DavidFields

No Allied infantry in Barkmann's Corner? Just a training exercise, then, I guess. You could then probably take the Panther away from the Germans and still have an almost certain German win. Without the infantry spotters, and even just trying to destroy everything, the tanks would be almost blind, and eventually would run out of ammo--and the german infantry would just close on them in protected terrain.

Nice replies. I am going to analyze the AAR which has the Allies attacking the German road crossing. I would be interested if my discussion would be similar to other CM players, and if it would be different for those mostly experienced with modern warfare (yes, I realize you have studied WW2 tactics, but I think there is just a different "feel".) German 1. The duel between the Tiger and the Shermans was dangerous. I would have put the tank further back. The main feature which sticks out to me is the woods along the main road, on the right side. Some infantry and some infantry AT go there. The hope is that if AFVs foolishly come up the main road (and playing the AI, it usually is that foolish--will see if that changes in CM2) or right/center, they would loose a couple of them there to flank shots. The other infantry AT assets would be in a perimeter 50-70 meters out from the intersection, in whatever covering terrain is available, pointing toward the intersection--or perhaps even further out, in clusters, so as not to be subject to indirect fire on the intersection. The Panther would only be used once the infantry was stripped from the Allied tanks, and most of tanks were burning from infantry AT or assaults. It would be the Allied infantry I would fear the most (as spotters for the tanks), and would have my german infantry as far forward as possible--but in the back of houses, trees, etc so as to minimally be exposed to tank fire. If I can kill the Allied infantry, perhaps by them not seeing my infantry until 20-30 meters away, the tanks will be blind. The left flank was fairly meaningless (unless there were a bunch of objective points there), and the Germans had an amazing number of infantry AT weapons in the scenario--they could have probably managed with 1/2 the number. Allied I did not look closely at the infantry in the intersection scenario, but give me 6 Sherman tanks and 2 companies of infantry, and I think the German position can be destroyed. The infantry move forwards to spot/pin units including hopefully spotting the Panther--its large size being a liability--, the Shermans move forward and obliterate positions--taking care to stay care to stay 100 meters away from any enemy infantry position, and to avoid the Panther. The Shermans are positioned so that if the Panther moves up, one or more will have a flank shot on it. The Allied infantry moves up, and repeats. The German infantry AT weapons are useless and the Panther has too many threats to manage. Probably my thrust would be far right german flank, or right-center, with MGs trying to get in position in the center--buildings and forests--to prevent the german left flank units from moving across. If one had enough time, the Allies could do a hook around the left flank, with, perhaps, infantry on the tanks. I am not a big fan of that maneuver (too much ground, too many open fields, too exhausting and takes a lot of time)--but it could be considered. As Allied, if I had to choose between 2 companies of infantry with 3 Shermans, or 1 company of infantry with 6 Shermans, I think I would take the former--still might be able to pull it off if I knew the german OOB, and knew it did not have AT guns. None of the tracks of my Shermans would touch the main road until it was cleared all the way to the intersection. If the Allied had some heavy Indirect, I would target the intersection, and hope that my opponent made the mistake of thinking that defending the intersection meant having people immediately around the intersection. In practice, my guess is that most of those in this forum will be able to clobber me in CMBN, but what do you think of the style of the above analysis?

The AARs are great, with some great playing, with great results. As a CM Wego player, watching someone who "trained" on CMSF was interesting. 1. CMSF players may have to heavily adapt to the shorter, tighter fights. Sighting a Schrek across a long open field would not be my usual practice. Regardless of there range, all those infantry AT weapons seem best to me used in the 30-50 meter range, often pointing backwards, or at least sideways, from the main attack approach, suitably covered. Infantry behind hedge rows, with nothing but empty terrain behind them also seems like a potential death trap for them--no place to retreat to when discovered. 2. There was an interesting remark on one of the AARs--something to the effect that German squads were good, but were hampered by the need to carry and set-up their machine guns. I had never thought of it like that, but then again, I don't see squads being run and gun attack elements. To think of the precious German HMG as a liability.....I instead see it as one of the most powerful units in the battle. 3. The Panther tanks in the AARs seemed to me to be used like the almost invulnerable M1A1--which they are not. This was mitigated by what still seems like the weakness in the "hold intersection" AAR for the AI to shove the tanks forward first, followed by the infantry, instead of the other way around. But I saw some Panther dashes which would be questionable with a lighter AFV. 4. When a Sherman broke into some german squads, the narrator thought the squads might all be destroyed. But that seems to me to reflect Modern Warfare: you are seen, you die. A WW 2 tank, isolated, had poor vision. With a bunch of infantry around it, the tank is going to correctly retreat--before someone gets, for instance, a hit on the delicate tracks. 5. On the other hand, the meticulous "overwatch", and then "fire superiority", with relentless artillery--if it was available--was impressive. Interesting abbreviations for the different size roads. My hope is that everyone, coming from various approaches, will appreciate each other. I still like WEGO, looking at all the AARs and the demos from CMSF--I want to enjoy watching the action, and just don't like the RTS feel. Thinking about how to send a few squads on a flanking maneuver, with a leader--soldiers without body armor, and without overwhelming firepower (bang, bang, go the rifles)--carefully evaluating the terrain.....on both flanks, while carefully calculating indirect fire from minimally effective mortars with very limited ammo....maybe to finally get a close infantry assault on a key-holed AFV...this I enjoy. And it will good to be back with the current games. (need to let go...of ......CMBB)

