Schoerner

You can find Tom's great winter-mod on his site http://home.arcor.de/tcmhq/TCMHQ.html A CMMOS compatible version can be found on CM HQ http://www.combatmission.com

CMBB will be a big step forward and i'm sure it will become an even bigger deal for Battlefront than CMBO. So the chances are good, that CM3 will come out. Till then we all will be fascinated by CM2 and i'm sure, CM3 will have the full-game movie playback. Am i allowed to dream about an additional special replay function with rendered motion-capturing units and vastly improved operative elements, where CM's battles are part of big operations with lots of human players? I hope CM will make it to CM10. And all the Battlefront guys should become millionairs - they really deserve it. Thank you all for making such a great game/sim and even surpassing it.

I hope, the historical accuracy is the main target, again. 1st year (additional!) land-and-lease-act deliveries : 3.052 airplanes, 4.048 tanks, 520.000 vehicles of all kinds (comparison: Germany started Barbarossa with 1.830 airplanes, 3.580 tanks, 600.000 vehicles) entire land-and-lease deliveries for the USSR: 14.700 airplanes, 50.000 Jeeps, 135.000 MGs, 13.000 armoured vehicles (incl. 7000 tanks), 1.045 locomotives, 7.164 boxcars, 427.284 trucks, 11.000.000 boots (main transport route: murman-track-line; only 1.500.000 million tons of the 16.500.000 million tons were sunken by the germans) The USA and the lend-and-lease-act did win the war on the eastern-front - the USSR itself, was already beaten after the first months.

Don't care about the details: Question for the ladder and human vs human players: would you like your game results (PBEM/TCPIP) are not only for personal rating (on the ladder), but influence a big operational hex-map, too? This is a test only, if there would be enough principal interest in bringing the hundreds of quick-battles every week into a bigger context together.

This thread is about CM. If you're speaking about leadership, it's logical, you mean the officers. So your answer was in this context a generalisation to all officers. If you meant the political leadership, it doesn't fit into this thread.

Hm. All soviets? All germans? Are you one of those creatures like Morgenthau? I'm wondering if you ever heard about fighting troops and the following ones. Nice to see, that the veterans of both sides have a bigger horizon than you, when they together are remembering the fallen soldiers of both sides. Ofcourse your oldtestamentary hate will never understand a knightly behaviour of soldiers, that life must go on and forgive and forget is most important for all aspects of life.

@Vicheroy: this are the usual lies against one of the best german generals. Schörner stabilized Herresgruppe Nord, AFTER Dietl was unsuccessful with even less men and material. He stabilized it that good, that it held serveral months ofter he was put to another objective. Schörner was called alsways, after all the great names were unsuccessful - and he prooved with his success, that they were wrong. Read facts and make your own decisions, instead of retelling, what someone wrote in a book about someone, without facts. It's not a fact, if i say XY has killed people. It's not a fact, if i write it in a book. It is maybe true, if i can name details. It's maybe true, if i can proove the soldiers under his command hated him. But the opposite was the case! Do you really think, there were no personal and political interests after WWII? Where are the facts, in all of your narrations? Read this book "Feldmarschall der letzten Stunde", Roland Kaltenegger and if you still have your opinion, then we can discuss. But stop retelling always the same lies about this honourable and much to underestimated man.

Well, if you have something against my nick, i have to defend it. I also had the same opinion about Schörner and believed what was written, till i read "Schörner - Feldmarschall der letzten Stunde" by Roland Kaltenegger (beside the narrations of my grandfather who was 4th GD). The book gives a good insight how the mistrust of the highest german command in the Generalstab originated and it's much to complicated to explain it here. To summarize: Schörner's success in leadership and his loyality to the Führer was bad for a lot of generals. Generals who claimed after the war, that they never were Nationalsocialists and just did what the commands were. They were good soldiers. And Schörner never neglegted anything. He was the prototype of the bad german general for the mass media and prpaganda. Well who knows, that after war, there were only very few leaders that were beloved like their "iron Ferdinand". He was hard to all the quitters, but he was just. Therefore he was loved by the the brave soldiers. If you are interested in how the many years established picture of a man could differ from reality, then read this book and decide yourself, which facts are better. What people afterwards say about someone, or what he really did in all the difficult situations. BTW: thousands of his men signed in the 1960s a petition that he was the best leader they ever had, that he was the father for the brave soldiers and the enemy of the quitters and that his person should be protected against the lies.

