DavidFields

I see a different lineage to CM than ASL. My friends played Panzer Leader when I was young. (Like PanzerBlitz, but with that important opportunity fire). We would set up two identical sets of boards, have a partition in between, and a moderator/mediator would tell each person (or team) what they were able to see of the other side's units. This allowed FOW for starting set-up and units, unknown, and variable, reinforcements. Special events, like para drops. And, with a good moderator, one has a final judge on rules disputes. (Sounds D and D-ish, but we thought, "Why desire a flaming sword, when you could instead command a Panther tank?" In CM, the computer replaces the moderator. Can ASL be played like that? Different people have different preferences, of course: the visuals are not a big thing for me, but my son zooms in and notices every detail (and defect) of a unit. For me the interest is the projection of will in the face of uncertainty--indeed, intelligently reducing the uncertainty is part of the fun. It is the difference between Bridge and Poker on the one hand, and Chess on the other (with history thrown in). With new engines, CM will get better eye-candy, but I would say even the unmodded CMBO has the CM strengths of FOW, simultaneous movement, and more accurate ballistics. What was better about ASL? For some, I think, there is the fact that you can see the rules, whereas in CM many of the "rules" have to be derived or intuited--hence the threads where people run tests on bogging rates.

As usual, thanks for the insightful replies. Yea, I had thought about the ammo situation--with towing you can have everything together. I think I was thinking anachronistically about more modern, large, flat-bed trucks. It was the hypervulnerability to small-arms fire, if they are just seen as a truck in CM terms, that I was thinking about. Though...the evolution was to put them in thin-skinned half-tracks--so maybe crews do like to have a few mm of metal around them to help against the odd sniper/rifle when wandering around. Of course, then the mentality is to think they are "armored" and put the gunned-HT into the main battle, usually to poor results. Still, a cute unit, the Italian gun--just the kind that might not make it into future simulations which will be less comprehensive. And it gives the Italians something to use against the jaw-dropping armor of the Matilda II.

I am playing some early scenarios, and I am fascinated by these Italian 75mm anti-tank weapons mounted on trucks (and their 50mm-I think-British counterparts). Sort of, it seems to me, an evolutionary dead end in weapon development. (Makes me wonder, though, why armies did not just whinch guns, or roll them up ramps, into trucks and haul them around that way, rather than tow them--or maybe they did, over distances too far to be represented by CM.) In CM terms, for the purpose of being KO'ed, are they treated like trucks, antitank weapons, or something in between? In CM, or in real life, would one often find the truck immobilized, while the AT gun was still functional (the gun shield on the Italian weapon looks fairly substantial)?

I can see why Battlefront is making the change. A couple of years ago I bought CMBO. After playing a few scenarios, I decided to play them in historical order starting with June 1944. I am still in June 44, just past "Sherbroke Fusiliers". Last month, I finally broke down and bought CMBB/CMAK. Decided to play in historical order again. Started with Crete, then saw there were early Italian scenarios. If I kept this up, I should be finished with all the scenarios/operations by.....maybe sometime in 2010--just the ones on the disk. I get anxious just thinking about all the great scenarios that, practically, I will not get to. So, 4 years of entertainment for.....less than I pay for one night out on sushi and martinis. My solid guess is that Battlefront does not want me, indeed can't survive, with me getting off that cheaply. Meanwhile, my son pays monthly for Everquest II, or similar. I have always marveled how his PS-2 games, which he can get about 2 or 3 a holiday, cost so much more than my stuff. Ever thought of a subscription "Module of the Season"? Say, $200 a year. Would give you all a solid deadline, and would give something new to your gamers every three months. Despite the moaning on the boards--about how there is not enough material in the new module, just a little something new in your mailbox every three months would be a treat. People would give it as a gift--or get people to give it to them as a gift. You might find some people enjoy looking at the new doo-dads (equipment, uniforms, terrain) as actually play the scenarios. I think this is one of the many cases where what people say they want and will pay for may differ from reality (like with air flight, and nutritious food at fast food restaurants).

