sand digger

Thanks GasJ, still have'nt sent you that postcard

It is gamey because in real life it basically wouldn't have happened, command and control being just one good reason. Which is not to say that forces did not get mixed up and fight together due to circumstances but that is not the situation here. Glad that I'm not so desperate to win that I'd even think of doing that

You can use strategy with the present game, at least strategy in the sense that you can formulate and implement an overall battle plan. The size if the force has nothing to do with whether or not you can plan and execute a strategy, strategy has everything to do with the overall way the battle is going to be pursued, whether the battle involves armies or platoons, takes months or minutes.

He he

The other point Gunzel made is valid ie guns get knocked out, crews survive. Probably not relevant as to the practical effect though - the gun is unable to continue firing for some reason or other

Yes, I use that characteristic sometimes to remind me of something concerning the unit or area the camera last focussed on when the turn comes back.

The casualties suffered by infantry attacking over open ground is overmodelled in CMAK, no doubt. Such attacks were the norm in NA and the attacking infantry often succeeded with moderate casualties. And that may have been over several hours action, not the relatively short times often involved here.

Good idea, grid overlays are available already and are most useful.

Historically there is some precedence for boosting infantry with extra support, at least around El Alamein '42 which I've studied a bit. The idea seemed to be to add a lot more punch by adding extra firepower with minimum extra bodies eg 6 pdr AT guns, Vickers, etc.

Agree with Other Means.

Love the desert :cool: And most QB's there are good too, particularly with all the little folds and surface variations that seem to be generated. Using the longer engagement distances the game seems to work at its best as well, really very good. If you are interested in a suggestion, try a 1000 point motorised meeting engagement QB on a large map. Try also farmland, moderate trees, small or modest hills. Then call me for a PBEM game Psssst... Use one of the grid mods available, Caffino's is excellent (thanks Caffino) makes a hell of a difference, adjusting your monitor screen settings may help as well. [ August 08, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: sand digger ]

????? Anyway, the spotter I tried to embark required transport class 1. So if he requires a transport class then he can embark on an appropriate vehicle, according to the manual. He can't?!?! :confused: If he has to lay wire then roll it off the back of a vehicle, slowly. Its not rocket science.

The AIF official history accounts were where relevant based on unit war diaries, some of which incidentially can now be perused on line at the AWM site. So they were contemporarily recorded from first hand accounts by those actually involved and reporting for official purposes. To suggest that somehow such reports from various sources and verified by those officially responsible for their accuracy are untrue or distorted does not warrant a response. The history by its nature mentions things of interest, it is hardly going to go into in much detail concerning the 99% or whatever of which is mundane and routine. Anyone familiar with histories knows that already. Finally, I never expected to persuade those who already think that they know it all that some things were not as they believe. But no doubt some have found something of interest. Personally I'd like to read up on the NZ experience, seeing that they and 9 AIF were the best infantry divisions in NA.

Sure sometimes it will be better for the LMG man to run-drop-run-drop along with the rest of the section. The thing is there is no fixed or 'right' way. In a final assault by a section over a few meters the LMG man though often joined in to add extra firepower and intimidation. Consider also how is he otherwise going to provide effective support, without being likely to do a blue on blue? To illustrate that there was no right or wrong way and that truth on the battlefield can be hard to believe I had a quick look at the NA relevant AIF official history, 1966 edition, for some examples, as follows from fighting in July 1942. P.559 'One platoon of Bryant's company, for instance, charging with fixed bayonets, overran a battery of four guns, capturing 106 prisoners, mostly German. Here Corporal Hinson led his section with bayonets fixed straight at two guns that were firing point-blank and whose crews did not surrender until the Australians were in the gun-pit.' (Try doing that in CMAK, that sort of action is just not recognised.) P.560 'Throughout the advance Lieutenant McNamara's platoon preceded the main body with the "commando role" of clearing the dunes of any enemy troops; the carrier platoon also ranged ahead. The carriers charged and overcame machine-gun posts and two anti-tank gun detachments whose Italian crews did not fire a shot. At White Knoll a strong nest of machine-guns was encountered but was overcome by McNamara's men and the carriers, reinforced by a platoon from the reserve company.' (Carriers were often used in a sort of cavalry/assault role) P562. 'When one [German tank] crew leaped out and sought to escape Sergeant Longhurst of the 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion tried to fire on them, but they were behind a slight rise. Longhurst then lifted the entire [Vickers machine] gun and tripod and, with the help of another man, brought fire to bear on the enemy who promptly surrendered.'(Modelling that would be going a bit far?) P.562 '..... but as soon as Captain Shillaker's company arrived it charged, firing from the hip, and forced the enemy back over the railway........When the fight was over Shillaker's company had lost only one man killed and one wounded..........' (Don't try this with CMAK, unlike Shillaker your losses may well be your entire company.) P.573 'The right company advanced 2,500 yards across ground torn by shellfire before meeting with small-arms fire from an enemy position. The troops marched on, firing from the hip, and the enemy surrendered.' (One might assume than the Bren men were also firing from the hip, if only to keep up with the company.) Thats enough, if anyone thinks I've been cherry picking or whatever read it yourself.

