DVD-players? A solution to do that could be a "CM-player"-frontend, that has the CM-engine transparently included and that only loads the actual replay file while it - make that optional for fast systems - already buffers the next one/previous one (if the CMx2 engine allows several instances being started, then the player could start transparently another instance of CM and load it transparently with the replay file). Such a CM-player could also show - like normal media-players - a "chapter-list" (= CM-replay-files in that directory), maybe even displaying the duration during the battle. Just click on chapter "Minute 11-12" and the player loads the file and a few seconds later you can watch it. And if that tool would be extremely clever, maybe it even could generate a kind of auto-report by extraction of the game-data from the replay-files? "Minute 11-12" Tooltip: losses: Blue 5 inf, Red 2 tanks A kind of adminstrative tool within that player, that could search the HDs for replay-files and move them into separate folders, would be icing on the cake for not so organized people. And if that tool would also ask you about the password for each replay-folder and remember it by saving a little TXT-file? But maybe that would make WEGO way to attractive over RT and therefore Steve doesn't want it - oh, ofcourse not, because nothing can beat RT - it's not practicabe only because of the HUUUUGE development time of a small frontend.

I find it interesting, how someone can be against the idea of OPTIONAL command delays, only because he doesn't like it - or being against the quite interesting idea of limited number of actions/turn. I doubt you have ever played a CMx1 battle with the IRON MAN rules... It would be great to have several options the opponents can agree upon. If not, then the standard rules are applied. Think about the possibility for the scenario designers to suggest certain rule-profiles ("This scenario is played best with the Iron Man-rules-profile, which is included"). For gentleman's agreements, like in CMx1, you need a very well known and therefore trustworthy oponent - and not even then you can be sure, he doesn't "blink" before he will lose his last Tiger. Someone doesn't need to be a bad person, to do that. Therefore optional rules, that are locked during the battle would be a very interesting feature, especially for the players, that like it harder and more difficult than the average player. * Lock to several levels of map-oversight. * Block movement on the map - be locked to your units (and then play an attack during fog and/or muddy terrain and you cannot escape the rules, because the engine blocks you. ) * Allow certain units have higher oversight levels. * Restrict the amount of map-overviews/movement on the map someone can consume (i.e. 2 times level 4, 5 times level 3, movement-range: 2000m). * Lock the number of allowed actions/turn and/or inf/tank/vehicle-category. * Or give the scenario designer the possibility to restrict one side more than the other (that way highly unbalanced scenarios could be balanced in the outcome, while the much stronger force is locked to certain rules, while the weak side has more freedom). Uswusf.

I would pay for it, too.

I think the delays were a fantastic innovation: Approaches had to be planned very carefully - especially with big combined mot./mech forces, when speed after a small breakthrough was crucial! Incredible. Remember the thrill because of the uncertainty due to syncronization problems, to get the tank platoon with mot. inf. over the bridge, before the smoke screen will vanish? Unreached. Or the fact, that routes and the complexity of the paths had to be weighted against time! Wonderful. Achieving a good timing for storm-attacks was an art of itself: the different timing delays of the units had to be syncronized with the last artillery barrage and the suppression of the enemy. Who doesn't remember about the problems, when precious seconds after the barrage were lost, because of units with big delays? Remember about the challenge to time the last artillery ammunition a few seconds into the next turn, exactly when the time delay of the stromtrooper-units will be over? Or if the own infantry is in deep problems: "Damn, if i only could get that platoon HQ back, then i could do this and it would allow to do with unit X that. I'm doomed, only because they are reacting so slowly!" And you had to watch the drama unfold, without any chance to help the Pixeltruppen, because of the delays. Or the difficulties to move TWO tanks in roughly the same second into LOS of an enemy tank? Or the move backward command for tanks: to avoid slowly turning at the spot before moving, you mostly needed two commands. But that added a few precious seconds - in the case of a firefight, that one delay could be the few seconds too long. Command delays made unit syncronization and cohesion a real challenge. The more difficult, the better.

I think it was one of the very fascinating main challenges in CMx1 (playing human opponents, ofcourse), to find a unit deployment that kept high flexibility lasting long into the battle, until all enemy major units were trustfully ID'ed.

It could be very comfortable, if forced PAUSE could be suspended earlier, if both sides confirm they want to continue.

Who burnt them?

Why not use RAR to partition the file into smaller pieces? I don't know if CM makes a CRC or hash-check of the pbem-file, but if not, it's much better to archive the pbem-file anyway.