landser

I should add that perhaps A Bloody Ride ramps up to larger sized, I'm only 3 or 4 battles in. And I just took a look and Blazing 88's has left up his dropbox, good man. Check his post in this thread to grab any of these campaigns you don't have.

Company sized campaigns are the sweet spot for me as well. A few more to try: -- The Outlaws. Starts off platoon level, though eventually does ramp up to about battalion sized. There are quite a few missions before this happens. American campaign with paratroops, with leg units joining up later. -- Sie Kommen II Axis. Company sized German campaign with little in the way of heavy armor. I haven't tried the Allied version yet. Rather small maps that result in much more fire than maneuver. -- A Bloody Ride. Currently playing this one. Platoon/Company sized German campaign. Panzer Lehr attack against Americans near Vire River.

A save game file is created whenever you save the game. Yeah, I know, but that's all it is. With that, someone could watch the replay to see what might have occurred here. I might suspect that they bailed if the (unbuttoned)TC was killed while immobilized, but I see nothing (such as shell craters nearby) to suggest this was the case. What were the ground conditions? The three dead crewman might offer a hint that one was still inside (dead TC). But that's only a guess and he could have gotten away. And if my theory were correct I think it would say 'dismounted' or 'abandoned' and not 'knocked out'.

I had no crashes playing the Ivan's Eyes battle.

True enough George, but it could also be argued that an effective leader places his soldiers in better positions and directs fire more effectively, that sort of thing. So I don't think it's unreasonable that soldiers use their weapons more effectively with better leadership. I understand that it isn't probable that it works this way in CM, but not out the question that it could.

Excellent, thanks for the replies. So we can say that for sure that being in C2 helps with spotting by sharing the info, and in the units' combat err, steadfastness? We can't say for sure whether it affects ability with weapons, nor can we say the degree to which the HQ unit's modifiers affect the performance of those under their spell?

Slim, thanks for that link. Very interesting. What I think I can take from it is that Guy Sajer is in fact genuine and his book is, more likely than not, authentic. While there is nothing to prove so beyond doubt, I understand of course how details can be mistaken, I do it all the time. Of course on one hand this understanding of factual mistakes is being used to cut Sajer slack, while on the other hand damning the D Day Through German Eyes book. I have no horse in this race, and don't mean to defend that book, only the desire to know if what I am taking to be authentic actually is.

But I suppose you're saying the top of the map is west. If so I apologise and nothing to see here

Hmm, well I won't be playing it again anytime soon, as I will get nightmares of devilishly placed MGs and ATGs. But isn't west to the left from the Soviet perspective? This would mean the wind was blowing to the southwest, from the northeast. If the left is east, then I am indeed mistaken and I should have a look at my compass indeed. Or my eyes.

Thanks for the replies. I looked through those links that Combatintman provided and they mainly discuss spotting, which I think I have a good handle on. I am concerned more with, I suppose you would call it cohesion, and how C2 affects combat ability. Like here's a crazy thought... I was wondering if I had a platoon such as in the example I gave above, where I have normal experience and morale squads, but a -1 HQ, would my pixeltruppen perform better if I purposely kept the squads out of C2 with the HQ unit? These sort of things are what I am wondering.

I finished this last night. The objectives I meant were the two that you would come to first, closest to the starting positions, the Checkpoint ones. In the end I got a minor victory. I found this battle very challenging. I would like to discuss details, but it might be considered poor form to spoil it on the forum so close to release. I know I prefer not to know much going in first time and I don't want to spoil it for others. I did reach the leftmost woods objective, West Woods was it? But as mentioned I didn't try for the other one (South Woods?) In the map review I realized that was a prudent decision, as I saw what the enemy still had in that position and I would have taken heavy losses no doubt trying to cross the open ground.

I suppose this could have been put in any of the CMx2 forums, but I'll post it here. I understand C2 in a general sense, but I would like to understand the mechanics and effects more clearly. I have many questions, but I'll start with these. -- HQ units. Let's suppose I have a platoon of infantry. The three squads all have normal experience and morale. The HQ has -1 for morale and -1 experience. By having the squads in C2 range, would the leader's worse modifiers negatively affect the squads? -- The command lines that can be displayed can be bright red, dark red or black (indicating no C2). What are the practical differences here? How is the dark red different from the bright red? -- By being in C2 range, how do the leader's modifiers affect those under their control? They will share spotting? Do they shoot straighter, less likely to panic or run? What are the in-game affects of being in C2 range and how do the leader's experience and morale ratings factor in for those under their control. -- How does having the chain of command in range affect all of this. For example what benefits if any might I see if the Platoon leader is linked to the Company CO who in turn is linked with the Battalion CO. Do modifiers stack in some way. If in this example for instance will the Platoons be benefitting from the Battalion CO, and if so in what ways.