Well, on the more positive side, a good scenario builder will take the AIs weaknesses into account. By placing the units correctly, and thoughtful placing flags, the challenge can go up markedly. To take a few examples: I am playing a lot of CMBO lately (AI less strong than CMBB,CMAK). But I will be impressed if you win Hello 7th Armoured, or L'Elle River Crossing as the attacker, blind (not knowing the other side's positions) (Full Fog of War, or course) the first time. Both, I think, are a challenge even on replay. As the defender, again CMBO, I just finished Sherbroke Fusiliers against the AI. You will win it, but I found it a blast. And, --stop here if you do not want even the smallest "spoiler". The flags and units are placed so that the attacker flanks. Oh, and another tiny spoiler I did not want to put in the above, in L'Elle River Crossing, the terrain forces are such that the defenders actually tend to use artillery well, which is usually a great AI weakness.

It will plan ahead. It will flank. As far as challenging...it depends on how good you are. (And it is stronger in some circumstances than others....but don't you want the challenge of figuring that out for yourself?)

For you competitive types: Do you analyze scenarios to see if they are relatively Flag-poor (the winner will be decided by losses) or Flag-rich (won't win if you don't get the flags)? Do you calculate if taking a flag will be "worth" it ("The designer may say such-and-such hill is important, but for the tanks I would lose to take it, I would be better off going another direction...") Do you keep a running mental count of what the "true" VP situation is likelyto be, adjusting the one you see on the screen by what you think is likely occuring with those "?" flags? Or do you just play your stongest tactics, and let the results fall where they may?

To the Administrator: Thank you for the thoughtful reply. To Oren_m: And the implications of labeling some group a terrorist organization? I presume, in part, it signifies which side should be generally supported by the world. But this is a particular and peculiar time with regard to that term being such an important factor. In the future, likely there will be other considerations. (Such as access to "vital" goods being blocked...we would need some perjorative term...."economic terrorism"....."destabilizing elements") More pointedly, from a tactical, operational stand-point, fighting a terrorist organization allows what tactics and procedures that would not ordinarily be used against soldiers? With regard to CC:SF I am sure you have already worked this out, but one way to go would be to ride directly into the storm. Scenarios: 1. Iran invasion of Bahrain. (Premise--US withdraws from gulf, being massively occupied elsewhere, leaving some equipment for its allies. A general Sunni/Shia war erupts. Iran has control over the Gulf's waterway (+/- its airspace). Put the Kingdom's markings on US equipment. 2. Turkey invades northern Iraq. (Premise--Turkey has soldiers snatched by Kurds. Gets the green light from NATO to invade.) We could possibly get quite a lively debate on what equipment the Turks would likely encounter. 3. Keep your Syria battles. But, if you have not already done so, have maps based on actual terrain. Actual bridges. Actual buildings. The sell-line: "Battles ripped from the head-lines, today's and tomorrow's". Sort of "Law and Order", with ordinance. Periodic, paid-for, downloaded scenarios. During an artricle in Time or Newsweek on some current conflict, a side bar mentions CC:SF. Newspapers in New York and London weigh in, alternatively condemning and defending the idea of doing such simulations. Sales boom.

I assume you mean ones not on the disk? Otherwise, I liked Disaster at Breda Fromm, playing Italian. Lot's of unusual equipment--I want to giggle when I see the term "Tankette", but they can be used effectively in that scenario. There is some interesting maneuvering.