Please let me add another question: will a videorecorder function be included for watching whole battles?

Andreas, it's not possible to talk about surrendering, without talking about the 3 million prisoners in the first weeks of Barbarossa. I agree, that the conclusion wasn't necessary. Every wargamer is able to make his own conclusions about such facts, despite the official history. And my nick is in memory of Feldmarschall Schörner. If you have a problem with it, then it's YOUR problem - a problem of to less knowledge. [ July 14, 2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

To add my two cents: Surrendering on the soviet side was much more common than on the german side. For example: in the first weeks of Barbarossa (2-3 months), over 3 million(!) men of fighting russian troops were captured. Ofcourse this was due to the operational situation that the german attack directly hit the for an attack preparing russian troops close to the german border, but nevertheless the russian troops were not really willing to fight til the last man. Or think, later in war, of the communist political-commissioners standing behind their own troops and shooting immediately at them, when they din't want to rush forward. My grandfather told me, it was not rare, that wounded german soldiers, who were not movable begged for a mercy-death by the own comrades, when the front couldn't be held and the soviet troops were coming closer. I thought this was because of the german propaganda, till my grandfather told me, what he had seen often enough with his own eyes, what had happened to the wounded soldiers in areas that had been evacuated and were reconquered. It's not the right place to describe it here, but think of the most horrible things human brain can imagine, and it will come close to what happened. BTW: this is the reason, why the assassins from the 20th July '44 were completely wrong. They had no knowledge about the war in the east: even if the assassination on Hitler would have been successful, the german troops on the eastern front, would NEVER have surrendered. For by far the most of the german eastern-front fighters, the assassins were traitors. [ July 14, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I'm wondering, which side the US/UK/CDN/F-players will prefer: the German (with Germans, Finns, Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians) or the Soviet side? [ July 13, 2002, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Maybe you've missed the point: it's not a crack and also not a patch of the executable. The patch doesn't affect the copy protection. It just changes the computer's memory.

Maybe this is of interest for some of you: i made a patch for CMBO which replaces the "Waffen-Grenadier" with "Waffen-SS" and also corrects the abbrevations of the leaders (i.e. the german Unteroffizier became "Unt" instead "Ufz" (in memory there's only plce for three characters, not for the real "Uffz" abbrevation) and especially the Waffen-SS abbrevations). I'll do my best for CM BB, too - and let you know, when the Anti-censor-patch is available for download. I don't know, if the patch will also work for the other european versions, 'cause it depends strictly on the memory-adresses, where the strings for the units are stored.

@Gyrene: CMMC has predefined scenarios and is much to time consumpting to administrate @K-Tiger: i don't mean predefined scenarios. All that the geographical map determines, are the options for the quick-battle generator: the OKW/HQ determines which hex you play (for example in the ardennes) - the predefined hex-map determines that this hex is a 1000 points battle, with 20 turns, big hills, many trees and a village. With this parameters given from the HQ/OKW the two opponents create a normal quick-battle for PBEM or TCP/IP and play.

