MPK

"That is still 5 Fireflies to 56 75mm gun tanks, and must surely have been the least favourable ratio of the campaign, so I think the "1 in 20" figure is in error as far as the equipment in the fighting line in North West Europe is concerned." Giving a worst-case ratio of about 1 in 11.... much better McKee's book is vintage 1964, and perhaps is stronger in its anecdotal content than in exactitude- i.e its got some great stories (great scenario material). Thank you, John

"The fighting squadrons would most likely have a decent to full complement of Fireflies" Makes sense. The 1-in-20 ratio (assuming this is accurate) however gives us some insight into the 4 or 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger problem- i.e not enough Fireflys.

"While the Commonwealth did field the Sherman IIA (76mm) and Firefly (17 pdr), they were in the minority, at least during the Normandy campaign. The standard TO&E for a CW tank platoons was 3 75mm tanks (Sherman or Cromwell) + 1 Firefly". Standard TO&E apart, several sources give the actual ratio of Firefly's (or is that 'Fireflies'?) as being 1 in 20 during the Normandy campaign. E.g "Caen: Anvil Of Victory" by Alexander McKee- highly recommended BTW.

Hail Mighty Cerebromorphs! I am working on an operation (say, July 1941)in which tired, out-of-ammo,broken green Soviet troops attempt to retreat across a river and thus escape being put in the bag by advancing panzers and armored infantry. A small screening force of tankettes, armored cars and pioneers attempts to delay the germans, and buy time for the river crossing. My thought is that the vast bulk of the Soviet forces will be WEAKENED, on LOW ammo and TIRED in Battle #1 (with heavy casualties and some support weapons abandoned). Those that survive into Battle #2 will still be WEAKENED, but will have replacements and ammo, thus there is incentive to save them (they will fight better from the riverside town). The river runs at right angles to the axis of advance, and thus hopefully the 'borders' will be redrawn between battles in such a manner as to allow a gradual retreat to the river.... My questions (to anyone who might have the time/knowledge): (a) what should I set No-Man's Land to? ( would ASSAULT or STATIC be better? © what makes troops likely to surrender (in CM, that is)i.e how do I ensure that it is possible for the German player to use his superior mobility to bag Soviet infantry. I have never seen a mass surrender in CM, but maybe I'm just lucky. (d) if would be great if the crossing of the river was done by boat under Stuka attack... (e) most importantly, has somebody already done something similar? Your thoughts appreciated Matt

In the TO&E of the 1941 Russian infantry bn, aren't the ampulomets grouped into a "Tank Destroyer Platoon"? I've had (some) success using them in this role, but they are also very good at setting fire to grainfields during the week-long Dry Season

Sergei wrote: If you need the first battle to be fog, then mention it in the briefing as a house rule that the operation needs to be restarted until there is fog. Yep, like in "Prokhorovka". What I really want (ha!) is the first battle to be THICK FOG(dawn) and the second (early morning)to be FOG- thus simulating the gradual dispersion of mists, and improvement in LOS. Therein lies the problem.

Thanks junk2drive, thanks Sergei. Oh well, back to work on "Plan 1919.cme" I simply must have fog!

Sergei, You beat me to the buzzer. I will now depart and run numerous meteorological simulations until I crack it

Thinking laterally, isn't mist or fog a feature of cold mornings? So any coldish month should do... You have to realise we don't have mist or fog in Australia, or any other kind of inclement weather; just bright sunshine all day and all night.

That surely is beautiful fog, junk2drive, and Lasi certainly still has the magical old-world charm that made it the skinless sausage capital of the Balkans during the 1920's. However, my question was actually: In setting MONTH and WEATHER parameters for a CMBB Operation, which combination gives the highest probability of FOG? Does Region (North, Central etc) make any difference? Thanks

Could one of you Mighty Cerebromorphs possibly tell me what combination (in CMBB) of Month and Weather Conditions (i.e Good/Mixed/Bad) in an Operation's Parameters is most likely to produce fog? Thanks, Matt

The prospect of gaming modern warfare seems to raise two prominent concerns: Firstly, that: " Just one platoon of Federation'Hillbilly'-type MBT's plus a single 'Rattlesnake'attack helo can destroy an entire Brutopian mech division of outdated Slobodonian equipment in 10 minutes! The game won't be fair!" To this I say: that's what points systems are for. The Brutopian side will just buy a 'Scabby Knee' SSM or two (in Direct Support)with 'Pinyata'-type minelet dispenser warheads to deal with the tanks, and also go for the massed lines of peasant militia firing AK's into the air for bringing down the attack choppers. The other is: "Because of Tiny Clever Bombs, tanks will die so fast on the battlefield that it won't be any fun" Well. In spite of the imminent demise of the tank as forecast in a controlled simulation, the world's assorted militaries are all investing in AFV as well as new technologies to defeat them. The next breakthrough might just be the 'Dog Biscuit' Precision Munitions Jammer carried by every infantryman. The gun/armour race continues, and will no doubt involve the temporary or permanent defeat of one technology versus another. Anyway, if the Federation is going to employ their 'Charlton Heston'-class remote-controlled Bomblet Delivery Drones, the Rebels could always place hijackers on board the Federation AWACS and JSTARS planes, and seize control, raining friendly fire bomblets everywhere.

