kenfedoroff

Are you allowed to purchase TRPs in your QB? Usually the Defender can purchase them from fortifications and place them in likely avenues of attack... or am I missing something here? Ken

Green as Jade Thanks for the heads up on this. I agree... If the vehicle is out of LOS, then the small dust clouds made by a Move command should not be shown either. Even if vehicles are moving on Fast command, the larger dust clouds should NOT be visible to the enemy if there is a high elevation blocking LOS. My 2 cents, Ken

I enjoyed this book... but then again, I've never met a WW2 book I didn't like... just some more than others. Otto Carius (and his gunner/crew, whose names escape me) would be considered "Elite" troops in CM terms. Carius commanded at the Company level so the accounts are of small unit tactics. Of special interest to me were the "non-combat" duties that were required, and also the team-work that makes for a good unit. This book is the opinion and experience of the author (which you may or may not agree with), but it is hard to argue with his results. Hope this helps, Ken

I can PBEM if you still need someone. Ken

...Which is why I read their books! I finished reading "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius last month. I get the impression that experience was very important to success. He gives many examples of teamwork and taking advantage of the enemy's weakness in equipment, command and control, etc., in this book. I also get the impression that when the Soviets were dug-in in prepared positions, the Germans could suffer heavy losses in the attack if not properly organized and executed. Conversely, there are many examples of the Soviets suffering heavy losses when they were on the attack. There are several examples of heavy Soviet tank losses that are attributed to the T-34 attacking while "buttoned up" and not having a good battlefield awareness. It also helped to have an elite gunner! I know his examples pertain to experience in Tigers, but some of it might pertain to other weapons as well. Good book. Edit: I think "Borg Spotting" defeats the ability of individuals from repeating some of these successes in the game. For what it's worth, Ken [ June 18, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

This may have been discussed as well, but here it goes... I would like to see in an "Extreme FOW" option the ability of the computer to name the newly created units... and with no ability by the human to rename them. In this way, when units are finally identified, they can be added to the intelligence officer's enemy OOB. Thoughts? Ken

I can PBEM if you still need someone. I don't care which side. Ken

In the book "The Guns of Normandy" by George Blackburn, he describes (Pages 26-27)how in "Crash Action" training, a battery could get off the first round in 3-5 minutes. However, the 4th CA was also voted best of the bunch, so other units might not live up to this example. There are many examples of what it is like to move and set-up a 25 Pounder battery (in action around Caen) in this book. Ken

I'm not sure if they convert to Free French if they are in Canada. I seem to remember getting burned on moving troops to Canada once. Maybe an expert will show up to explain, yes or no. Ken

Apologies in advance if this has been addressed elsewhere. Is there any chance of choosing various levels of FOW (like in Combat Mission)? As it stands now (in SC1), mere contact with an enemy unit reveals its content and strength. Is there any chance that a units identity and strength could be kept secret on the first turn of contact, and a unit required to attack, just to learn information? Has anybody discussed FOW issues? Thanks, Ken

A quick search on the internet gives the impression this book is a novel (fictional). Another book by the author is titled "Abacar the Wizard". Hope this helps, Ken

I think they may have a "death-clock" like vehicles. I would have to set it up in Hot Seat mode and play both sides to make sure. Ken

Good example/point JJ... many decisions forced on the Generals were made for political reasons, irregardless of whether or not that decision made good military/strategic sense. I remember reading a story by a Japanese air ace where he claimed the Americans could have walked onto Iwo Jima unopposed at the time, but instead went for the Philipines. Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to second guess decisions made under extreme pressure with limited Intel. I went searching for my book by General Omar Bradley about his Army career, (another book apparently loaned out and never returned... *sigh*). One of the more interesting parts of the book was dealing with incompetents during WW2. Bradley had to be ruthless in weeding out officers who just couldn't handle combat command (but who were good people that were able to function in other capacities out of combat). I find this theme repeated by all sides (Axis and Allies)... that not all officers (of any rank) were suitable for combat command... and woe unto them that had to serve under them in combat. It's interesting to read about it, but I'm most grateful I never had to live it. Ken

Piss-poor management in the corporate world results in the loss of jobs... It results in total defeat/death/capture in the military. ...Makes me greatful I never had to suffer the decisions of incompetent generals. Who was the poor smuck who was in command of the French army during the German blitzkreig? I remember watching the History Channel and they stated he was in a castle somewhere issueing orders by motorcycle courier! He wasn't even hooked up to a radio! That may all be an exageration created for TV, though... not sure about that. Thanks for the accounts on Percival... I forgot about that poor smuck. Ken

Good question. I believe Hitler was waiting for the political situation in England to change (the removal of Churchill) so that he could accept peace offers from the new English government/monarchy. However, Churchill was never removed for this to happen. There has been some interesting TV shows and articles surrounding Rudolf Hess's flight to England for a peace initiative and his mysterious death in Spandau Prison after the war. It seems there was an upper-class element in England who had a lot to lose (land and titles) if Great Britain was invaded. It's been rumored that this "Peace" element may have had members in the Royal Family. I saw a show where a woman swears the blackout was deliberately broken surrounding a potential landing field on the estate where she worked at, on the same night that he was captured (Hess could not find the landing spot and bailed out). There was also much debate on whether the man imprisoned in Spandau really was Hess. His "suicide" is mysterious as well. An infirm and ill, 80+ year old man (who was supposedly unable to even lift his arms over his head) was able to throw a rope over a pipe, tie the required knots, climb up on a chair/table etc. Obviously, IF there were ANY members of the Royal Family or Monarchy (extended, or otherwise) involved in ANY unauthorized peace initiative with ANY member of Hitler's government (crazed or otherwise), this would be a black-eye on the popular fiction that "We were all in it, together". The popular fiction for both the Allies and Axis is that they were all united and focused (from top to bottom) on victory. Ken