Puzzle scenario, and/or a good simulation of actual tactics. [bTW, an incredible map--very intricate terrain] Specifically: was it standard practice to send the infantry forward, with armor overwatch, with such a collection of troops--which works best in the scenario, and in much of CM? Or did the infantry and armor advance together? (? best for morale of the infantry) And those portees....just keeping out of the battle seems like one of the best options with this scenario. In real life, the ranges were longer, and the terrain flatter, making them harder to hit and more deadly?

I can see you moving very carefully forward in this direction. After all, you did put names to the soldiers/officers. You could have just put in the rank. And putting in all those names must have taken some time. You did it because....well, you can tell us......but I suspect there was some thought that it helped with immersion. But my guess is that you don't want people to use or not use "units" (er...people with weapons) because they "like" them. That would break [someone will correct me if I am wrong] modern warfare management: where capabilities are valued over personalities, and the overall task is valued over any individual unit. Right? "Saving Pvt Ryan" being thus being the extraordinary situation, about which one could be critical if lives were wasted in the pursuit. (Except, if one is going to be completely calculating, they were valuable in motivating the "home front") Still...still....I can see you putting in more rewards for the "owner", particularly as scenarios get more locked, and the campaigns more formal. A series of locked scenarios which feature artillery, for example, where one gets a "stripe" or "star" for progressing through each in a series. Endless possibilities. As to PR, yes I am surprised that PC games have almost disappeared from stores. But I am also interested to see significant publications, like the New York Times, feature articles on games. Hmmmm...... And it would be a blast if Battlefront/CM where the subject, probably the first of its genre, in the New Yorker--or maybe the slightly more nerdy The Economist would be a better bet. CM2: N might have that potential.

Again, I am sure this is an issue your team has thought a lot about. (Although....if you are thinking about roll-playing, when the rest of the world is thinking about role-playing......... I would have to wonder what your team is actually doing in your office.) I was actually quite convinced in your CM documentation that individual units, after some point, don't increase in abilities after continual action, but have their abilities degraded and need to be pulled out and rested or refited. But how about thinking of the "individual" to be concentrated on as the "owner of the game". As silly as it may sound, I would guess (and others can correct me if they believe me mistaken), that people can become unreasonable pleased with themselves at getting a "medal" for "Playing a scenario in each of the first 7 days after D-day", or something like that. Make the owner of the game the hero, or at least honored, for some nominal achievement, with a lasting, even if digitally fleeting, record--which would not damage the realism of the underlying simulations. It would require the "signing in", and tracking of individual acheivements, that one sees ins some console games. I realize CM2:N may be too far along for this....but something to keep in mind for the future, perhaps.

Sequoia, I was joking, but I am fascinated by your point. Most WW2 games just put Finland in the Axis, and I had not given it much thought. But does your point mean that if the Western Allies could have knocked Finland out of the war, they would not have, or would have to have declared war on Finland independently? They would be "allowed" to bomb German troops in Helsinki, but not Finnish ones? And as an addendum to my previous post: I find it interesting that Battlefront has not (yet) had a "Owner's Record" board in the CM game--giving medals for accomplishments, or tracking number of scenarios played won, or number of different units killed--"Rankorian has been awarded the title Tiger-killer". Yes it could be easy to manipulate by the owner. But it would probably would be very popular, and would not affect the scenario game play. But philosophically offensive to Battlefront?.

