PzKpfwIII

I obviously don't have a definitive answer for this; would be a neat concept for the TacAI to duke it out with itself though that might be a lengthy stream of computations. However, to maintain integrity of the unit values - since individual units are tracked - perhaps it isn't so far fetched?

To take this one step futher, 24 hours = 1440 CMBB turns! Of course, units didn't fight 24 hours a day. But they might easily remain in close contact for 24 hours. Stalingrad is a good example of large formations in close contact for a long period of time. If a CMC player wanted to, he could initiate battles for 10 hours in the streets, which then have to be played out in 600 turns. One by one. Or auto-resolved with unpredicable results. That's why I initially started the 'Is this thing really playable' thread. I just wonder how the nuts and bolts of this thing are going to work. </font>

You obviously aren't grasping what I'm saying. I suspect there may be a language barrier, but regardless, we are both on opposite sides of the issue, so there is no point beating this to death. No. Why?</font>

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Not allowing players to see the maps in advance robs the player of the very real benefits of aerial reconnaissance, mapwork, divisional staff work, personal reconnaissance by unit commanders, and the work of recon units, be it a battalion recon platoon or a divisional armoured recon battalion. You are correct that ambush positions and detailed info would not be available until a battle was in progress; however, Vulcan's comments are apt - much of this is not apparent even when one looks at a map in advance of a game. It will be a tradeoff between too much info and not enough info. We obviously disagree, but my position is that not enough info re: terrain will be more unrealistic than the opposite. If you have a reference to back up this assertion, it would be of interest. I'll post some stuff from my sources later on. I think your understanding here is poor. The recon elements are there to assist the commander in understanding what lies ahead - that can mean what enemy units, it can mean location of the enemy, it can mean strength of the enemy, it can mean finding a ford in a stream, or even locating the top of a hill. Or the commander will conduct a reconnaissance personally; a good commander will do this in most circumstances, time and circumstance permitting. It might only be a "map recon" but he will endeavour to put eyes on the route beforehand, possibly walking to the forming up point and startline in advance, or even crawling beyond, to test lines of sight, suitability of the ground for heavy vehicles, scout for command post locations, wounded nests, etc. A bad commander would simply gather this info after X-Hour. This is a valid point, but as Vulture says, the information one gains is not as useful as one might think, in game terms. As stated above, it's a trade off and I come down on the side of too much info. I guess we part company on this issue. I haven't seen the finished game yet, have you? A Tournament Save as described earlier would be useful for this I think; for all we know, it is "in the works.' Knowing what forces or terrain you are facing doesn't make you a better CM player though. Tactical outcomes will still depend on the decisions you make during the game.

Hello Vulture; I think your assessment is on the mark and is another reason for revealing detailed map information before battles commence - and in fact, before units are even earmarked for battles. This information would almost always be available to a real life commander in at least the most general terms. As you point out, LOS issues really come into play during play itself. One workaround may be to give a peek into the 3D world before Campaign orders are given, but prohibit players from making LOS checks while in the 3D world; this would also mean preventing the maps from being saved and opened in the map editor. Perhaps some sort of "Campaign Save" function like the current Tournament Save for scenarios would be in order to prevent the kind of "cheats" you describe so well. This may even be in the works already for all we know.

That's correct. </font>

That is exactly the information each commander will have as soon as they see the CMC campaign map. The minute details of terrain will present themselves to the local commanders as the game unfolds. </font>