I don't know if this has been already discussed, but what about a strategic component in CM for us ladder players? Think of the possibility, not only to play for our personal ladder-results, but also being involved in a huge operation with hundreds of CM games, where each game-result affects the strategic situation! Here’s the idea: What we need is a BIG map of Europe that is covered by CM-battles in size and topography. After an election on the ladder, the elected ladder-players (only players with (minimum) more than 4 battles should have the right to elect them, and ofcourse, Alliies can elect Alliies only and same for Axis side) represent the german OKW and the allied HQ and determine, where on the map (which segment or hex) the battles take place. The “resource management” is represented by the playing community itself: if someone wants to play, he just let's the HQ/OKW know which size of battle he wants to play (additionally with preferences of the topography). After this, the OKW/HQ determines, where on the map the action should take place and marks the area on the public map, so that everyone of the other side can see, where and what size of battles are waiting to be done. Now the other HQ chooses it's players to play these battles. After a certain period of time (i.e. 3 days), the defending side has to nominate the player (which player, is the decision of the OKW/HQ (now the ladder becomes a deeper sense , but there should be additional rules, so that also newbies and less good players have the chance to play, too), that should do the job, otherwise the marked field goes to the attacking side. Ofcourse only adjacent fields can be played with one exception: if there is a neutral field between two enemy fields and a side wants to take it and the other side nominates a player within the pre-determined period of time, it has to be a meeting engagement. In the case of two adjacent enemy fields on the map, the defender can choose if he want’s to play a meeting engagement, or a defending battle. When the two players are nominated, everything is like usual for a normal QuickBattle (PBEM or TCP/IP), except the topography and the size of the battle (which is predetermined by the BIG map). The daytime of the quick battle is determined by the attacker. I guess the biggest work will be, to make this map and the program that updates the map’s graphics (which side has which fields under control) and manages the strategic components like the available players, their scenario size wishes for the OKW/HQ-“Generals”. Another important point should be, to limit the battles that can be simultaneously played by one player (I think three simultaneous battles would be quite adequate). This also simulates the ressources for the HQ/OKW and adds more strategic depth to the decisions for the “Generals”. Do the "Generals" use all the points of the good players? Or should they keep some points (=available games) as reserve? If a player loses a battle, he will have to wait a certain period of time (one week?), till he can start a new battle (this should simulate the losses of men and material). This doesn’t affect the battles he’s already playing. And to give the HQ/OKW another great strategic component, it should be possible to surround (german: “einkesseln”) the enemy. This is done, by capturing fields, till the enemy fields are completely surrounded by own fields. If this happens, the whole surrounded fields (area) is given to the surrounding side. What to do to prevent that the CM-cracks can cut too easily through the map? Well very simple: if the CM-genius wins one battle after another he goes on and on – 1. but he can only play (example) three games simultaneously 2. and the starting fields of his extraordinary success through the enemy’s territory are also very vulnerable: just conquer one/some of the root field(s) back and HE is surrounded -> all fields won back and he’ll have to wait for one week before he can start a new battle Ofcourse we would need some military specialists, that have an intuitive feeling, how big a CM-battle sould be for the region/hex of the geographical map, where the CM-quick battle belongs to. Imagine how this would increase the thrill for the player, if he knows he plays (i.e.) one of four 5000 pts. Battles to take Paris and everyone will see the result on the map! Even the kind of victory can be included: a total victory gives the winner the opportunity to take another adjacent area/hex. I think it will also be quite exciting for the "Generals", to choose the right players for the battles and make the right strategic decisions, where on the map the next battles should take place. Ofcourse the defending HQ/OKW doesn’t know, which player from the other side is choosen to fight for the marked field. I think there are two options for the map: 1. very labour-intensive: the map consists of hundreds(?) of small, different in size battle-regions. Pros: unimportant landscapes can be put into one single battle-map -> only one CM-battle necessary Cons: what a labour for the developers! - less small and short battles for newbies 2. Hexes – all have the same size, but each Hex has it’s specific CM-values: from very small and short battles (a hex on an unimportant location of the map) to the monster 5000pts. battles with big maps and >40 turns. A PBEM-opponent of me estimated (he made a rough and quick estimation) that you