Heh...I really wasn't being quite as ambitious as all that...recreating vast swathes of history and rendering googols of new pixels.... I had in mind combat at battalion-level and below, and the simple introduction of a range of new vehicles and a (conceptually, at least)a simple game change that would allow for helicopters to move rather like vehicles, and for ATGM to act rather like slow moving HEAT rounds that can miss because of dust or smoke or because a target is only intermittently visible. As far as the supposed vast task of recreating the forces and troop types involved, CMBB is already there, with its different troop classes (conscript, elite etc) and their corresponding effectiveness, morale, and tactical options. I'm sure the various forces fielded since WWII can be slotted in. Since the major powers also supply training to their arms customers, tactics tend to follow certain prescribed schools (eg many former Soviet customers have mechanised forces that were trained in Warsaw Pact tactics, the Iraqi Republican Guard for one)thus, there will be large groupings that different nations at different times easily fall into. Vehicles (models/data)could be added gradually, and remember that with many of these conflicts, there is really not a huge range of equipment deployed. The major arms exporters- USA,UK, France, Soviet Union/Russia, and Brazil and China I guess- pretty much supplied everyone with often similar gear. As well, poorer nations tend to hold on to their hardware for a lot longer. As far as new technology goes, I would treat it game-wise the same way real armies do: you add the stuff (night vision, better night vision, thermalimaging, gun stabilisation, Digital Fire Control,applique armour, reactive armour, ATGM decoys, etc etc etc) to your vehicles (and sometimes men).It gives them a certain kind of edge, or bonus...it doesn't change the world. Just like the Panzer IV SERIES....the latest gun, side skirts,that fancy newfangled zimmeritt.... Note that most nations upgrade their AFVs several times before they introduce a new replacement design, so again, we're looking at longevity for vehicles, and their constant appearance in one country's arsenal or anothers. As far as maps having to be enormous because the latest generation of tank guns can score first round kills at 3000m (while moving, even....under certain conditions, that is:)) I would think that most terrain doesn't give uninterrupted LOS to that distance without some maneuvering on the part of the vehicle (rendering it vulnerable to ambush as it does so). Oh, and attack helos like the Apache are VERY vulnerable to ground fire, or a simple shoulder launched missile, and use cover & surprise (and countermeasures like flares and IR jamming) to survive. The reason I gamed mechanised warfare with 1/285th scale miniatures as opposed to on a hexmap was to recreate a 3D battlefield. LOS could be adjudicated (ha!) with the aid of a ruler.Cotton wool made burning tanks look pretty good.But then came Combat Mission, which not only gives you 3D, but does the burning tanks real good, does the LOS, does the morale,and all the other stuff that had to be done 'by hand' at the wargames table, leaving the playerfree to plan, counterplan, command and screwup. CM's emphasis is on realism - on morale and command & control. On that framework can be hung any kind of modern warfare, since the fundamentals don't change that much, IMHO.

TacOps is really a different kind of game than CM...as is European Theatre Really, I think that a modern-era 'extension' of Combat Mission could be approached via some changes to the game system to allow for helicopters (essentially treated as flying vehicles), ATGM and a more complex air support/ fire support system... the rest could be done as addons perhaps...eg "Armies of the Middle East 1967-73" which would contain vehicle & troop data as well as graphics and OOB.... (remember I dont have a clue about what goes into game making, I just play 'em)... I think if it was approached in a gradual and modular fahion, it might not be so daunting... I mean you could make a Korean War(1950)version of CM without major drama...(my apologies to anyone who has already done this) (btw please ignore reply screwup...my shaky hands)

Although CMAK is surely a great idea, I would really like to see a game that doesn't stop at 1945. I would use the example of the Wargames Research Group (WRG) miniatures rules that cover 1925-1950 in one volume and 1950-2000 in the other (1950 being a useful dividing line that marks the introduction of antitank guided missiles and the helicopter). Of course one could model specific campaigns or wars (Arab-Israeli, Korea, Falklands) but imagine an open system (like the WRG rules) that allows for any weapons system available across the era to be available to players (restricted in some way by realistic OOB and of course points cost; again see WRG for elegant, simple solutions), given the massive proliferation of arms after WWII. This would make for some interesting battles, as the recent clash of ultramodern US equipment and 1970's Russian gear showed. Of course there are massive changes across this post-WWII time period (one example, the role of fixed- and rotarywing air support, would require some close attention) and maybe one game couldn't cover it all, but it's definitely worth a try.... And don't worry...Egypt was still using the Panzer IV in the 1950's...and the T34....vs the Shermans and M3 halftracks of the Israelis... Looking forward to giving those Apaches the 'Sneak and Popup' command.....