The comments on "tactical surprise" regarding terrain seem ill informed. Modern armies travel in the field with several advantages soldiers of previous eras did not have; a) detailed maps (not always accurate, especially in the Soviet Union) aerial reconnaissance c) entire units and subunits dedicated solely to reconnaissance Operational commanders (commanders of field formations) had headquarters staff whose only job - whose sole function - was to interpret the terrain that lay in their path. They did not command troops, they did not drill or handle weapons, they studied maps and aerial photographs and the comments of prisoners of war or local civilians. Not only did the armor and infantry need to know where to go and where to fight, but artillery observation battalions had to interpret terrain to find likely spots for enemy artillery to be hiding, rear area services had to find covered terrain to set up in after the next advance, etc. If a divisional commander was being "surprised" by the terrain ahead of him, he wasn't doing his job. In fast moving operations, these kinds of preparations were not always possible. German maps of Russia were also in some cases notoriously poor. However, even a short-term gain in information would be sought by local commanders reconnoitering ground, either personally, in anticipation of an attack or when laying out defensive positions, or by using units specifically set up to gather information and intelligence - be it the scout section of a battalion or an entire armoured reconnaissance battalion of a division. In CM:C terms, I would think that a fair way to explore the battlefield would be to allow the player to click on any CM:C tile and be either taken to the 3D world, or given a screenshot of the map. Optimally, IMO, the program would give a map-type representation of the 2x2 3D world every time a CM:C tile is clicked in such a manner. Headquarters staff would study this kind of information as far in advance of actual operations as possible. Should the player be able to see CM:C terrain in detail before fighting a battle? I would say yes, and in more detail than the minimaps would provide. Not necessarily a make or break if for simplification's sake it can't or won't be done by the programmers, but logically there is no reason not to include such capabilities. Mapmaking capabilities also existed for units in the field. The Division Ib in a German division, according to Büchner, was responsible for "production of maps for use in supplying, etc." The Divisional O3 (3rd Assistant Adjutant) was responsible for the divisional map unit - which included a printing platoon for both production of maps and duplication of maps - captured maps could be copied, overprints could be printed, and Büchner also mentions shot tables for artillery units. [ October 20, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

The quote says "tile" or CMBB map....are the tiles 1x1 or 2x2? Confusing.

From Büchner's GERMAN INFANTRY HANDBOOK It also mentions that "The lFH 18, since it could be aimed quickly, proved itself well in action against enemy tank targets too and could be used as an antitank gun with hollow-charge shells. For this purpose, all batteries were supplied during the war with a set of HL shells (so-called red-head ammunition)." I would suppose that is why it is included in the game. The sFH 18 (heavy 150mm) weighed 8 tons and "Setting them up was also a laborious process...." and the book goes on to discuss this. I don't doubt the 105mm was useful for the defence of battery positions, I just question if it would happen often enough to warrant inclusion, especially if gunlines are located well off the map of most average size campaigns. Also, the 45 minute response time does not apparently include the initial surveying of gun positions, ranging, etc. Include the 105s for sure, if they were commonly employed as anti-tank guns, then they should see use as Maneuver Elements just like anti-tank platoons or companies. And in that case, they would obviously not be allowed to fire indirectly. If they were commonly employed in the anti-tank role, I would suggest that their physical layout and circumstance would be much different than if they were surveyed into a battery position for indirect fire. [ October 19, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

Here is the cite I promised from another thread. 11 July 1942, near Ssemiluki: Page 348-349 of the English edition of Volume I of Spaeter's History of the Panzerkorps GD mentions that the following apparently occurred when Soviet forces broke into the positions of the 2nd Battery of Artillery Regiment GD. "Scarcely had a bombing attack by several enemy IL-2s ended, when we heard the shout: Tanks...! Damn! - there they were, rolling towards us!" One gun crew under Unteroffizier "Communist" Müller (so called because of his political views) accounted for four enemy tanks during the ensuing battle. Müller was awarded the Iron Cross First Class, with the rest of the crew receiving the Iron Cross Second Class, with the exception of the gunner, Obergefreiter Freyschlag, who had already received the Iron Cross Second Class in an earlier battle. A few months later, however, the truth of the incident became known; Müller had ordered his men to take cover behind a railway embankment. Freyschlag and Gefreiter Willi Müller refused the order and acted alone. "Communist" Müller was transferred away from the gun crew and to supply duties, and in addition to the four "kill" rings Freyschlag painted on the barrel of his gun just hours after the engagement, the Iron Cross First Class and promotion to gun commander followed several months later. His comrade, Gefreiter Müller, was killed near Guben in March 1945, while "Communist" Müller survived the war to serve as a police officer in Leipzig, East Germany. Interesting that the battery was ordered to take cover rather than fire back. I have no idea if this was a snap judgement or if that was doctrine. I believe this unit was drawn from the former Artillery Regiment 400 which had experience in France 1940 as well as in Russia throughout the preceding 12 months of combat, but can't speak for the individuals concerned. A closer read indicates one gun of the battery was deliberately positioned facing to the rear of the battery "we had done so because we were aware of the unclear situation to our left, but also to secure the level crossing." One could draw several conflicting conclusions from this small snippet. [ October 19, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