would at the minimum need 4 battles, 5000pts each for a battle for Paris to match realistic dimensions. I haven’t checked how many hexes we would need for whole Europe (ofcourse there will be a huge amount of it), if we extrapolate this standard, but if this would result in an too large number of hexes (1 hex =1 real PBEM/TCP battle), ofcourse we could increase the size of each hex. If you are a programmer, please let us know, if such a programm is possible to be made. It would be great, if the program updates the map automatically – the HQ/OKW just enters the results – and the conquered fields are calculated automatically (surround actions) and the map shows the name of the players that fought/fight for each hex. Maybe we should think forward (CM BB) and a map with Europe and Russia instead of western and central europe would be better. It also should be taken into discussion, to limit the players that can join the campaign – to have the same number on each side. Or, maybe better: each player tells the OKW/HQ his maximum amount of simultaneous games (he isn’t allowed to play more than this number) and each game brings one point. For example: if Axis has 25 players but Allies have 40, it would be easy for Alliies to conquer new fields, ‘cause Axis isn’t able to nominate enough players in time for the marked hexes. But if we take a look at the points, it doesn’t matter how many players each side has, we only have to take care, that both sides have quite the same number of points. While I’m writing a lot of new possibilities appear: think of for attack marked fields, but the HQ/OKW hasn’t enough players that are ready to play – so the HQ/OKW needs to send out conscription-commands. A thought about the beginning of the CM-monster-battle: France and Germany in their original borders, surrounded by “neutral” hexes. Each side can mark a neutral hex, to be conquered. Because, the other side isn’t adjacent to the hex, the hex is occupied by the attacker after a certain period of time (I suggest a shorter time than the usual time to nominate a player for the defending side). Remember: there must be a real player, to occupy the hex and all other restrictions (max. simultaneously battles) are guilty. Ofcourse it will take some days, till Axis and Alliies can play “real” CM-battles against each other, but this phase is also important for the strategic development of the occupied territory. Please excuse my bad english and feel free to develop these basic thoughts and what you think of this idea and if you would like to play battles in such a CM-monster-campaign. Schörner (member of blitzladder www.theblitz.org) [ July 02, 2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I don't know if this has been already discussed, but what about a strategic component in CM for us ladder players? Think of the possibility, not only to play for our personal ladder-results, but also being involved in a huge operation with hundreds of CM games, where each game-result affects the strategic situation! Here’s the idea: What we need is a BIG map of Europe that is covered by CM-battles in size and topography. After an election on the ladder, the elected ladder-players (only players with (minimum) more than 4 battles should have the right to elect them, and ofcourse, Alliies can elect Alliies only and same for Axis side) represent the german OKW and the allied HQ and determine, where on the map (which segment or hex) the battles take place. The “resource management” is represented by the playing community itself: if someone wants to play, he just let's the HQ/OKW know which size of battle he wants to play (additionally with preferences of the topography). After this, the OKW/HQ determines, where on the map the action should take place and marks the area on the public map, so that everyone of the other side can see, where and what size of battles are waiting to be done. Now the other HQ chooses it's players to play these battles. After a certain period of time (i.e. 3 days), the defending side has to nominate the player (which player, is the decision of the OKW/HQ (now the ladder becomes a deeper sense , but there should be additional rules, so that also newbies and less good players have the chance to play, too), that should do the job, otherwise the marked field goes to the attacking side. Ofcourse only adjacent fields can be played with one exception: if there is a neutral field between two enemy fields and a side wants to take it and the other side nominates a player within the pre-determined period of time, it has to be a meeting engagement. In the case of two adjacent enemy fields on the map, the defender can choose if he want’s to play a meeting engagement, or a defending battle. When the two players are nominated, everything is like usual for a normal QuickBattle (PBEM or TCP/IP), except the topography and the size of the battle (which is predetermined by the BIG map). The daytime of the quick battle is determined by the attacker. I guess the biggest work will be, to make this map and the program that updates the map’s graphics (which side has which fields under control) and manages the strategic components like the available players, their scenario size wishes for the OKW/HQ-“Generals”. Another important point should be, to limit the battles that can be simultaneously played by one player (I think three simultaneous battles would be quite adequate). This