Richie

Yeah, they're pinned on. There's absolutely no way to get them off. The tank itself is also screwed to the hardwood base. Might be a bit tricky removing it from that without killing it.

MAN, THAT'S GREAT NEWS! I have to say I was worried about it... :eek:

My thoughts exactly! Not too many Syrians in Palestine are there? Course... I wouldn't know being from Ostrayia an' all.

Try my "Gestapo HQ Berlin" in my secnario pack. That's about as urban as you'll get in CM... Hans, you really should upload your scenarios to the Scenario Depot II. That way everyone can enjoy your work!

...surrender, throw in the towel, capitulate, collapse after the door was kicked in... One of the above.

I'm not actually sure about that. What I have done is rework the scenario and have uploaded it to The Scenario Depot. Mamayev Kurgan, Stalingrad I have not altered the map. I'm not sure I need to. What I have done is extended the play and added historical troop reinforcements to give a greater feel of the combat that took place. When I initially designed this scenario I had to remove some aspects after playtesting to make it suitable to be used as a bonus scenario in The Stalingrad Campaign. You John, have undoubtably inspired me to bring forth the 'directors cut' if I may... In all it's horror! (A BIG thanks to Frekors for hosting the Stalingrad Campaign Webpage)

Hmmm... Up until Winter 1941 I don't think Hitler had contemplated the fact that the Russians might not surrender as just about all the previous victims of the Blitzkreig had done. Why would he? Sometimes in combat you reach a decisive moment. For Barbarossa that was it. It's at that point you need the new plan. Hitler was stupid not to adopt total war at that point. On occasion I hear people talk about their CM plans and how, 'at least they stuck to it', even when they lost. If you ask me you should never be afraid to throw the original plan clean out if it isn't working. I rarely run with a fixed plan in CM. Best thing you can do is be flexible and adapt to the changing situations... but that's just me...

I think when it finally mattered Stalin essentially 'played the game' better than Hitler. Either through experience or appreciation of the events around him or through intelligence... or desperation. Stalin placed great faith in his better General's foresight even if he didn't inherently trust all of them. He also had the larger force pool to draw upon but he made sure he used as much of it as he could. He wasn't shy to tell others what they wanted to hear to draw what he needed from them, specifically the Western Allies. Both men were idealists but IMO Stalin effectively had a greater grasp of realism and practicality than Hitler did when it counted. Besides, so long as you win you can always deal with the ones you don't like later.

To the contrary, Stalin learned from his mistakes, listened to his best generals and mobilised everything considering he was already facing the worst case scenario.

Do you think? At least he wasn't calling you a Nazi!

I don't think Hitler was too worried about unrest. He had the Gestapo and they were pretty good at what they did. Mind you the fact that members of the army tried to kill him shook his belief in the military and perhaps himself, but in his opinion it was their treason. Hitler was building the Thousand Year Reich. It was his idea of the German idealistic society where life at home would be Utopian while the warriors of his fascist state fought for the cause elsewhere. There is a certain lack of reality about that to start with. He was stupid not to listen to his generals. He was stupid not to consider the worst case scenarios. He was stupid not to prepare for it, just in case. He was also a maniacal murdering dictator that ruled by lies, deceit and the gun. No sane, rational person who isn't totally skewed murders people in the way he did. You guys can try to break down Hitler's psyche into the nice bits and the nasty bits but it's whole that makes up the story. In fact from what I understand, people in Nazi Germany who liked to think and considered themselves intellectuals had to be careful about the opinions they expressed and what they thought in public. Because people who didn't like or questioned what Hitler thought tended to be arrested by the Gestapo. Those people generally told everything they knew under questioning and other people who reportedly thought likewise also disappeared. Maybe we should all think about that for a bit...

Mind you, the Volksgrenadier units are described as having bicycles... not very bullet proof and I can't help but picture Dad's Army...

From "Men of Steel" Fast Group Knittel 1st SS (page 298 Appendix V) is comprised of in the way of Recce units... 2nd Recce Coy (Coblenz) SPW 3rd Recce Coy (Leidreiter) VW (14 VW's per platoon? specific info taken from "The Devils Adjutant") & 6 x Puma... These books are written by Michael Reynolds. From memory many 'recon' units at that time utilised the SPW's as forward scouts simply because they had them.

