TSword

Panzerleader, Completely wrong ! Tracks and engine on a tank have no combat value so they could be left out the same without distorting the game according to your definition, which is of course complete nonsense. A horse equipped platoon is much more manouverable just the same the guns in tanks are. (Since a tanks is a moving armored gun) Of course horses are quite brittle when shot at, but that's not the point. Fighting in the east without horses was unthinkable ! Greets Daniel

A little trick to area fire commands: Give the unit a "on the spot" moving command (-> one where the unit actually does only cover a very small distance) the dreaded sneak works fine for that. You have to experiment a bit, but for mortars a move order (covering no distance at all) already is sufficient to induce the setup delay, usually they then start to fire the second half of turn. I use this scheme alot for HMGs and mortars. Greets Daniel

Yes, a real bloodfreezer... Greets Daniel

Maxx, thx for the test ! If this figures are right, then boggingrates still need some tweaking. 16% and 78% bogging on damp or wet ground for Tiger at 800 m run is just ridiculous. If true it would have meant that the Tiger could not be deployed at all in the East, because after 5 days all Tigers of an Abteilung would be bogged down. As a Tiger battalion only had around 6 18 ton trucks (at very best) and 3 were needed to tow one Tiger (in good ground conditions) most of the bogged Tigers would have been lost in 1944 after one week of retreat. As we all know this was clearly not the case !! And as we know further Tigers were deployed almost everywhere and at any time during the year even under most severe groundconditions (Mud in Russia wasn't just a bit mud but instead many times kneedeep or more !! (After a heavy rain in the Steppe for instance)). Furthermore the Tiger had a relatively short trackrun which is of some benefit when one needs to apply correcting steering for instance in mud or heavy terrain -> braking track is under less stress. Adolf Dickfeld mentions a Tiger which towed his VW-Kübelwagen over the Rollbahn in deep mud (His Kübel was completely hopeless under this conditions). They drived for hours without any problems to the Tiger. IMO, the bogging tendency of the Tiger needs to be adjusted a bit down into the range of Panther. Greets Daniel

Stalin's Organ, And so were the german 150 mm Howitzers. Greets Daniel

It was never so easy to wipe out whole enemy inf-companies as with v1.01 !! Had a russkie company (regs - cracks) attack a german company sized force in wood-scattered-tree terrain(80-100 m LOS at max), mostly cracks with 2 HMGs, a 150mm Fieldgun and 2 flamethrowers. After two turns most enemy units were pinned, so i started an immediate counterattack using the beloved advance command (rushing a reserve platoon into the rearflank during turn 2). The result after turn 3 was 1 single enemy squad fleeing, everything else wiped out and had not more then 10 cas myself. Things like that were impossible in such a short timespan in CMBO where one could fire with a platoon at an enemy surrounded squad for several turns even taking casualties and burning all ammo. Inf is just great now (well with the exception of the HMGs which cannot sneak more then 5-6 m without becoming fatigued which is quite strange to me) I noticed something other interesting during this game. The russkies were firing 152mm barrages onto a bridge, 150m from the bridge there was a ford where i tried to haul a platoon over with move command. The whole platoon panicked and lost cas. because of the 152mm shells landing 150 m away. So shrapnel effect must be in the game because blast can never create such effects at such a distance. I used the advance command after this and lost not a single soul and no one panicked ! Greets Daniel

Don't know if it helps, but i have the impression that if the last command was advance the units don't panic easily. My squads are rock steady when in advance mode. I use advance always when my units are shot at or it's very likely they will, makes a huge difference. One can even cover relatively big distances (100 m+) when giving a pause command at each turn (20 sec.) I use the command up to exhausted state and still they don't panic so easily as with all the other commands. Greets Daniel

