Mad Russian
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mad Russian
-
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
-
He invented incidents that would be used as a justification to round up the Hungarian Jews and send them on their way. I got your email, and will respond to it, but probably only next week - I am insanely busy this weel.Originally posted by Andreas:[/QB]
-
Thousands? Really? I am astonished. I've been reading fairly steadily on the subject for nigh on to 50 years now, but I wouldn't claim to have read as many as a thousand books. Perhaps more than a couple thousand magazine articles. Where do you find the time? May I ask how old you are? Do you speed read? Do you do anything else?Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
I have read THOUSANDS of books on WWII.
I'm not trying to start something; I'm honestly curious.
Michael </font>
-
I agree with you it makes him an evil Nazi in my eyes too. Knowing what was going on with the death camps is definately guilty.Originally posted by Andreas:Schmidt was involved in coming up with a justification for the sending of Hungarian jews to the furnaces in Auschwitz. I am not sure if that makes him an evil Nazi in your eyes, and frankly don't care - it does in mine.
[/QB]
What do you mean by "he was involved with coming up with a justification"? That he did the spin work on it? That he made it "alright" for the Germans to kill Hungarian Jews, with "his" propaganda?
Certainly that would be wrong. If he was very involved he would have been hung after the war. So what was his punishment for his work?
Not being funny, just curious.
Panther Commander
-
What?! He wasn't the evil Nazi just distorting history, like I have read on this forum! :eek:Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:
I was just rereading Glantz' article "The Red Army at War, 1941-1945: Sources and Interpretations" when this caught my eye (p.603):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Writing under the pen-name Paul Carell, Paul Schmidt tapped a wealth of personal wartime recollections by individual German officers and enlisted men to construct moving human narratives of the harrowing combat. All the while he consulted extensively with military experts on the war whose contributions made his essentially journalistic accounts remarkably accurate, moving and credible.
</font>
-
How many civilians were deliberatly killed in bombing attacks on germany/japanese cities? Not trying to diminish the brutality of the axis. Just saying the allies didn't exactly have clean hands, but war is war... </font>Originally posted by Panzerfest:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Znarf:
(at least for the Allies, as the Axis never seemed too concerned about shooting civilians).
-
Only give the unit enough of a movement order to not get to it's destination by the end of the turn. Then give the detailed directions and there is no long waiting period for the unit to begin to move. With some practice this becomes second nature. I use the multiple waypoints at times to adjust my time for starting off if I don't want to wait 10 full seconds. Add another way point and there is a couple more seconds.Originally posted by Blah Blah Blah:I feel that the delay times when I map out a long path for a unit are too high due to the lack of suitable pathfinding by AI.
Simply put, if I say to the unit go from A to B, and the road in long and windy, the AI pathfinding quit often does a very poor job. Sometime a shocker!
As such I am forced to plot the course along the road making sure the unit stays on it etc. When I do this I get a massive delay penalty, that I feel is unjustified. Especially since I am normaly saying follow this road to here.
I also don't want to have to baby sit the unit every move.
Any contructive input appreciated.
Whatever works for you.
Panther Commander
-
To help with the time delay just give them a slow movement order like move that has a range that they won't finish this turn. Then next turn go in and give them the detailed orders. Once they are moving there is no time delay. This will cut down on the time it takes them to start moving and get you there considerably faster.Originally posted by Blah Blah Blah:Apart from the long time delay because I dared plot the course, they seemed to sit there forever doing nothing.
Panther Commander
-
I have read that Britians most decorated soldier is a Sergeant Fred Kite. That he won three Military Medals. What level of achievement is that? What do those medals equate to in the US Army?
I know of one instance in WWII where a British soldier won two VC's. :cool:
So am I to assume that Sergeant Kite is the only British soldier to have recieved three medals in the war? :confused:
Panther Commander
-
There are no Cromwell's in CMAK.Originally posted by BulletRat:Just wondering if anyone has done said scenario - while watching it I thought this episode of BoB would be ideal for making as the numbers of troops/tanks involved are well within a CM-scale battle.