Iron Coffins, by Herbert Warner, is another book challenged because there are many factual inconsitencies. There are, I suppose, many possible reasons for this, not necessarily because it is fiction. I was unaware of the verification of Sajer's book. Do you know where I can read more about this? Another book I have that has been subject to the same thing is Bidermann's In Deadly Combat.

I took some time to read through the comments, and the associated comments based on Gawne's comments, and I will only say that questioning the veracity of any account is preferable to blind fatih, yet I see nothing that has convinced me these accounts are not factual. They may indeed be, and I'd love to know for sure. It's funny, but this exact thing went through my mind when I made my posts above, that I did not know if the book was factual, and that after posting someone would tell me these books were debunked long ago. I mentioned Iron Coffins and Forgotten Soldier above, which are two books that have been challenged, and are probably either partially or wholly untrue. Sometimes it's difficult to know with any certainty, though these D Day accounts are so amazingly descriptive and interesting that I hope they are indeed true and genuine, but it might be argued that for those reasons, they may be worthy of additional scrutiny.

I did not. I hope it's not another Forgotten Soldier or Iron Coffins. Disappointing if it true, but then again it's difficult to know these days.

Don't know if the direct link will work but here it is http://www.amazon.com/DAY-Through-German-Eyes-Hidden-ebook/dp/B00VX372UE#reader_B00VX372UE Look for the question 'What was it like to man the Tobruk?" in the Utah Beach :The Tobruk Soldier section. This position was actually near Dune St Pierre according the the soldier, not Vierville as I had said. I can't find this location, so perhaps he was mistaken, or the name has been changed?

I agree and also made that point earlier in the thread. There is very little evidence of their operational use. The book was one of the volumes of the books D Day Through German Eyes by Eckhertz.

If I may get back to the original topic... recently I was reading some accounts from the perspective of the Germans that were stationed in Normandy at the time of the invasion, in the static infantry divisions. One man was a machine gunner in a Tobruk near Vierville if I recall. When describing his gun mount he said something to the effect of 'it was just like the air defense mount for a panzer commander's machine gun", and went on to describe how it was mounted to the rail to allow it to rotate in any direction. I mention this only because here was a common infantry soldier who was fully aware of the commander's machine gun and how it was mounted, suggesting perhaps it was common enough for a soldier like this, who wasn't in the panzer arm, to know of it and be able to describe it in detail.

Thanks, but I find it difficult to disregard casualties. I wouldn't have made a good commander in the Soviet army. It's been a fun battle, this Ivan's Eyes. I have about 15 minutes left in the battle and I will have to ignore the final objective. To be sure, are the two objectives along the woodline touch or occupy? Since the green zone disappears when reaching it I suppose they are touch?

If using a pre-planned artillery strike, no TRP is needed. As mentioned , LOS is not a requirement either. A TRP is useful for later artillery missions, but not a pre-planned strike (issued during the setup phase) While pre-planned strikes can be very destructive, you miss out on the suppression effects, since it will likely take a while to move from your start position to the area targeted by your strike, giving the defenders time to recover. For that reason I suggest the largest caliber you can afford in order to do as much damage and inflict as many casualties as you can. But of course there are other considerations, including requiring having enough artillery to hit multiple positions on the map, in which case cheaper arty may be wise as you can afford more of it. But in this case, where the trench position seems to be the major concern, big shells will probably have a greater return. Pre-planned strikes are very accurate, and your shells will fall where you want, making the large caliber arty very effective in these situations. But purchasing units is a matter of opportunity cost, or the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. Might you have been better off using those arty points on another platoon or a couple of light armored vehicles for example? But that's the beauty of it, and why I imagine most players take a long time to finalize their purchases. Me too. And the first time you played the scenario you likely wouldn't have even been aware of this trench, or any of the enemies positions during purchasing, unless it's outlined in the briefing. So only through hindsight can you really know what the perfect recipe is for overcoming the tactical problem. For this reason, a healthy mix of rocks, paper and scissors is usually advisable. For every enemy unit, there is a counter. Whether you will have that counter is another matter, so it is nice to have a little of everything. Isn't it though? But compromises will almost always have to be made, as you can't buy everything. As a sort of workaround for the limited time of suppression effects, you can choose to set the strike up with harass or light over long or maximum duration. This will keep the shells raining down for a long time. I've had strikes last close to 15 minutes this way, perhaps helping you to get your men in position. I also agree with Kevin that you should try to flank the position if possible. Firing lengthwise along the trench, especially with squads armed with PPSh's can be devastating. But the challenge here is getting them in to position in the first place. Try using fire and maneuver. Get some fire in on that trench using your MGs and tanks, and use their suppression to cover the approach of your assault platoons. Many times easier said than done. Consider area fire, that won't cease when the targeted enemy drops down out of sight. The other question is a good one. 82 mm mortars can carry smoke rounds. As for larger guns, I don't know which do and which don't. The absence of smoke for the infantry is the thing I like least about playing as the Soviets. Smoke is core to my basic tactics, and I really miss it. Soviet SMG-heavy squads are excellent, but they need to be at relatively close range. The lack of smoke makes this much more difficult to achieve.

