undead reindeer cavalry

what little Winter War has to do with the discussion, in my eyes, is that it's obvious that Soviets wouldn't have done any better if their tanks would have had bigger guns. they had those in summer 1944 and their tank losses were still about the same as in Winter War. the lesson is not to have bigger guns in tanks, but to have better operational doctrine (though in case of WW it's more the tactical level that is totally screwed up).

the folks sitting on the biggest chairs on the Allied side. their overly careful strategies. i.e. France 1944, the only thing stopping Patton is his superiors. if you want technical reasons, Patton runs out of gas. he's not stopped because his Shermans face Panthers and such. when Panthers show up, they are defeated. his Shermans do not need bigger guns, they need higher fuel capacity. if something, Patton should have had lighter & more economical tanks so that he could have kept up operational tempo. but of course JasonC has been telling you this all the time, so there's nothing new here. though what comes to Patton, i doubt his superiors would have allowed him to get into German soil anyway. would have been too embarrassing for the Brits, once again.

i guess you haven't looked too hard, then :confused: there are good Allied reports that show loss figures and offer breakdowns on cause and caliber. i have even seen reports that go down to listing non-penetrating hits.

LOL, that was priceless. thank you. it would be so cool if CMN would give us a real campaign or ops.

actually it was. especially 122mm was commonly used in direct fire role. some other things (not nearly as essential as Soviet on-map arty); amphibs, covered SPAT positions, dragon's teeth. and of course for 1945 we need those 203mm guns for Berlin scenarios

the on-map artillery department is really lacking on the Soviet side, which is quite ironic considering its doctrinal application. Soviets need at least the 122mm piece on-map, preferrably 152mm as well. perhaps even 120mm mortars, depending on how the on-map mortar system will play. and proper vehicles for towing crap around. on German side 10cm K18 is a must for the 1941 game.

isn't the idea, though, that time periods wouldn't be mixed ? you'd need 1944 plus most of the early war German stuff (included captured). retrofitting, say, Panzer II from 1941 module, into the 1944 module, would not happen? you'd also need a scenario that includes a Finnish field synagogue. you'd command German troops who would just have to wonder its existence. don't forget the swamps. full 4x4km map with 95% of it just swamps. on one edge you have your Finnish battalion to command. on the opposite edge there is a small hill occupied by Germans. as a Finnish commander, you have 120 minutes to cross the swamp and take the hill. Germans win if they have succesfully left the hill and exited the map during the first 10 minutes (game will still last the full 120 minutes for the Finnish side). North & South was truly brilliant (as was Nuclear War). besides having LSD laced game manual, it should have those smelling things from some of those old text adventure games (sometimes the game would ask the player to scratch the sufrace of a certain patch, and the player could then smell what it smelled like at that place in the game). for example, if Finnish troops entered a town with alcohol distillery, the player could hear the sound of couple ATR shots piercing the distillery drums. then the game would ask the player to scratch the surface of a blue patch -- player could then smell the fine odor of ethanol. likewise sometimes in the strategic overlay a "Laatikainen Mode" would be triggered. in "Laatikainen Mode" the strategic overlay would be hidden and the Finnish commander would only see a good number of bottles filled with fine alcohol. for 2-3 days the commander could only follow the "Advanced Laatikainen Procedure Challenge". the advanced procedure challenge has four parts: 1. pick a bottle (joystick up) 2. move the bottle to commander's mouth (joystick down) 3. swallow (joystick left) 4. put the bottle down (joystick right) (start again with part 1) if player messes the sequence, a bottle falls down and its precious contents are considered unaquired. points are awarded per number of bottles emptied during the 2-3 days.

thanks for corrections. i still play WinSPMBT and SPWAW, but haven't really thought about covered dates. didn't ever play Age of Rifles, but i played the one of the series that covered 20th century. i remember it as a fun game.

yeah, Gunship 2000, at least on Amiga, was excellent. a real gem. second the opinions on Elite 2 and M1 Tank Platoon 2. most of the arcade conversions for C64 were truly saddening experiences. some good ones too, like Wizard of Wor.

unsurpassed? IIRC Steel Panthers contains something like 1939-1999. i think i played some Spanish civil war scenarios, so timespan covered might be wider. just one more reason for BFC to conclude that it's impossible to satisfy the wargamers.