This episode depicts part of Operation Market Garden where American Paras meet up with British Armour and attempt to capture/liberate Eindhoven but are repulsed by veteran SS units.
I've tallied up some of the numbers for each side:
Allied:
- 4 Shermans + 1 Cromwell (reg/green)
- Easy Company American Paras (vets/regs)
Axis:
- 1 Tiger
- 1 Jagerpanther
- 1 Stug IIIG (not sure of what variant yet)
- 1 Halftrack
- 1 Company of SS Troops
Eindhoven - It's fairly hard to see how the town is laid out as there are really no distant/above shots for clues - however it defidently does have a church, a graveyard, and various large light/heavy buildings.
Being that noone really plays CMBO anymore, I thought I might be able to do it in CMAK - however American Paras arn't available in September '44 in that theatre so I may have to use standard infantry instead.
If anyone has any additional information or somesuch it would be greatly appreciated.
Panther Commander
-
I wish I could give you the site. I have all my sources for my maps but that one. :confused: :confused:Originally posted by JonS:PC, you've been asked once, but I'll ask again: could you post a link to the page where you found the map?
Regards
JonS
I have been searching high and low, for the site I got it from, and at the moment, am at a loss.
I could email you the map itself if you'd like. Anyone wanting a copy of it can just speak up and I'll send it to you by email.
Panther Commander
-
I believe this map to be British in origin. Since it shows the British units to a pretty detailed level. The map itself is very detailed. I guess an easy way would be to find the distance between two known points today and then check it against this map.Originally posted by WWB:Usually squares are one KM wide. And I have seen a number of WWII era maps, mainly captured from german or italian stashes.
WWB
It appears that what we take for granted today is nothing like was the standard in WWII. That there may not even have been a standard.
Thanks for all the help and suggestions on this issue. :cool:
Panther Commander
-
VERY BIG GRIN!!!Originally posted by Runyan99:I did take a look. I have not yet played one of your scenarios, but I will say that it appears you are doing some nice work. The maps are particularly interesting.
With respect to my initial criticism - If I have had some infuence on your designs, if I have encouraged you to think outside of the 25-turn box, then I am pleased, and it makes me feel that perhaps this thread has borne some fruit.
Sorry but you haven't. I still look for the smaller level engagements. The scenario that replaced mine was done by another designer from the HSG group. We both felt his was a much better representation of the whole battle and not just a part of it. In this case my scenario came down.
I have a scenario that I am looking at where a Stug killed 8 tanks in "FIVE" minutes. (That is what his decoration read.) Now I'm not going to have a "FIVE MINUTE" scenario, which is what your theory would have me do, but I will add time to both sides of the engagement to bracket it, so to speak. So that I get the "FIVE MINUTES" that I want.
You should certainly play "HSG Test of Courage". It is done by HSG's best designer. And, you are in fact playing, or have at least looked at, one of mine. The operation "HSG First Town Liberated" is mine. Different for me, because I like smaller fights, but this is the only thing that comes close to doing this particular fight justice. Even then I had to use time compression.
The battle takes place on 6 June 1944. I used 5 games with 20 turns variable length for each. I did not make a 24 hour scenario although that would be interesting. You would see that there would be way too much combat for the time.
Each battle represents a time period of about 3 hours. I don't know EXACTLY how long they fought, I don't EXACTLY where every rifleman was stationed, I don't know EXACTLY when they ate, or slept, or anything else. I know a few variables out of MILLIONS of things, about that battle. That is the "MOST" any of us can know about any battle. Even if you were there, you don't know all the variables.
So the very best we can do is an approximation. My time lines for scenarios are just that, approximations. For that, you haven't made a dent in my designing philosophy.