Steve, thank you for the thoughtful reply. I definitely think that with CM2 you have closed the graphics gap. [CMBO graphics being totally not acceptable in today's market, and probably CMBB infantry graphics also non-acceptable.] But I think the market struggle issue is beyond just finding people who "want to think". My sense is that Battlefront fundamentally rejects the "Hero" game model. Units are valued according to their training, equipment value, and what they achieve. But [except for the rare Whittman or Band of Brothers scenario] CM does not emphasize the individual. Because....it would be bad military tactics to give extrodinary value to one person/unit (at least, since after the time of David and Goliath)? For those who want their "You are there" to emphasize "YOU", this may not be attractive. CM seems, to me, to philosophically emphasize teamwork, common cause, and selflessness. Not always an easy sell? Don't many people want a hero--hopefully themselves or their buddies. And something other than a Flag, or building objective, to save. [i agree with what I see as the CM/Battlefront philosophy. But in the wider society of popularity, of course, Avalon Hill did not become the household name of Lucas's Jedi-filled Star Wars--and I think it was more than the subject matter which was different, otherwise someone would have just cinemetized AH products.]

Just curious. To what extent is CM2:Normandy being designed/marketed for each of these groups. 1. Current or recent military who were "recruited" to CM2 because of its time-frame/specific weapons/tactics. Possibly never played CM1. How does one walk them over to WWII, were the weapons may seem, relatively, like toys (at least CM2:N is not early war WWII)? 2. The older or more history minded crowd. Probably your smallest, but most loyal crowd? 3. The 16-30 year old, non-military, (probably male) crowd. Likely the biggest potential audience? I can't see one ever getting the "twitch" (Halo) gamer. But how would one get the Call of Duty people to cross-over? Allow personalized insignias on the AFVs, to get some role-playing aspect to it (without going the Close Command route)? Or would that cause irreperable seizure activity among those in group 2? 4. Oh....and is non-Western Europe, non-North American demand significantly monetizable? (In other words is there demand, and will it actually result in money to Battlefront?) 5. And I assume you have found some obscure historical account of the Luftwaffe flying some Finns into Normandy to help with defense, so as to bring in that significant demographic. I suspect these issues have been thought about [other than, perhaps, the Finns] in some detail?

I was just about to mention, and will thus emphasize, what Wicky mentioned: area fire an infantry FT and it will expend all its ammo in 1 minute--very frustrating to watch, since 1 blast usually is enough to make the enemy leave. Nevertheless, the limited ammo does likely prevent even more ahistorical use of FT. As to the original question: Running up FT in HTs for an assault? Can't imagine too many CM battles which would allow that. Thin-skinned AFVs don't last long if they are in the thick of CM battles, and neither do FT. If you have enough unit points to try a FT/HT assault, the other side is likely to have a lot of units to counter it. And if you really have that much overwatch to cause suppression, then likely all one needs is a HT, or an HT plus a infantry squad, to run up and spot so the overwatch can kill. [Even then, it would pain me to run up a HT to borg-spot--just feels like a bad tactic] But, yeah, if it worked, it might look cool.

Per JC: "exploiting is cheating". It is mind-boggling how sweeping and, in my opinion, mistaken this is--both in this particular situation for ATGs in CM and historically. Historically, whenever any side came up with a new tactic or weapon, the other side could call it "exploiting" or "cheating". Pouting, or taking your marbles and going home, were seldom, historically, effective. Short of people breaking through the computer code to unmask FOW, or to move units around, it is hard to see how one could be a cheater in CM, or why, among experienced CM players, one would want to call someone that. Yes, two players could have an agreement about certain "house rules", but short of that, the quirks of CM are well known. Being called a cheater for knowing the quirks? Perhaps a simple "Thank you" suffices if called a cheater in that case, and file it under "Badge of Honor". As to the specific issue of ATGs in CM, I tend to agree that they are underpowered: both because of borg spotting, the fact that the "battle space" is usually pre-known (so the element of surprise is lessened), and I think that in practice they could likely be even more hidden than we can accomplish in CM. (There is also the infantry firepower quirk calculation--something that can't be hit, such as being behind a rock, does not become more hittable with increasing infantry firepower numbers, as it does in CM). Shame on me if, as an attacker with armor, I have not included indirect and infantry scouts in my force. Quirk/exploit or not, the counter is a reasonable facsimile of reasonable tactics--not perfectly historical, but reasonable. If the scenario/map requires that I set up my armor in an exposed position, it is just not a scenario/map that I am likely to enjoy--nothing to do with my opponent putting guns behind a crest. As with any simulation (and the Europa Universalis series also comes to mind, and the Harpoon series), I find that occasionally taking a weeks/months break, so as to forget the quirk particulars, brings the fun back. Winning? Winning what? I see myself having fun playing CM1 until either I have to replace my computer with something incompatible, or CM2 truly matches it for sheer fun (with the graphics not being a big issue for me)