Simply untrue. Effectively all Soviet artillery was trained in direct-fire tank-shooting, were issued with AP rounds, and had tank destruction as a primary or secondary mission. The Germans issued HEAT for anti-tank work to their 15cm batteries; and ISTR reading an account of American 155mm howitzers at Anzio giving a very good account of themselves in a direct-fire fight with Panzers, just with plain HE. Admittedly something has gone badly wrong if enemy tanks are overrunning your divisional artillery, but that does not make it sensible to pack in without a fight when you have weapons capable of destroying any target on the battlefield. In Royal Artillery doctrine, close defence of the battery position is the top priority task, and the only thing more important than a call for final defensive fire. I doubt that the artillery of other nations do things very differently in that respect. All the best, John. </font>

At least one history of a Panzergrenadier Division goes into detail about a battery of 105mm guns that were flanked by a deep-ranging Soviet tank force; one of the gunlayers received the Iron Cross 1st Class for fighting his cannon against them. They were not in an ambush however, they were emplaced. If I can find the reference, I will post it. I don't believe that whether or not heavy artillery can fight direct fire battles is the issue; the real issue is having the guns portrayed twice in the game - once as an FO and once as a gun. Emplacing an artillery battery and surveying the guns for indirect fire was not something done instantaneously, nor was the stockpiling of ammunition. I would suggest simulating the guns on map would be more trouble than it is worth, and allowing guns to switch from one mode to the other would be unrealistically flexible. I also expect that if a player really wanted the guns on map, they can be put into a campaign as a Maneuver Element. They would not be allowed to fire indirect (ie the OOB would not contain an FO). It is possible the designers will allow for guns in a ME to be swapped for an FO attached to another ME, but I don't see much utility in that as most of the time, those ME's would play no part. I also suspect that despite many of the detailed questions on the forum, much of the detail will be very much simplified in the final product for the sake of playability.

If you could name a single unit that suffered that fate, the circumstances of its destruction, and the source you are referencing, it would add a lot to the discussion. Alternately, reference to one of the German manuals of the time (even one of the Reibert canteen books, if they discuss such things) would be of interest. I think you'll find that most armies did not teach how to do a lot of practical things; without being facetious, almost no army taught its men how to surrender, for example. If you can explain why you feel that "the majority (if not more)" of German artillery suffered overrun it would be of interest.

There's little need for special rules. Creation of the units would be simple enough - the fire charateristics of the guns is already in the game where those weapons are mounted on vehicles (requireing only slight modification to ROF), and there are already gigantic guns like the 128mmATG to use for size and turning rate and such. The biggest bother would be making a decent set of images, which I'm sure the community would be only too happy to supply in abundance. </font>

I'm sorry, but that's dumb, just dumb. Why would the arty not fight? What if they get jumped before they can limber? By what you said a puny recon unit could destroy a heavy arty unit virtually w/o loss, and that just is not very likely. [/QB]</font>

Artillery lines were usually moved farther to the rear in order to prevent such overruns. It was a rare enough occurence that it may not be worth creating a bunch of special rules for. Like any game, CMBB deals with the majority of likely situations, not the exceptions. I am under the impression that artillery in CM:C will be represented in-game by use of FO units. Supply trucks, artillery batteries, and other "impedimenta" of regiments/divisions will be abstracted. A scenario designer could choose to have onboard guns as Maneuver Elements but would likely not get the advantages of using them for Indirect Fire. Unless this is something the developer is willing to spend time on working on; there probably wouldn't be much disappointment if it didn't happen given the comparative rarity of such events.

I posed this question in the map thread but it wasn't answered. Currently looking at mapmaking for the Mcensk/Tula operations in October 1941 by elements of 3rd and 4th Panzer divisions. Soviet paratroopers, cavalry, tank vs. tank engagements - has a little bit of everything. As for what I want to see - Stalingrad naturally, though urban combat may be something more suited for CMX2 when it comes out. Would like to see several Campaigns with the same unit - I think end of campaign data will be stored and we will have the ability to retrieve it. Perhaps a unit like the Leibstandarte with a long history, and participation in differing campaigns - urban fighting at Kharkov, deliberate assault in Kursk, etc. I would also like to see the lesser-known units get some coverage - Italian, Romanian, and Finnish campaigns will be of interest. Also the actions of mountain troops in the Caucusus; fighting it out in mountainous terrain hasn't really been done; with the new operational map we should be able to get some good mountain fights in.