Well I can only talk about what I have concentrated on learning about, NA 41-42 mainly AIF, plus my own experience in using a Bren gun. Which is quite an easy weapon to carry in a slung firing position so there is no mechanical reason at all why it couldn't be used on the move. There is also combat film around showing the Bren being fired from the hip plus still photographs of it being fired in various positions other than prone. There is nothing new in using magazine LMG's on the move, in WW1 Lewis guns were on occasion so used. The point relevant to CMAK is that historically it was used in the assault weapon role, how often is not really relevant. Therefore the gamer should have the option of using it that way too. Which would also resolve the section use contradiction previously mentioned.

This has been mentioned before but a Commonwealth section with a Bren gunner is able to 'advance' but a Bren gunner solo can't. That need further explanation? Maybe more repetition then. There is also plenty of contempory recorded material available to show that real life Bren gunners did 'advance' and 'assault' in CMAK terms. Doesn't take much research to find it either.

How could Aussie win WW2 when we all know that the yanks did, all by themselves with their superior everygoddamthing? On a just slightly more serious note, the Aussie DoD patch is going to be made commercially available free to Aussies? To compensate for all the Aussie related errors in CMAK? Boys rifles, Sten guns, White scout cars...........

Agreed, definately, although only LMG's would be able to fire effectively on the move.

The universal carrier in real life was often used for that purpose, as you probaly know. It was also used for assault purposes, which some don't believe I think.

Around a company of infantry with lots of support weapons but no armour, 30 or so turns, large map with plenty of cover and hills. Attack or defend. Only problem with a company is you can lose the effective use of one third of your infantry very quickly if a platoon gets ambushed. Lose your arty spotter and you are in big trouble as no-one else (in CMAK) can take over from him. Hint.

Thanks for your useful responses. Perhaps the problem boils down to that minute when the shoot is hitting the fan and your units have only already redundant orders to hand. The TacAI rarely does anything constructive in such a situation, usually it invokes extreme 'defensive' measures such as crawling away even though several other responses would be more appropriate eg run away, hide, return fire. But I'm firmly of the view that CMAK models close range small arms firepower excessively in effect. It is almost arcade game like in this respect.

This has happened several times now, fire orders given to Brit/Com platoon mortars are not carried out for no apparent reason. All the indicators are that the order is capable of being carried out but I suspect that the opponent is using 'Hide' to block or break the order. In real life once a fixed enemy position is visually located then you can mortar it any time you want, irrespective of whether the enemy is hiding ie no longer active or visible. But CMAK appears not to work that way, or if it does then I haven't found the key. The other aspect concerns infantry attacking fixed enemy positions across open ground. In CMAK this apparently is considered suicide and you get mown down, in one recent game my three attacking sections suffered 22 casualties in a few seconds while following real world practice. The fact of the matter is that Brit/Com infantry was trained to assault with bayonets where necessary after manouvering as close to the enemy as possible. And when properly carried out it was very effective. We are not talking about WW1 style exposed advances of hundreds of yards but short sharp assaults over a few open meters with support. Contempory accounts of such assaults indicates that usually the attacker's losses suffered were not excessive at all and that a entrenched enemy was at a significant disadvantage as the distance closed, particularly once they came within effective grenade and SMG range. Invariably against Germans surrenders quickly followed, but not always, so that the end result of the assault measured in numbers usually favoured the attacker. But such text book assaults in CMAK are a recipe for disaster for the attackers. Why? [ June 09, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: sand digger ]

Well they don't seem to be effective like that in CMAK. I've tried to use them for exactly that purpose with never any result. But my main point is that the Boys is a section fixture in CMAK whereas in real life they were hardly ever used and certainly were not a section weapon.

Thanks for the offer GaJ, on the postcard thing, people might talk if they found out?

I downloaded it and then didn't know how to get it to work, which is not unusual for me. And I didn't even send you a post card.