[Sherman VS. tiger!!]

"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

[Sherman VS. tiger!!]

"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.

[Sherman VS. tiger!!]

"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.

[Delaying Action]

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

[Ampulomet]

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

[Scenario Meteorology]

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.

[Scenario Meteorology]

Thanks junk2drive, thanks Sergei.

Oh well, back to work on "Plan 1919.cme"

I simply must have fog!

[Scenario Meteorology]

Sergei,

You beat me to the buzzer.

I will now depart and run

numerous meteorological

simulations until I crack it

[Scenario Meteorology]

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.

[Scenario Meteorology]

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

[Scenario Meteorology]

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 Modern Era]

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.

[The Modern Era]

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.

[The Modern Era]

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)

[The Modern Era]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

I think one reason why at least some of us don't turn to Tac Ops to satisfy our desire for a "modern" CM is that Tac Ops is pretty much a map game. Nice as it is for map excercises and somewhat high-level command simulation, it doesn't give us the visceral feel that CM does.

I like being able to zoom in and actually see my tanks and soldiers firing, hear the tracers whipping over my head depending where my POV is on the map, and admire the nice scenery. Tac Ops will never do that for me, nor was it meant to. It would be really nice if eventually (clearly not in the the next few sequels, as Steve has already stated) the game could be expanded or modded to encompass other historical periods.

For me, CM wasn't just a tac simulation, but an impetus for learning more about a historical period as well. I know far more about WWII and those participating in it than I did 3 years ago. Were CM ever to be expanded to other wars/eras, it would be a great joy to be able to combine the fun gameplaying with the historical learning process that made CM so rewarding.

[The Modern Era]

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.....