it's indeed cool. the downside is that the few worthwhile battles feature stuff like Germans running those captured French tanks. what are the chances for all the needed crap to be included? :| no, what really needs to be done, and what i have always wanted to play, is a true ultra realistic 1:1 wargame simulating battles on the Karealian ishtmus in 1944. the game shows beautiful and accurate Karelian scenery, rendered with great detail and utilizing the latest shader tech. the trick is that the game is played by joystick. game mechanics are identical to those C-64 games like Decathlon (e.g. you must move joystick rapidly from left to right and right to left and left to right as fast as possible and even faster). the goal of the Finns is to run as fast as possible from the Soviets. he loses if the Soviet player catches him. likewise, and not totally surprisingly, the Soviet player wins if he catches the Finns. but there is more. if the Finnish player presses "shoot" button at very specific points of the marathon, like Viipuri, a turbo speed running mode is triggered. the Soviet player can counter it by immediately pressing "shoot", which causes Finns to discover alcohol deposit which downgrades their running speed for a while.

i still haven't had time to send even just the initial turn to Corvidae. i wasted time trying to find solutions to graphical glitches on Vista. i might be up for another CMBB game if i somehow manage to get the game rolling smooth with Corvidae. i am a bit tired of QBs. it would be refreshing to have forces with stuff that doesn't make sense to buy in QBs. i would also like to play with verbally agreed victory conditions instead of using those of CM. a quick example of what i mean with verbal victory conditions: June 1941, weak Soviet rifle force delays against strong German mechanized pursuit, 60 minutes 2x3 km map (hand made) 2-5 flags at geographical locations, spread in width + depth -- in Soviet hands Soviets: 1 rifle coy + support weapons, mines, trenches etc Germs: initially 1 armored inf plt, 1 inf coy on trucks, 1 panzer coy, heavy on arty -- rich reinforcements steadily pouring in (to full bat strength or so) victory conditions: +10 points for any German unit (squad, HMG etc) under 50% strength -20 points for any Soviet unit under 50% strength +5 points per turn as long as no German unit has exited map to east -1 point for every German unit that has exited map to east -5 points for every Soviet unit still on map after turn 60 (can exit only to east) +5 points per turn per flag, a flag is in Soviet hands positive final score indicates Soviet victory, negative German one. the above stuff is not really usable, just a quick example. the idea is to create goals that are based on something else than CM scores. e.g. above Soviet player is trying to avoid a fight as long as possible, while milking away free points from flags, where as German player is trying to get a fight and optimally prevent Soviet troops from exiting the map.

yes, it was up to the commanders to make the decisions of wether to pull back or not. units as large as division could continue fighting their local battle even after enemy had penetrated and bypassed them, if rear echelon counterattacks had potential to defeating enemy penetration. at security zone elements of forward detachments could decide to let enemy advance guards bypass so that FOs could call arty fires on more lucrative targets. yes, Soviets did not really expect to get to fire at enemy main bodies before they were deployed for deliberate attacks. even outpost line was doctrinally assumed to halt just enemy advance guard and make it believe the outpost line was actually MLR. doctrinally it was up to the RD commander to decide, but as outpost line was manned by troops from first line battalions, it's quite safe to assume that in most cases forward detachments at security zone were from second echelon units or from divisional specialist units. indeed. for Soviets counterpreparations were army or corps level decisions and should not be confused with smaller level fires. at outpost line fires are coordinated at division level or from infantry close support arty groups, just like at MLR. at security zone, however, artillery control was decentralized per mobile defence doctrine. yes, exactly. similarly outpost line was mostly just a security buffer which would give time for the MLR to get ready for the battle, and also to deny or deceive the enemy of the actual location of the MLR. usually enemy attacks are at least division sized, so it's a wasted effort to try to stop him with platoon or company sized strongpoints. the battle those forward elements fought was that of information, time, initiative and C&C.

thanks. that's fairly general stuff. withdrawing under cover of artillery fire makes perfect sense. i'd imagine engagement at maximum range actually includes artillery, as that's how Red Army regulations state it.

random generated maps are an abomination but i try to come up with something. are you fine with Soviet probe, rarity off, medium map?

arghs, ok then. one of these days i'll send you a turn. any wishes regarding other settings?

interesting. can you post a quote or source? is it for mobile defence based on resistance lines or for more static setups? my impression is that Soviet WW2 era security zone troops depended on obstacles and long range artillery to stop approaching enemy columns. those troops would mostly be recon guys protecting FOs -- not the relatively heavy troops as in post-war Soviet forward detachments (though rear guards for withdrawing battalion strong resistance lines would preferably be of similar mechanized types) . i would be happy to be corrected.