HSG is a bit different than other groups, or maybe we aren't, in that we try to portray to the "best of our ability" the original battle. But I don't get bent out of shape if someone has some better information than I have. I don't really even care if you like it. What I will do, is tell you why I made a scenario, the way I did. You don't have to agree with it. I make the scenarios for me. I make ones I like. Then I share them with you. I'm not egotistical or stupid enough( :confused: ) to believe that everything I make is the best scenario ever put out! Although they are very close and getting better...
I would suggest that if you like longer scenarios stay with them. The designer of "HSG Test of Courage" does some of the best work I've played. And he specializes in larger scenarios and operations. So give that one a try. For smaller time frames give mine a try.
Panther Commander
-
In a way then doing historical scenarios is writing it down and preserving it. :cool:Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:With a BA in History as well as two published titles under my belt, I'd like to think that term applies to me.
Not sure that I'm all into labels either, for reasons Mr. Tittles has pointed out. One can draw a distinction between Professional Historians and Amateur Historians, however.
I think the litmus test for Historians is whether or not they DOCUMENT. Anyone can quote from a book. That's research. Writing stuff down for others is what makes you a historian. JasonC's posts qualify for that. So do websites. If you are preserving it, archiving it, rewording it or in any way documenting it - **and** other people are reading it - you an historian.
If people are paying you to do it, or paying to read what you have preserved, you are a professional.
Still think I'm a practicing historian... A Wargaming One!!!
Panther Commander
-
What?! He wasn't the evil Nazi just distorting history, like I have read on this forum! :eek:Originally posted by Keke:I was just rereading Glantz' article "The Red Army at War, 1941-1945: Sources and Interpretations" when this caught my eye (p.603):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Writing under the pen-name Paul Carell, Paul Schmidt tapped a wealth of personal wartime recollections by individual German officers and enlisted men to construct moving human narratives of the harrowing combat. All the while he consulted extensively with military experts on the war whose contributions made his essentially journalistic accounts remarkably accurate, moving and credible.
</font>
-
The way The Proving Grounds works, and GJK can tell you far more about this than I can, is that the scenario stays at TPG for as long as it takes to get it playtested to "YOUR" satisfaction. If you think it needs more work you can leave there till we get to CMx2. Either way when you pull one let the people that are working for you know it. Those guys are giving their "FREE" time and there is nothing more valuable than that.Originally posted by Hans:Sorry about that Panther but my understanding was that scenarios should remain at PG only for a short time, I was unaware that designers shouldn't withdraw the scenarios when comments had dried up after a week. I also found it fustrating to be unable to update the scenarios, or in some cases to upload the scenario at all. Word was placed on the forum that I had withdrawn the scenarios, but the design of the message board sweeps them away to quickly.
My email remained available in the briefings.
Any information you have would be appreciated.
Panther Commander
-
The offensive scenario was removed and in it's place is a HUGE battle that is 60 turns long. More to your liking I would imagine Runyan99. The new scenario is called "HSG Test of Courage." So go and check it out. See ask and sometimes yee shall recieve. Just don't get in the habit of asking too much...Originally posted by Runyan99:I don't want to go off on a huge rant, but I am going to beat my drum again about the issue of time.
Panzer Commander just posted a Mortain battle at the Proving Grounds. He mentions that the historical battle for the particular village took 6 hours.
I wondered...how would he chose to translate this into a CM scenario? How did he simulate this 6 hour time period? How long was his scenario?
25 turns, variable.
Another example of extreme time compression in the CM universe.
Now, I am not indicting Panzer Commander for his design choice. Time compression is not a bad thing, per se. It is a wargame, and he can do whatever he wants with his scenario.
But, I wonder. Do all of these short scenarios warp people's understanding of history? Is history shaping the design of our wargame, or is our wargame shaping our understanding of history?
I suspect CM is shaping people's conception of WW2 combat. Most CM players seem to believe that WW2 was fought in 30-40 minute chunks. After all, most scenarios are 30-40 turns long, and small arms ammo in CM can only sustain 30 minutes or so of actual combat.
But when you read the history, battles take hours. A typical village or small town assault seems to have averaged 4-6 hours historically. I am also reminded again of John Salt's data, which showed the average cross country advance of 800 meters (in France or Italy) took about an hour and a half.