also simulates the ressources for the HQ/OKW and adds more strategic depth to the decisions for the “Generals”. Do the "Generals" use all the points of the good players? Or should they keep some points (=available games) as reserve? If a player loses a battle, he will have to wait a certain period of time (one week?), till he can start a new battle (this should simulate the losses of men and material). This doesn’t affect the battles he’s already playing. And to give the HQ/OKW another great strategic component, it should be possible to surround (german: “einkesseln”) the enemy. This is done, by capturing fields, till the enemy fields are completely surrounded by own fields. If this happens, the whole surrounded fields (area) is given to the surrounding side. What to do to prevent that the CM-cracks can cut too easily through the map? Well very simple: if the CM-genius wins one battle after another he goes on and on – 1. but he can only play (example) three games simultaneously 2. and the starting fields of his extraordinary success through the enemy’s territory are also very vulnerable: just conquer one/some of the root field(s) back and HE is surrounded -> all fields won back and he’ll have to wait for one week before he can start a new battle Ofcourse we would need some military specialists, that have an intuitive feeling, how big a CM-battle sould be for the region/hex of the geographical map, where the CM-quick battle belongs to. Imagine how this would increase the thrill for the player, if he knows he plays (i.e.) one of four 5000 pts. Battles to take Paris and everyone will see the result on the map! Even the kind of victory can be included: a total victory gives the winner the opportunity to take another adjacent area/hex. I think it will also be quite exciting for the "Generals", to choose the right players for the battles and make the right strategic decisions, where on the map the next battles should take place. Ofcourse the defending HQ/OKW doesn’t know, which player from the other side is choosen to fight for the marked field. I think there are two options for the map: 1. very labour-intensive: the map consists of hundreds(?) of small, different in size battle-regions. Pros: unimportant landscapes can be put into one single battle-map -> only one CM-battle necessary Cons: what a labour for the developers! - less small and short battles for newbies 2. Hexes – all have the same size, but each Hex has it’s specific CM-values: from very small and short battles (a hex on an unimportant location of the map) to the monster 5000pts. battles with big maps and >40 turns. A PBEM-opponent of me estimated (he made a rough and quick estimation) that you would at the minimum need 4 battles, 5000pts each for a battle for Paris to match realistic dimensions. I haven’t checked how many hexes we would need for whole Europe (ofcourse there will be a huge amount of it), if we extrapolate this standard, but if this would result in an too large number of hexes (1 hex =1 real PBEM/TCP battle), ofcourse we could increase the size of each hex. If you are a programmer, please let us know, if such a programm is possible to be made. It would be great, if the program updates the map automatically – the HQ/OKW just enters the results – and the conquered fields are calculated automatically (surround actions) and the map shows the name of the players that fought/fight for each hex. Maybe we should think forward (CM BB) and a map with Europe and Russia instead of western and central europe would be better. It also should be taken into discussion, to limit the players that can join the campaign – to have the same number on each side. Or, maybe better: each player tells the OKW/HQ his maximum amount of simultaneous games (he isn’t allowed to play more than this number) and each game brings one point. For example: if Axis has 25 players but Allies have 40, it would be easy for Alliies to conquer new fields, ‘cause Axis isn’t able to nominate enough players in time for the marked hexes. But if we take a look at the points, it doesn’t matter how many players each side has, we only have to take care, that both sides have quite the same number of points. While I’m writing a lot of new possibilities appear: think of for attack marked fields, but the HQ/OKW hasn’t enough players that are ready to play – so the HQ/OKW needs to send out conscription-commands. A thought about the beginning of the CM-monster-battle: France and Germany in their original borders, surrounded by “neutral” hexes. Each side can mark a neutral hex, to be conquered. Because, the other side isn’t adjacent to the hex, the hex is occupied by the attacker after a certain period of time (I suggest a shorter time than the usual time to nominate a player for the defending side). Remember: there must be a real player, to occupy the hex and all other restrictions (max. simultaneously battles) are guilty. Ofcourse it will take some days, till Axis and Alliies can play “real” CM-battles against each other, but this phase is also important for the strategic development of the occupied territory. Please excuse my bad english and feel free to develop these basic thoughts and what you think of this idea and if you would like to play battles in such a CM-monster-campaign. Schörner (member of blitzladder www.theblitz.org) [ July 02, 2002, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]