Thanks for the explanation. My attack sort of bogged down after crossing the road, C12 I think it is. Trying to push to the leftmost woods after the consolidation drew heavy fire from my left flank from positions I had failed to clear. That stopped me cold, and I was forced to shift a platoon from my right flank over to my left flank, which took time. This also left me too long in place, and shells caught up with my main body, inflicting more casualties. Playing on Warrior. I think I will have to forget about the rightmost woods objective. I don't know what the campaign replenishment rate might be, and after identifying several more machine gun positions covering the approaches I think it would be prohibitively costly to try and take the last objective. Only a couple of my platoons are still at full strength and I reckon I'll need them for the next battle. I just want to amend something I said earlier about the tactical problem in this battle. " moving over a large expanse of open ground with a river crossing against a dug-in enemy " only describes the initial phase, ignoring the rest and selling the scenario short.

I'll add this here, and your campaign is certainly not alone in this regard. The wind direction is shown as from the west, when it is actually blowing to the west. I always check the conditions and place my first smoke screen accordingly, but that first one is often misplaced due to the conditions screen being incorrect. I don't know if this is a mistake or oversight by the author, or an issue with the game engine.

I have. I am halfway through the first mission. Without spoiling too much, my forces have taken the two touch objectives and Objective Red and are consolidating on the other side of the road. The scenario, I think, plays out well. It conveys well the initial probe by recon, and as you determine your point of penetration the combat weight of your battlegroup increases to exploit the breakthrough. I'll reserve other observations for the mo, until folks have had a chance to play it. I will say that I found the objectives somewhat confusing. The briefing says to take Objective Red and set up a defense and hold until relieved. Yet there are two more objectives (the Woods') beyond this point. In addition, my initial recon probes uncovered an 'objective' that said 'continue with mission'. Was I to go and occupy that position in order to continue, like with a 'decision mission'? I had no idea and chose to ignore that. What is 'until relived'? Does it mean when the follow on forces arrive, and the intention is to then push on to the Woods objectives? The briefing does not show the points values for each objective, so I'm left to guess as to the best way to proceed. With an hour left and my forces still largely intact, I am attempting to push on. The battle itself is a fine tactical problem, moving over a large expanse of open ground with a river crossing against a dug-in enemy. The saving grace is what The Phantom mentioned with the Soviets having the advantage in troop quality, so it's not too difficult to dislodge the enemy once concentrated fire can be brought to bear. Thanks for making this campaign and sharing it with us. I'll give some more feedback as I advance through it.

Yes, there are quite a few great missions after that point, so I hope you get back to it. What sort of problems did you have with Tiger Poaching if you recall? Spoliers! I had to replay a turn, because I had loaded the Tiger crew in to a truck, and not knowing the enemy positions, drove it a bit too far forward and the Tiger crew was wiped out. Restarted that turn and adjusted the truck's waypoints and went forward from there. I used the dirt road that leads to the field where the Tiger is, and then used pioneers to blast a withdrawal route. The 'recovery force' was a Panther, 2 Mark IVs, a Lynx and the Pioneer platoon in halftracks and an Opel. I prepped the area with mortars but targeted the wrong hedgerow as it turned out, they were mostly deployed one hedge forward. This map is well suited for a fighting withdrawal, and I set up a defense in depth, deploying platoons by putting two squads forward with one squad to the rear to cover the other two when they disengage. I had a Panther and a Mark IV covering the main road (with the King Tiger also setting up along this road, and the ATG and another Mark IV on the left, The hill to the right of the main road was a very effective position to place heavy MG's and some mortars, they wreaked havoc on the enemy as they tried to move up the German right flank, but they were eventually targeted by a barrage and took heavy casualties, with one MG squad wiped out. In the end we knocked out close to 25 tanks and got everyone off the map, with relatively light losses. It might have been worse had the enemy pushed harder on the left, but they dawdled long enough to allow the ATG and Mark IV to pick them off one by one.

Thanks, I'll certainly give it a go.