Originally posted by Some_God: Well... There was a reason Hitler had a "Palace Guard" (the S.S.) and the Gestapo: to crush revolt and dissent. While the average German certainly wanted a strong Germany, I doubt that the Germans who came of age before Hitler (and thus were aware he was a politician first, and not the Savior of Germany as depicted in the media) were fully ensnared in his BS. However, when one sees the consequence of speaking out in dissent, they soon learn to keep their opinions to themselves. A while back they had a show on the History Channel about the Hitler Youth. At the end of the show a former HJ mentioned that the youth of today often ask him... "How could you be so stupid to fight on for such a worthless cause?" He replied: "How lucky you are to be allowed to ask that question... We were not." Ken

Originally posted by Some_God: I don't have my sources handy, but I believe at a private level (amongst Hitler's inner circle) he was already voicing his intent for the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1940. However, he had to keep the possibility of further conflict from the public and most of the army. There was no way the German people would be agreeable or willing to take on the sacrifices it would take to deal with Russia. Even after the stunning German victories of 1939-40, many in the army were not so sure (as Hitler was) of a quick kill in Russia. On the German home front, I don't believe there was even a total mobilization for war in 1940. Hitler was being a good politician by keeping the conflicts to a 4-8 week long duration and not having to switch over to a "Total War" economy. Ending the conflict quickly (with the creation of Vichy France) may have been a skilled political move for both the home front and the international scene. Does this make sense? Ken

Good point. It's also possible that Hitler wanted a "quick kill" for political reasons. The average German soldier/people had no idea that Hitler was already looking East for further conquest. A quick victory would get the Army and people on his side (for a while, anyway). My 2 cents, Ken

I would have liked to see the airfleets in SC1 have their air attack values reduced at range to represent the reduced ability of the escort/fighter component of the airfleet to "go all the way" to the target. The medium bomber component would have the same value at any range for ground or air attack value. But this would mean using a separate program for air combat results, rather than using the same program to resolve all combat. The only reason airfleets were so effective in SC1 (vs. Historical reality) is that the range of the escort component doesn't end at 3 hexes (like it would in 1940). In fact, medium bombers from both sides suffered devastating losses when operating without fighter escort. Either fighter/escort units will have to be made separately, or some range limitation will have to be factored into the SC2 airfleets (as far as resisting interception). Ken

For what it's worth... In his book, "In Deadly Combat..." by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, on page 261 starts the story of the 3rd battle of Courland (Dec, '44) in which he relates his own personal experience as an infantry officer while attacking T-34's. I believe, at this point in the war, he is a Lt. in command of a Company? (not 100% sure). Great book. Incredible tale of survival. Ken

Ahh... Okay, that would explain it. Thanks. It's been a fun Op for me, but I'm the Germans dug-in on the hill, rolling my hand grenades down the slopes into the British foxholes. My opponent is relentless, and made me pay for my mistakes. In the second battle I had 2 complete HMG teams wiped out, plus most of a platoon, because I placed them too far forward with no chance for escape, once they were flanked. *Sighs, as a tear rolls down his cheek.* What a meat grinder this is. Ken

I had a situation in CMBB where my (Vet/Crack Panzer) un-buttoned while engaged with obvious threats. As the turn progressed and more and more threats appeared (packs of T-34's bearing down on him) and fired on the Panzer, he still persisted in remaining unbuttoned. You can guess the rest... My opponent stated that I had to (during the orders phase) un-button and immediately re-button my tank to keep him shut for 1 turn. It appears the game engine can't handle decision making for remaining buttoned with visual, known and engaged, threats. Maybe in CMX2... Ken

We are playing a CMAK Op (Gemmano) where I (as the Germans) chose to "Avoid night combat", whereas my opponent claims he tried to initiate night combat. I was able to avoid night combat. My opponent seems a little upset about the results (Hehehe, snicker) and we are both wondering what determines the decision in this case. If the German chooses to avoid night combat, is he successful 100% of the time? -or- Is there some random odds that come into play? In a CMBB Op I am play-testing, I (as Germans) was not even given a choice about avoiding night combat. Is that based on the parameters or random odds? BTW, "Gemmano" (assault on Italian hill-town) has been a fun Op so far (just starting battle #4). Thanks in advance, Ken

Oops... My bad. Thanks for setting me straight on that. I am so used to playing Standard Rarity and Combined Arms that I forget how the allocation for the catagories change. Ken

No (At least... I don't think so). You can work around it to some extent, but you end up picking out some of the forces and placing them on the map before it is imported into a Quick Battle. You can have a trusted third party do this (both sides would have to e-mail their force request, have the 3rd party purchase and place them on the map, and then get the map back.) If you don't mind some break in the FOW, you can do it yourself. For example, the attacker wants a certain medium tank platoon and the defender wants cerrtain units purchased and placed on the map before importing into a QB. Also notice how the point limits for the catagories change for the defender between "Attack" and "Assualt", especially for fortifications. If you choose Assault over Attack, the defender is cut back on the other catagories (Infantry, support,etc.) and forced to put more points in fortifications. If you don't want the defender to be forced into this restrictive situation, you can choose Attack and give the Attacker a 10-25% bonus, but then you put the appropriate amount of fortifications on the map (of the defender's choosing) before importing into a QB. This way, the attacker can get the appropriate force level vs the defender that would be designated for an Assault QB, and the defender can still have trenches, wire, mines, etc. without having to skimp on infantry and support. You will have to play around with the editor and the bonus allowed for one side to get it close to what you want, but it won't be perfect. Ken