I enjoy CM games immensely. I don't post on the boards much. And I am not sure if it is reasonable to post on this subject, except that I do think it has relevance to CM:SF. I must respectfully disagree with the Board Administrator on the issue on the term "terrorist"--used by anyone, about anyone--even if there is some support in International Law for the term. The tactics used by the "Islamic Extremists" would not be a surprise to Ghenghis Khan, Alexander the Great (historians riding with him, I believe, described the wholesale destruction of cultures on his conquests through Persia), or the frontier families during the American frontier expansion. (Are we going to call some of the original American colonizers, stateless--in many cases renouncing their European state--fighting the natives, as terrorists? One can, but where does that get you?) The problem with the term, terrorist, in my opionion, is that it often seems to imply, almost petulantly: these people are not playing by the rules, so we don't have to either. This neglects the ideas that the rules are not only meant for the enemy, but to preserve our own humanity. We abide by the Geneva convention for, in large part, our own good. For our own humanity. Labeling someone a terrorist seems to me the usual Vietnam "gook" de-humanizing strategy, echoed in similar lingo from some of the problems with US units in Iraq (and I have no doubt that this is a superb army, more disciplined than what the US fielded in WW2). And why the current combatants the West is facing are worse than when we had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing at us in the Cold War, sometimes cruising right up to our coast, is unclear to me (a couple of crackpots in the Kremlin or the US...the "State" need not have launched the war, a few people could have done it without general population approval). Israel and the Arab world are in a struggle. Islam and the West are in a struggle. Whether it is best for either side to go to "hot" or "cold" in that struggle at any particular time could be debated. We can hope, I think, that a "Cold War" peaceful resolution might eventually occur. But to take one tactic, and label it "terrorist" reminds me of the middle age knights who thought citizen archers where unsporting. Evolving tactics, whether Napoleon or Ghandi, can be the essence of victory. As regard to Battlefront, the issue, it seems to me, is that they wish to concentrate on certain aspects of war. Not what the NKVD, or German police units did after the main battlefront went through (Ah...your name is not an accident?) Sales of WWII Eastern Front games might drop off if one had to regularly watch footage of those behind-the-lines activities. Vietnam simulations? It is hard to think of Vietnam without seeing napalm, and a child running down the road. At some point, years from now, we may be playing simulations of the IDF assaulting a Hezboulah position in Southern Lebanon. Or a counter-assault/ambush. Personally, I would be quite interested, and would be interested in discussing the various simulated weapons and their effects. I would even argue that it is an important exercize, learning the tactics of projecting force. But today, such a simulation would bring to mind crying parents. Not fun, no matter which side is doing the crying, and what each side calls the other. I think Battlefront is going to have some unavoidably difficult decisions to make. (For awhile, I think modern Russia vs China was picked for some simulations, set in someplace like Mongolia or Siberia, just to minimize thoughts of civilian causualties.)

undead reindeer cavalry: Hilarious. Clearly there is more than one way to make a point.

How about this: Most large groups of people are similar. I do not think that "Germans" or "Russians" or "Americans" or "Native Americans" are fundamentally more or less moral than each other. If you give most boys a hammer, and something to hit, most of them will hit it. National Socialism, Communism, Manifest Destiny, and Paganism, can all be used as reasons to do terrible things. But it is people who actually do those terrible things, and a percentage of even true believers will refuse to cause harm for moral reasons at critical times. One can argue that some ideologies are "better" at bringing out the worst in people. At the risk of getting some people very upset, one can even point to positive things that happened with all the above ideologies. I happen to think National Socialism was a "bad branch" to a line of German thought which also had brought us a strong academic system, and strong scientific discoveries. I have no problem with someone not wanting to play what he/she interprets as pro-Nazi scenarios, it is perhaps the sharp vehemence of the opinion which I would dampen. "War simulations" like CM teach, I think, the effective use of certain types of force. This can be useful to know, even for "peaceful" people. I know people who would make the case that I should not be involved with these simulations at all--that they teach violence. At the extreme, I know people who would ban these games. And perhaps, some person who has become expert at having prep firing a building, through genades, and then close assault, with the slaughtering of all the enemy "units", may become aggressive in his/her personal life (mostly "his", I would guess most of our arm chair commanders are). But if you have ever tried to move an initiative, even a liberal one, through a bureaucracy, you might have noticed some similarities with some of the techniques (some...) one needs to be effective. Most people, I think, are not going to be scarred by the Whitmann scenario. Most people screaming for blood at a soccer or American Football match are not going to be murderers. I hope they also cry at La Traviata. And I hope they are also tender and kind to the young, the elderly, and the infirm--anywhere.