Ivan996, Quite a bit optimistic view of the Russian manouver capability of infantry in 1943. Why was Rumjantsev (1st TA & 5th GTA) stopped dead in their tracks in August 1943 at Bogodukhov ? Why did Gallop and Star end in a fiasko in March 1943 ? I can give you the answer, because there was no infantry and no heavy support weapons following fast enough and logistical system still left much to be desired. Respectively the infantry had to ride on the tanks so thousand tanks can transport around 10'000 soldiers not much. Russian infdivs were essentially on foot. The very view Mechanized Corps couldn't make up for that deficiency. This may have improved over time but was surely not there in 1943. The german army degraded from a good motorization level(relatively in 1941) to poor motorization. At average there were around 1-2 AVF per frontkilometer (2000 km front) on the german side, and around 10 on the russian side per end 1943. Of course there was much more were the action was going. Large scale infantry assaults without AVFs on the german side to my knowing were only common in the Northern sector and otherwise where terrain restricted the use of AVFs. On the russian side up to end of 1943 atleast (Example Mius operation) there were frequently massed infantry attacks without AVFs (The Russians concentrated their armor ruthless for their really important battles and then foremost for exploitation, which often left the breaching (atleast the first tries) of the enemy defenses to sole infantry attacks, usually with horrendous casualties if the german infantry was not already wiped out by the hour long prep artilleryfire and outnumbered 10:1 or more. Only if a breakthrough in this manner could not be achieved were tanks allocated (up to mid 1943 atleast). A really typical situation for infantry only actions for both sides (even relatively small) were the crossing of rivers to create a bridgehead big enough for the engineers to build bridges. And of course city fighting where tanks only have a siderole (although a company in the city is a hopeless entity..). In the South where open terrain dominated offensive fighting without tanks was unthinkable. Greets Daniel [ November 21, 2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: TSword ]

Jaegermeister, 1. HQ unit as spotter: Of course i have a halfsquad in the Lead, but a HQ-unit or more in the very first line. They have better spotting and identification capablities and they are usually quite immune vs. enemy fire. I don't know wether your post is about playing vs. AI or human player. Greets Daniel

My suggestions wera vs. AI of course. The picture is completely different when playing vs. human. There the Player can easily avoid that most of his units are spotted. In case of steppe as soon the enemy unit goes prone it becomes a "star". In open terrain infantry is only of very limited use, here tanks reign the field clearly, especially vs. human player. Vs. a human player Artillery becomes very important and firing really heavy suppressive fire when assaulting a position. Flanks must be secured or suppressed or screened by smoke. A lot of smoke in general becomes important to restrict fields of fire to own benefit. Playing vs. AI is like training whereas vs. human the real thing. Greets Daniel

I do now have regularly a HQ-Unit (Platoon or company HQ) in the Lead or first line, because they are very good at spotting and identifying targets. When moving into absolutely unknown land, i use a half squad at a time while the rest of the platoon is ready to give cover fire so they are always within 50-100 m (depending on terrain) -> with 2 Halfsquads one can advance in bounds. It is important that the cover element does not move. Also important is to have some pause before advancing, so the resting(covering) troops have time to scan the terrain. Keep your HMGs, LMGs and mortars close to give heavy support fire if necessary. To assault a position the enemy MUST be supressed or the attacker won't make it (one single squad may stall a platoon easily). In general one needs 2/3 to suppress and 1/3 to assault or to safely assault a platoon pos you need roughly 2 platoon equivalents of suppressing fire and atleast 1 platoon to assault. Best for suppression are mortars and HMGs or big volumes of rifle fire. I've never encountered the engagment problem you're pointing out my units always engaged the identified enemy so far... Greets Daniel [ November 20, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

I love the new Infantry model ! However there are some "minors" as VanirB pointed it out. Greets Daniel

Currently the AI uses Artilleryassets very strange. In defense the AI should be corrected in a way that it does not lay Smokescreens. Now almost with 100 % certainty AI will lay smokescreens even with heaviest calibres in defense when under attack. This only and always plays into the hands of the attacker. The only purpose of laying a smokescreen for defender is a retreat or covering movement of units which in both instances are completely out of capability of the AI to manage. So my request for AI 1: When using Ari in attack mode use more smoke, but no smoke at all in defense (The contexts where smoke is beneficial is completely out of capability of AI now). 2. During scenario design it should be possible to digin vehicles (The AI never ever does this, respectively i never encountered it). If possible the Player (but not the AI) should be allowed to undig such vehicles if they are not locked. 3. During scenario design it should be possible to already designate second foxholes, since AI is never using it. (The Player still can relocate them) 4. Definition of Coverarcs during scenario design for heavy weapons (HMGs, AT Guns and digged in vehicles, and bunkers), since the AI never uses them. 5. Russian bunkers come only with the L17 76.2 mm gun which can penetrate 30 mm at 100 m, and therefore is completely useless in a Mid 1943 scenario. Please define also Bunkers with ZIS-3 guns. Greets Daniel