Adam, it all depens a bit on nationality, campaign, local situation and especially what type of forces we are talking about exactly. strongpoints, resistance groups, advanced positions, resistance lines and outposts are all a bit different. arty fires may be limited both to save ammo for the decisive battles and to not reveal positions of batteries (when enemy has artillery superiority). other than that, a reinforced platoon really does not have the kind of firepower that is required to force enemy to deploy early. well, almost any kind of column. it's long and narrow, most likely moving by a covered route with uncertain destination and total force size. when it attacks it's concentrated into a very visible small blobs with obvious target areas. if you can figure out or observe likely assembly points that's where the pre-battle fires should go.

it doesn't have a real plot. it's more a collection of small stories. you noticed that the linked youtube "preview" contains english subtitles? quality is a bit low though -- some phrases are translated word for word and military terminology is not too accurate (e.g. "patteristo" is translated as "battery", where as it actually means whole artillery battalion).

yes, you get to fire at the attacker "for free", though in practice it may be that there's not too much artillery available at forward positions. my marginal beef with this, as with the vulnerability of marching columns, is that it's not the impression i get from action reports or doctrinal works. i may very well be wrong, but my impression is that the role of arty fires at forward positions & outposts was to cause the early deployment (which of course implies arty fires effective enough to force it -- not just harassing fires), rather than to cause meaningful damage on the attacking enemy once he had deployed. so the role played by arty fires takes place before the early deployment, not after it -- it is what is used to cause it, not what is used to make profit out of it later. i don't mean that the latter would not take place, i just have the impression that it was not the important part. my impression is that those forward positions are withdrawn once enemy deploys, unless those positions hold special importance due to terrain covered. likewise my impression is that marching columns are actually less concentrated and worse artillery targets than units deployed for attack. effects of typical arty strikes on marching columns is primarily that of causing disorganization, though there are exceptions which typically include elements like knowledge of enemy intentions or positions due to intelligence (yes, forward positions are part of the intelligence arsenal) or terrain which forces enemy to concentrate on narrow forest roads and such. yes, good to have some discussion.

what little i have talked with the guys who maintain & drive around those Finnish WW2 vehicles, StuG's achilles heel is the weak engine. compared to for example T-34 it shows in terrain. i suspect CM2 will fix those turning radius issues, as CMSF already has it.

then again there are fellows who take statistical inevitability as just random luck. or guys who justify simulation of feature X by realism of having X take place, even if directly related, possibly far more important, features Y and Z are not simulated at all.

i suffer from that same problem of having some screens black. as far as i know there is no fix for it. i find the scenario selection screen to be almost usable (even if done blind), but unit selection screen is a real nightmare. hopefully ATI releases drivers that fix the issue. i have thought about buying one of those cheap mini laptops (with XP) just to be able to play CMBB properly. only some 200 dollars / euros...

i have lost CM CDs because of wear & tear as well. there are "no cd" patches on the net and as far as i know BFC hasn't opposed them aggressively (please delete this post if i am wrong). they will save your CDs for future installations because you no longer need to keep the CD in the drive to play the game. you might want to buy a downloadable version instead though, because it will last "forever" and the game doesn't really cost that much.

there's also ISU-152 and some light tanks. pay attention to the StuG turning rate and weep when you watch it rotate in CMBB: note that the "preview" is 11 videos long on youtube. i am all for higher realism and such, and it's great that all the actions are based on actual historical events, but frankly i find the movie painful to watch (for example the constant stream of "medic!" scenes where soldiers are tending each other). also, casual viewers most likely end up forming a bit strange idea about the scale of the covered operations.