Ok, absolutely persuasively argued, BigDuke6. What always makes the German thrust through the South silly is that they never seemed to gain real industrial advantage from it--they did not have time to. Even if they had reached the Baku oil fields, it is hard for me to believe that (As is asserted in the movie, for example, "Enemy at the Gates") the war for Russia would have been lost--if the Soviet army remained intact, and the will to fight by the Soviets still existed. Getting that oil back to Germany, especially if the Soviets torched the fields, would have been a nightmare? But if the Germans somehow had a year breather they could have rebuilt the industry in the Donbass region to be truely productive for the Wehrmacht? I guess I see it now. And I appreciate the explanation, since it makes so much more sense than just having an "objective" point on some board/computer simulation. Still.... (and I also enjoyed to postings in the Kursk topic, particularly by JasonC, on the fixed mentality of the German war machine) everytime it is 1942-43, and I am on the German side of the simulation, I say to myself, "Please don't make me send my Panzers south...got to be another way." Maybe not.

I was not clear. I am not doubting the power of the Panzers. I was just wondering if, by having them, one is inevitably drawn toward racing through southern Russia--the weapon driving the strategy. Instead of: Concentrate and take Lenningrad in 1941. Concentrate and take Moscow in 1942. In 1943: The German Northern front is secure, particularly with the Finns on the flank. The area around and south east of Moscow is backed up by german armour units, adopting defensive doctrines. The south is simply East-Walled, behind one of the river lines. I don't mean to irritate anyone. This has to be one of the most analyzed campaigns in history--all WWII is determined by it. And I can see you, rightfully, firing off what me the likely correct response: 1. The Germans, by doctrine and temperment, would not adopt such a defensive posture and tactics. 2. By ceding the strategic initiative, that would allow the Soviets to strike at any point in the line with overwhelming force. Nevertheless, it is interesting, at least to me, to speculate on a German army not worn out by what, it seems to me, an absolutely fruitless Southern front advance. We all assume, and it may be correct, that the loss of Lenningrad and Moscow would not have caused a catastrophic Soviet collapse--that economic and administrative functions would be effectively managed elsewhere, and the psychological stamina and cohesiveness of the Soviet rulers would remain intact(the people's being less important, as they can be driven by fear, force, and propoganda). Every simulation I have seen assumes that. Are we too strongly basing our beliefs on then-current Soviet propoganda?

Ok, you have all almost convinced me. It is true that simulations which take into account the forest and swamps of the area, such as World at War, give a sobering picture of trying to advance in the North. Certainly, the area is not just flat and without hills. My guess, also, is that German army doctrine on attacking across frozen swamps or lakes was not well practiced. But am I mistaken that the German High Command did emphasize Army Group North pre-campaign? My question 4 was prompted by the idea, such as expressed in another post on this topic, that the Soviet forces were a multi-headed hydra, and that it was a sort of Westmoreland-body-count victory by Army Group Center (American allusion)--I realize I am being a bit provocative--almost equivalent to the meaningless square kilometers captured in the South. Leningrad needs to be taken. Moscow needs to be taken. Keep your lines, as Germany, as close to Germany as possible--since, in the time frame available, you are not going to derive any significant economic benefit from the captured territory. Dig in. Did Germany gain anything significant, militarily or economically, by taking anything south of Moscow? Did having the Panzers cloud judgement? (I am reminded of a chess column which read, something like, "In this position, white will inevitably be drawn to attacking on the Queen's side, fail, and thus lose.")

Thank you, Von Churov (and all the other respondants). But if the area was unsuitable for armor operations, then wasn't is unsuitable for either side's armor operations? In other words, could the Germans have broken though with infantry? Taking meaningless square kilometers in the south seems less important than having a major port/rail center, cutting off Archangel, and having a more defensible line--or not? As to the razing of Lenningrad, it is almost literally unthinkable to me. Without a-bomb, or air fire-bombing, or destruction from close fighting, can anyone give me an example of a city the size of Lenningrad being razed if it were captured, for example, intact. The logistics....