This sounds like a quick and easy solution to CM's current method for redrawing battle lines in Operations, if the intention is to cede control of an entire 2x2 grid to the holder of the flag. An alternate method would be to have 5 flags; 1 central and 1 per quadrant, to allow partial control of a 2x2 grid. One could, I suppose, extend that to having 20 flags on the map to assist in subdividing the map further into areas of control. One does wonder what will happen in the event the flag is contested at the end of 60 minutes - optimally, there would be a drawing of lines similar to Operations in CMBB with forces held in place for the next 60 minutes of battle - with forces withdrawing off a map edge being tracked as to direction. A truly elegant (read: overcomplicated) system would have those forces added to any neighbouring square's ongoing battle as reinforcements, timed to the minute they left the first battle. That would require simultaneous turns in all battles, or else the foreknowledge to make battles with withdrawing units sequential, which would be impossible to predict in many cases. Many issues to concern one's self with - I'm starting to see little utility for forumites to ask questions before seeing the demo, although the answers are certainly appreciated nonetheless. Shall be exciting to see the work of some of the premier map makers out there come to the fore after taking a backseat to skin artists and scenario designers for so long.

The big question from my perspective, though, is whether you have to use the same CM heights to represent the same elevation over sea level in each 2x2 map? For example, say you have a 6 x 6 grid and there are 70metre elevation differences in total, but not in the same 2x2 map Can you set heights using the 2.5m contour in the 1st map section as say Level 1 = 160m Level 2 = 162.5m Level 3 = 165m And then in the 2nd map section, set them as Level 1 = 175m Level 2 = 177.5m Level 3 = 180 m etc.?

This is the first good point, IMO, in favour of TCP as a "must have" feature. I've never used the timer and have never had a problem with "slow" opponents, however, can see the utility in this feature and many reasons why others would prefer it. Good point, thanks.

I am hoping also that using different size "Maneuver Elements" will help simulate, say, early-war Russian tactical inflexibility where such existed, or late-war German disorganzization. For example, only allowing a Russian battalion in 1941 to move from square to square as a battalion, whereas German units would be free to mix-and-match companies into tailor made battle groups where necessary. This will require a lot of research on the part of campaign designers to avoid stereotyping, but will be an exciting way to capture some of these differences, and flavour of operations from year to year and formation to formation.

Not entirely true, but I was unclear; yes they start first but one always finishes first, is this not so? The larger the map or the larger the disparity in forces, the longer it seems to take one player versus another. At least, in my experience with TCP play. Your mileage may vary, according also to whether you are on the attack, defence, etc. Digging in and staying hidden means you issue fewer orders. There are differences in movie viewing habits also; some players need a quick high level scan, others go in close and replay multiple times. I'd suggest it is very rare for two players to continually finish assigning orders/watching movies simultaneously.

German Infantry Handbook mentions that not just cows, but herds of pigs, were kept in the divisional trains. They also had a field bakery company for every division. These could be simulated for those wanting to include them as Maneuver Elements by assigning trucks and some troops to a company headquarters unit (perhaps LMG teams to simulate employment of that weapon even in rear echelon units); useful for breakthrough type operations (or breakout) though tactically these were generally insignificant and usually located well away from the firing line. We are aware of the exceptions, of course. The oddest thing I noticed in a photo collection of German soldiers in a bakery company in 1940 was how many of them had the ribbon of the Iron Cross Second Class on their uniform. Then I realized how many had mustaches; both were the hallmark of First World War veterans; they were obviously in the field kitchen to allow abler and younger men to take their place in the rifle companies. I'd suggested for that reason that such rear-echelon units be modelled with Weakened or even Unfit troop types, though not necessarily Green or Conscript; these men had been under fire before, albeit 25 years earlier. [ October 18, 2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

I've always been of the opinion that PBEM can conceivably be no different than TCP play given the proviso that both opponents commit to staying in the same places for the same length of time. The amount of time spent alt-tabbing out of CM and sending a PBEM file (or even better, using PBEM helper) seems negligible, and comparable to the amount of time spent waiting for your TCP buddy to finish his turn (and vice versa). In fact, given the latter case, PBEM is preferable as you can carry on with other projects while waiting for turns. The factors at play, I suppose, are limits on inbox size and computer processing speed; these can be fixed in anticipation of PBEM play as a pseudo TCP play, in the same way that computer hardware can be fixed in anticipation of the new CM engine. Little_Black _Devil, am I missing something that rules out PBEM as an emulation of TCP other than the merely technical?