Although it's true that to change direction was a strategic error (momentum on main axis was lost). The question remains what the huge russian force in the deep right flank of a further push toward moscow might have done. Certainly they wouldn't have done nothing but instead attack the right flank. And as anybody knows the initial force allocation was that the Russian anticipated the german main thrust into the Ukraine (Southern axis). What masses of russian tanks might have done to the german right flank mostly defended by infantry one can easily imagine... Disregard of the flanks would certainly have been a huge gamble..and even a notorious gambler like Hitler must have felt decisively unsure.. However the taking of Moscow would have been a major blow to Stalin and the Russians. Once the germans would have been there the Russians would have bled white in trying to retake it. If winter wouldn't have come so early the germans would have captured it anyway no doubt. Ah, and don't forget Leningrad a further dissipation of force away from the main axis for nothing ! Greets Daniel

I have no problems also with tiring speed in general. Only HMG-teams tire a bit to fast IMO. A veteran Fit rested squad can do around 140 m with Run in one turn not going below ready state, however then it needs a 30-40 sec. pause. At average one can suspect to do 60m per turn when no enemy fire suspected, and around 40 m when enemy fire is very likely (probing, recon). When being under fire in open terrain there's nothing better then advance, a squad may loose a man or two but seldom panic (regular or above) and reach their destination most of the time. I always plot 20 m Run and then around 20-30 m advance but seldom let them start before 20-30 sec. into turn. To concealment in open terrain, in general it is bad to place a unit into low ground because it is easier spotted. Brush and grain provide good concealment when prone (depends on season), while grass and steppe are only somewhat better then open ground (but still better, i did some testing, strange that most scenarios have no grass or steppe...). If a stealthy approach is paramount in open flat terrain, there's only the sneak command. If enemy has only a slightly elevated position he will spot enemy units in open when they move prone in grass, steppe or open, while brush and grain fields work to some extent. Advance rates from an analysis of over 200 battles in Italy and NW-Europe: Advance rates are given in yards per hour. NW Europe Day/Night Strength Opposition Distance Min Mean Max Day Coy Slight 800 700 935 1245 2500 860 1290 1940 Day Coy Heavy 800 415 555 740 2500 510 765 1150 Day Bn Slight 800 485 645 855 2500 590 890 1355 Day Bn Heavy 800 285 380 510 2500 350 525 790 Night Coy Slight 800 555 740 990 2500 680 1025 1540 Night Coy Heavy 800 330 440 585 2500 405 610 915 Night Bn Slight 800 385 510 680 2500 470 705 1060 Night Bn Heavy 800 225 305 405 2500 280 420 630 Italy Day/Night Strength Opposition Distance Min Mean Max Day Coy Slight 800 545 730 970 2500 670 1005 1510 Day Coy Heavy 800 325 430 575 2500 395 595 895 Day Bn Slight 800 375 500 665 2500 460 690 1040 Day Bn Heavy 800 225 295 395 2500 275 410 615 Nit Coy Slight 800 435 580 770 2500 530 800 1200 Nit Coy Heavy 800 255 345 455 2500 315 475 710 Nit Bn Slight 800 300 395 530 2500 365 550 825 Nit Bn Heavy 800 175 235 315 2500 215 325 490 As you can see CM is quite close. Greets Daniel

Jaegermeister, During the next Summer do a trip into the countryside and check it out yourself. Standing 30 m in front of a forest or wood what can you see going on in there, do you think you are able to see somebody hiding near the edge ? My observation with European woods is that the Forest or Wood borders are usually plastered with thick brush almost like bocage and i can usually not see anything inside it even when standing 15 m in front. So in conclusion a platoon may very well hide in a patch of wood and not being spotted until someone virtually steps on them. This changes considerable in autumn and winter where trees loose their foliage. The germans again and again were surprised how the russians were able to conceal whole battalions in their approaches and then popping up some meters in front seemingly out of nowhere. If anything, then spotting/tracking in CM is still much to easy IMHO. Reading Source suggestion: M. Nipe's Books give excellent low level inside views of the fighting in russia. Greets Daniel

Long barelled PzIIIs (starting J IIRC) should be able with Tungstenrounds head-on, and with standard shot from the side and rear. Throw smoke in front of them and charge with 4 : 1 numerical superiority (Expensive and risky). Distract them with infantry, mortars, artillery (Shoot at them with everything you have). Buy a Heap (1 Platoon per KV-1) of cheapest tanks (38(t) for instance) and take them under concentrated fire, after some time chance for a gunhit and/or panicking the crew will rise and rise. If they are dispersed on controling spots far behind the lines it will remain hard until mid 1942 when the long barelled 7.5cm KwK arrived (first in the StuGs, later for PzIV F(2) too). Greets Daniel