Historically, things generally happened slowly. In CM everything happens quite fast.
This gets me back to the conclusion that we have a game of highly accurate mechanics that is typically used to simulate totally unrealistic battles. They are unrealistic because they are too fast.
Played any 6 hour CM battles lately? No.
What about CMx2? This is, I think, an important question for our wargaming future. How will our understanding of the pace of combat shape the next generation of the CM engine? Do we want another engine that tends to compress action into 20 minute, ASL like bits? Or do we want a system that can realistically encompass the 5 and 6 hour engagements so common at the company and battalion level?
Getting back to the present, and Panzer Commander's Mortain scenario. There is the option to simulate the engagement as an operation in CM. Break the 6 hour battle into six 40 turn battles. This is far more realistic than a 25+ turn battle, and is, in my opinion, the 'state of the art' in realistic scenario design for the current engine.
Panther Commander
-
Some of these at least were on The Proving Grounds and were pulled. I was in the middle of a playtest when the scenario vanished without a word. :mad:Originally posted by British Tommy:why not post the scenario's at the Proving grounds site? the site is dedicated to the CM games and it's where budding scenario designers post their beta scenario's to be reviewed by others.
Each scenario has it's own disscusion area and the site has an active messageboard
I'll not soon be playtesting a scenario for this author.
Panther Commander
-
There are various ways depending on the size of the vineyard and where it's at.Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:A friend of mine is trying to design a map with vineyards included. The problem is he doesn't know how to create a vineyard, could someone help?
KC
Of course the vineyard tile is set to give you 20 meters of vineyard at the click of a button. But then you need to determine the size of the area you want to make and put an enclosure of some sort around it. Whether it is a stone or wooden fence or a hedge or hedgerow. Should have a gate of some sort to show how people get in and out of the vineyard as well. I use scattered trees for that or a wooden fence section.
Panther Commander
-
I consider myself to be a praciticing historian. I research my scenarios and then apply what I find. Sometimes with more success than others.
I think the goal of a historian is to learn more about past events, and the cause and effect. I think that, we as a whole, are doing just that.
Panther Commander
-
Does the map have longitude and latitude markings?Originally posted by L4Pilot:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
What would a single square width be on a 1:25000 map scale?
If I remember correctly and I probably don't I was thinking the square width on a 1:50000 map is 1km.
Which should make a 1:25000 square width 1/2a km.
Is this right? :confused:
Panther Commander
L4 </font>
-
Go to The Proving Grounds. Have a PBEM game and do a review on a scenario up for playtest all at the same time.Originally posted by andystear:Im lookin for a quick battle PBEM opponents where is the best place to find them , is it post here or are there other sites?
Panther Commander
-
Sorry, I'm a little late to the discussion but if this helps:Originally posted by Pak40:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
What would a single square width be on a 1:25000 map scale?
If I remember correctly and I probably don't I was thinking the square width on a 1:50000 map is 1km.
Which should make a 1:25000 square width 1/2a km.
Is this right? :confused:
1:25000 scale is 1 inch = 2083.33333 ft OR
1 cm = 250 meters </font>
-
A point to think about, if you are even considering linking the sites, for reviews and comment value, is that scenarios at TPG are "supposed to" disappear after they have been playtested and posted to the SD.Originally posted by GJK:This brings up a point though. Would it be beneficial to rate scenarios at the SD and then link to any reviews given at TPG in the comments section? Or just copy/paste those comments in I guess. Potential problem is that I may have reviewed a beta version and changes may have been made before it was moved to the SD.
But, brings up another good point IMHO. If the scenario designer's add a comment to the effect of "playtesting assisted at The Proving Grounds", then that would let downloaders at the SD know that they could read the development playtest notes at TPG should they want more details of the scenario before committing to it.
Just a thought!
Just a thought.
Panther Commander
</font>
British Hero's...The Military Medal... Need Information
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Panther Commander