It seems to me that bringing up Vietnam is unnecessary when discussing Blue's challenge in Afghanistan: the conflict is still too politically charged when it is discussed, its not like fighting irregular wars is a recent issue, and it is not as though the US, say, hasn't been on the other side. To think about how Blue wins in Afghanistan, and how to model tactics, think of how to have gotten the British to win in the Revolutionary war. The British dominance of the water (until the French intervention) even acts effectively like Blue's current airpower dominance. [AH 1776 did a great job, I think, on the strategic issues--right down Red (the US that time) being able to recruit more effectively where the "foreign" troops were located, and the importance of supressing entire regions as Blue] In CMSF, I can think of two additions which might help simulate the tactical situations better. The first seems "simple" to implement: basically the reverse of "fanaticism" in CM1. Hidden indicators for units, where one would not know the morale (or side?) until engaged in combat, or taking a casualty. Then you have the possible "I have covered by these units.....oops...actually I don't." Uncertainty about the quality/reliability of certain units/squads would affect deployment strategies. The second change might be more difficult: have units "pop", come into existence, from nowhere. This is not FOW. This is: clearing an area, finding nothing but civilians (who are thus transparent, tactically). But then the civilians "arm"--producing a Red unit out of nowhere. Perfectly real-life, thousands of years old, tactic. With those two changes, I would think one would find CMSF with a different tactical feel.

I will admit, my last post, about leveling the mountains, was not my best [note to self: post on the forum, and then have one's evening libation, not the other way around.] Not a CM level issue: putting a small fixed force in hostile territory can be a problem. You might have a ... say General Washington crossing some river and "ambushing" you. [The US evening news discribed this, and the other attack I discussed on this board, an "ambush". I am not inclined to describe it as such--it seemed to be a well planned attack on a (self-imposed) fixed position. And it was not even Chistmas (or Yom Kippur) to make it a tactical surprise.] CM issue: You are told there are larger strategic issues here. You are given command of a camp at the base of a valley to defend. To defend it....don't you need to actually defend the area around it? Wouldn't you have 2-3 patrols in those mountains 24/7. Don't you mine/boobytrap/claymore essentially every possible access/firepoint (given how terrible the terrain is, and not near any town, what innocent local is going to be there--or just post a warning in the local language to stay away, except by monitored road access.) I want to grant that the Blue troops are smart and trained. So, the 50-100 soldiers put there were insufficient to run sufficient patrols? Not enough mines/claymores/fire-power delivered to the base? Assuming the soldiers were competent, is their something about CMSF which would make it difficult to model these results? (perhaps the small-fire algorithm...where...in reality...if one is in a protected position, the firepower number could be immense, and yet no casualties occur. Perhaps...again, I know this has been well thought over.....Veteran experience overmodels the power of soldiers who are put in situations not consistent with their training.)

Darn, JasonC, I have a hard time objecting with you. Forget the 50mm stuff as ineffective (like 2 inch mortar). If the Russians otherwise had the mortars your suggest (and I have no doubts in the precision of your data), they were like the Allied forces: the infantry spot, the indirect does the damage.

Thank you for the comments. As someone originally from some place (West Virginia--US) where a relatively small "mountain", compared to Colorado, could separate valleys (including biar bushes), I am still mystified. Level the hill (as what the do with certain coal mining techniques). Build a ramp. Can't believe the US can't do this. Put a helicopter base on top. But this is a CMSF thead: my point, in this thread, could one build a scenario where all the Blue forces were.......IN EFFECT.........................green

A valid tactic going all the way to PanzerBlitz, and before. EFOW, and infantry in front of the guns is, as you have pointed out, the correct solution. If you are still being close assaulted, either the enemy is a mind reader, the map is too obvious, or the forces are too imbalanced. Maybe details, specific scenarios, where you cannot get it to work? Because...your instinct, in my opinion, is on target.

I quote this in full, because I also find the whole situation perplexing. Generally, my understanding is that one puts a military road on the top of the mountain. [At the risk of dating myself, there is an Asimov short story....perhaps in Methuselah's Children, whose plot depends on this] Ok...ok...it can be tough to build a mountain-top road in some places. But...if you are an air power? If you can launch planes from Iowa to strike 1/2 way across the world? Would not one leverage that to put oneself on a crest? Maybe one cannot rely on the full complement of burgers and ice cream......is it because we are relying on private contractors so much? (CMSF with private contractors?--likely not on the design board?) Then...even if you were in a valley...wouldn't you mine and booby-trap the heck out of any location one could fire an RPG on you from? I have incredible respect for the training of the US, a non-conscript, military. But if it is anything that Crecy, and Againcort taught us (and...oh...help me...what was the battle SE of Vienna where the European Knights lost to the Ottomans?) it is that powerful warriors in armor are not always the winning answer. And the psychology of battle goes back to before the kingdom of Wu. Perplexing......many of the issues are beyond CMSF.....but I am still interested in thinking of scenarios where Blue could plausibly be accurately be portrayed as Green (Conscript?..a stretch...but think of tactical situations, plausible, where it would be an accurate representation)