Von Lucke, Andreas is right an armored Panzergren. squad had a driver (and the Suad MGs(2) were those mounted in the SPW), so the SPW 251/1 was organic to the unit. Now of course CM reflects those facts only partially (The HQ-unit, SPW 251/10 + crew should be in command of the vehicle AND the crew) but quite balanced still i think. Greets Daniel

Nippy ...and die prematurely in a fiery explosion. For the Stugs you're right, but strangely many times they trow smoke and backup while some turns later they stand to fight. (Influence of global moral or just plain random who knows). For the cowardice of T-34, one should reflect upon the fact, that although the Soviets produced around 1000-1500 T-34 a month in 1943 and 44 many hundreds were also destroyed. (Beginning 1943 Red Army had 15'000 tanks in it's arsenals and most probable around 20'000 at the end of the year). 5th GTA was virtually destroyed at Prokhorovka and a burnt out hull at 17th July 1943 with it's handful of tanks digged in defensive posture. Less then a month later 5th GTA took part in the Russian Rumjantsev Offensive with over 400 tanks again. Where did this new tanks and crews come from ? I bet the russian tankcrews had a healthy dose of respect toward the german tankarm and the Heavies in particular. Btw. 5th GTA again faced their Nemesis near Bogodukhov in form of the 2nd SS PzKorps and again was stopped and severly mauled...... Greets Daniel

Pascal, Rotmistrov, Commander of 5th Guards Tank army prior to the Army's Counterattack at Prokhorovka did emphasize to his Tankcommanders the importance that they should not stop to engage the germans at long range, but instead close to under 500m with highest possible speed (Because of fear of the Tigers). At the end of 12. July the leftovers of this Army had to dig in their tanks. Because it was like shooting on the range for the germans, II.PzReg1 (LAH) alone killed over 100 russian tanks. The 3 Tigers in combat vs. 5th GT accounted for around 20-30 (Wittmann being one of them). After the battle the Russians counted 400 burned out tankhulls on the Prokhorovka battlefield the overwhelming majority being russian tanks. Rotmistrovs fear of the Tigers actually destroyed 5th GT in one day of fighting.. Closing fast with the enemy for T-34s in 1943 is important but one should not forget to do this in bounds and keep firing or otherwise the germans enjoy happy shooting. Greets Daniel

Sgt. Steiner, Right, after the recapture of Kharkov in Spring 1943, the Tankfactory there was used to "produce" german T-34, eg. Useable slight damaged T-34 were reworked to german standards. Have some pictures about it. However this ended after Kharkov was captured by the Russians once and for all in Aug. 1943. To my knowledge SS-PzGren. Totenkopf used this tanks in a special Company (14. ?) for the remaining 1943 (Kursk, Mius, Bogodhukov and the retreat to the Dnjepr river. Detachment Kempf also used atleast one captured T-34 to fool the Russians and take an important Rivercrossing in the Kursk-campaign around 12/13. July. Greets Daniel

Yes +1 would be fine as default, i always adjust by hand. However, even more important would be a Zoomlevel between 2 and 3 or even better adjustable by a parameterfile. Now 3 is to far away, while 2 is to close IMHO Greets Daniel

More options yes (maybe), but no corset ! It is very dangerous to generalize such soft factors as morale, experience, endurance, spirit to fight, obidience, esprit de corps, fear and what else..., because foremost the prepositions and reasons are set by behaviour and interaction of humans in time and space together with the natural variance and boundaries of the human being (while being the simplest part still is a huge undertaking to understand..). Greets Daniel

Visuals in low views (1 & 2) are awesome. I personally prefer the winter- and fog- moods most they look absolutely breathtaking.

For 1943 Kharkov Counteroffensive M. Nipe's "Last Victory" is a diamond (Sources: Collected personell accounts, unit histories, Glantz and many others) creates an extremely detailed picture of the campaign. All Glantz books are very good, though seldom below division and regiment level, especially 2nd Kharkovbattle "Anatomy of a military disaster" (spring 1942) and Kursk are extremely interesting. Panzertactics has also some battles portrayed. For Tanker History: Wolfgang Schneider's Books are superb same goes for Jentz Panzertruppen books. There's also a book about the Sturmgeschuetze (Assault guns) which is packed with 200+ pg of unit histories (Federowo.... and something is publisher.) Beevor's Stalingrad book is also very good. The problem in general is there's hardly any book portraying the level of action as in CM (Battailon and below). However one can still distill a lot of useful information out of them. Sadly i don't know any good book portraying specific russian operations in detail. Greets Daniel [ November 07, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]