Hi John, Which areas are you specifically looking at? Around Bastogne?

As Jason points out, Hitler had the direct input from 'some of' the best generals and military minds that were around at that time, in his service and at his disposal. He stopped listening. Stupid is as stupid does.

Bless Winecape for his continued support of this Tourney!

(e) all of the above...

Let's look at Hitler prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union. You are the Maniacle Dictator in a country where the people you like love you. The people you hate are being murdered in a way the people who like you don't notice. The people who love you have all the guns and do your bidding. You have invaded every neighbour you have and won and subjugated the populace for the most part, bar England and some trouble in Africa. France is now your back yard playground. Despite the fact you didn't beat the English you can send them hatemail till they've had enough and come around to your way of thinking. You're not at war with the U.S. Japan is Allied with you. That leaves the Soviet Union. Hell, it's a gamble but intelligence tells you they've gutted their armies. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten house will fall down!" It worked with everyone else... they are Communists after all! Total domination of Europe and Asia. You're on a crusade. You are building The Thousand Year Reich. It is your destiny... You cannot lose! How does that sound? After a while it's going to get to you isn't it? You'd be feeling pretty good! You'd be thinking you can do no wrong. You'd think you really are the man...

Jason's right. From what I've read Hitler had a tendency not to listen to advice given by generals and field marshals if the news was bad. Sacking the bearer and installing yes men doesn't inherently change the situation at the front. It proves you're out of touch with reality. It reaches a point where those around realise. People start to have their own crazy ideas like trying to blow you up with briefcase bombs... [ January 20, 2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Richie ]

I disagree. It all comes down to a few points. Playtesting, Balance and Accuracy. Some firefights and engagements were historically quite limited. In effect a sharp breakthrough on a solid line of defence could alter the strategic situation for both sides and cause them to rethink the front line without further combat. This brings into bear concepts of isolation for both sides when considering limited breakthrough. The CM editor has a no-mans land variable setting just for this purpose. I would argue it can make the player consider strategies over multiple battles rather than one easy fix. It does lead to sharp, short and brutal exchanges. It means the attacker must hit with a punch rather than a slap. They must act in the window of opportunity rather than dithering about till the defender runs out of bullets. It means the defender must prepare a defence with multiple firesquads to try and intercept a breakthrough. If such an operation is playtested properly and the parameters are set properly you will know if it works or not under playtesting. I think that is the point. If an operation best and faithfully represents the style of historical combat it reproduces for a given situation with proper research and playtesting where the result is a balanced and fun game then I'd call it a winner. It does not mean 15 minute turns in an Op are wrong. It means there's a section of the community out there that either doesn't like them or people are playing games that aren't designed or playtested properly. As pointed out by other people, Stalingrad is an excellent example of just such a situation. [ January 17, 2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Richie ]

... or picking up the pieces...

I agree! Enough people can be shot in 15 minutes to end the days play for many people in many circumstances... Some battles are short, sharp and brutal. The rest of the time is spent posturing or refitting.

Hehe, thanks mate... So much to do... so little time... I spent hours staring at that pic trying to work it all out.

I don't know what they are. I suspect they may be garden beds or were ponds. Text I've read describes the hill as a park where lovers used to stroll prior to the war. Modern photos show ponds and garden beds. If they were buildings I believe they would cast a larger shadow with the extreme angle of the sun. You can also see a couple of craters altering their shape. The smaller square / rectangular shapes are clearly buildings, you can make out the shape of the roof on several of them. These I've included in my scenario. Where the larger flatter dark areas are (garden beds or ponds) I've tried to include rough terrain. I don't think they would cause any further hinderance or create any greater cover or obstruction to infantry than that.

The Scenarios Posted at the Proving Ground are ALL there for playtesting. They are for the most part incomplete and awaiting feedback from people, such as yourself, if you have the time to give it... Without the playtesting and feedback, Balance won't be achieved and obvious errors / things that don't work won't be eliminated. I can't tell you how eager designers are for the feedback, essentially so they can provide players with fun, balanced and realistic scenarios. [ January 13, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Richie ]