I tend to think of the 81mm mortar, attached to a german company, as sort of the standard for WW2 tactics. So then I play some North African scenarios, and every Brit and his uncle seems to have a 2 inch mortar. And then I play the Russians in something like White Wave, and 2 infantry battalions have one...regimental...mortar. Query: arbitrary differences? differences in production abilities? or fundamental differences in small arms tactical doctrine and philosophy?

Thank you Jason C. But, bien sur, you mentioned no new countries, not previously allied, who were newly conquered. Why even mention Western Egypt? (I had thought of Libya..but I don't think it was an independent country at this time?) Given the arms-length list one could write in the years and months prior to 12/41.........the string was broken. [i was hoping you would come up with something like.....Monaco....or some obscure Mediterranean nation.]

The Wanat thread was getting long. I see this issue, though, as very important to the conceptual development of CMSF, so I will continue it here. As many will know, another base in Afghanistan was hit. In the US evening news, it looks very much like Wanat--about 100m of flat area, near a river, with the mountains rising almost directly up. A...13 hour battle I believe. At a base that was about to be evacuated (hard to believe Red did not know that--I think Blue tends to tell the locals about big moves like that). Significant (psychologically...it is not as though Atlanta was wiped out) Blue deaths. A video a few weeks before the attack, shown on the news, shows the US troops, kids, in their concrete bunkers, writing grafitti on the 2 x 4s of their bunk beds, watching videos, thinking of home. They look, to me, green. Looks like a small version of Khe Sanh--makes me wonder who has been reading their history books more recently. A base, in a valley, in hostile territory, where the enemy can stay close to neutralize air support. Looking at this from a mostly military history/simulations aspect (ok...I want the West to win...that is "bias"), is Red 2:0 in this type of psychological battle? Can someone with more direct knowledge tell me that this type of attack was tried 20 or 200 times by Red, and they were otherwise slaughtered?

Calling any force "sub-human", in my opinion, is to misunderstand warfare history. It is all very human. My "denial" remark was a bit harsh. I guess I am just reflecting on the difficulty, or complexity, of grading the experience of the troops. I have no doubt that the US troops are suberbly trained--which makes the result all the more surprising (outlier? I would have to know the number of similar attacks which failed). But I sense a bit of double counting. US troops have great equipment (usually), and are trained on that equipment. Hence there is the firepower of the equipment. Think like that, and a CMSF scenario might be more doable/realistic. But could one still find the US soldiers "green"--to the situation, and hence not able to get the best out of their possible firepower. And the Red troops could be veteran/elite, by knowing how to get the most out of what they have. I also find it odd that that any effective fighting engagement must mean "Al-Qaida". I would suspect that the people who really know the terran in this place are the Taliban.

Having recently played a lot of 11-12/41 scenarios, the following question came to me: Did the Germans conquer any country after this time? (not counting Allies they needed to take control of during their collapse) I can't think of any, which seems to me odd given the run up to then. But enlighten me.

Hmmm...the initial post says the nations would be unrestricted...but does not mention the composition of the forces. The following responses are all AFV related--make it almost all infantry, and most years probably become competative (depending on the terrain and light)

I am perplexed by the responses to this topic-there seems to be an element of denial. Given the local political situation, is it really astonishing that one could find 200 Red fighters? If one botches the local politics, could not one face 2,000 or 20,000 enemy? Blue picked the terrain to defend. Blue is fortified. Blue has air support. Blue has some of the best trained military in world history. So why was Red anywhere near successful? It ain't politics. And Al-Quida are not Transformers. I sense an incomplete understanding of modern warfare--which we are best to understand and correct.

"as remarkable as any small-unit action in American military history": historian Douglas Cubbison. The New York Times today outlines a report on a 2007 battle in Afghanistan, where 72 "Blue" troops (US and Afghan), in a fortified position, are almost overrun by 200 Taliban in a 4 hour battle. Of course, in this "Red attacking Blue" Red had no artillery or armor. Blue had airpower, which eventually broke the attack. Reading this forum, I would have thought the Red attack would have been suicidal. Could CMSF acurately model the attack? Do we have to assume tactical incompetence on the Blue side (apart from not getting into the situation--assume that was not a good decision) in this case, or are there factors not in CMSF which would actually explain Red's relative success in this battle?