This is inspired by the (to me) incredibly expertise in the "Germans win at Kursk" postings. For as long as I have played Eastern front games/simulators, I have been intrigued by the Northern front, and like to push there (when the OOB allows). It generally seems like the German High command was right, and that it is a winning strategy. But the weather/terrain can be sobering, if modeled harshly. I would be very pleased to here your expertise on the following questions. 1. If the Germans had made maximal effort in the north, would they likely have captured Lenningrad? If so, 2. How would they have managed the population of Lenningrad? 3. After a winter, which would be likely miserable for everyone, poised with the main German units around and East of Lenningrad, now with port supply, attacking south along the Lenningrad-Moscow rail line in 1942, what would their success be? 4. This likely means that the encirclement of the masses of troops by Army Group Central would not have occured. How much would this have mattered? Did all that massive captured men and material actually reduce the fighting power of the Soviet Union? In short, if the original campaign had been designed to last 18 months, instead of 6, would a more deliberate advance toward Moscow been advisable, and from the north, as well as west?

The preference for "exact" or "fuzzy" information about reinforcements, echoed in similar comments about briefings, and really seems to be a player preference issue--strongly opposing opinions felt by very good players, who have slightly different reasons for running CM. But I think few people want to get overtly deceptive information (except in some very narrow situations), nor do most people want reinforcements to come in at a place they will be instantly massacred--even if I am the one doing the massacring, the exercize can feel a bit pointless (and I actually start feeling a bit sympathetic for the digital deaths). Unless, of course, the situation is due to some sort of superior maneuvering or flanking operation. Overtly deceptive information, and massacres, may be historical at times, but it sort of damages the illusion that thinking brings about a better resolution of a struggle.

IIRC, CC also had Borg spotting.

Yes, of course Sanok makes excellent points. Leading with the armor is something even an experienced human could do, either on purpose or by mistake. But the AI compounds the problem, I think, by often (usually?) not pulling back and trying another route when it is being clobbered. "Persistence" turns into "massacre"--though I have occasionally been guilty of that myself if I impatiently thought that "a slightly larger tank rush" was going to overwhelm a AT gun, for example. Not keeping its units in command distance of the HQ is one of the most "inhuman" things which I see the AI do. Most of us humans, I think, are obsessive about keeping units in command.

The tendency of the AI to counterattack sometimes makes it easier to beat, but makes the game a bit more exciting. Close Combat III, as I recall, had more passive AI, for example, but was thus less exciting. There has been more than one time where I thought the computer was launching a stupid counterattack, only to sweat it out as those "dummies" refused to die or retreat as expected, and made a flag neutral, or worse. Also, this helps train the human player to advance in force, and not just throw a couple of units at a flag. As to how good it is: I am actually taking a break from the game because I had my nose punched in by the AI at the end of a long scenario. So, when the AI does something stupid, we can laugh at it, but do we really want to have out head routinely handed to us when we are playing for "pleasure". I find it the best, most realistic, AI I have every seen. 30 years ago, the Department of Defense would have probably paid millions to build something which would have still been inferior. (I am willing to stand corrected if someone knows better)

Panther tank. It was produced in large enough numbers that it does not feel gamey to me to use it. It is my "favorite", as the title of the topic notes, which does not necessarily mean it is the most powerful. I feel if I cannot use Panther tanks well, I shouldn't consider myself a real CM player. I have a soft spot for the Mk-IV tanks, also--feel as though they need to be handled intelligently to get the most out of them, and that they should be the real back-bone of a German armor push. I could never really get excited about any of the Allied tanks--not sure why. I consider that a weakness--I should learn to love the Sherman. But I have stuck in my head that Allied power was mostly artillery power. Actually, make that American/English tanks. When I get CMBB, I am looking forward to the T-34/85.

Thanks for the very detailed and informative posts, redwolf and yankee dog. The boards are tricky for a CMBO player (one of these days I'll get a stronger computer), because CMBO is not what most people are referring to. Well, I am interested that a Sherman is so much more powerful than a T-34 (I know--I could get a hail-fire of posts on how it is not--that the T-34 gun is undermodeled). But, again, it is also a question of year--the West Front being so much later in the war) Stukas looked good early in the war (or, to make a more fair comparison, Me-109s), but not by late 1944. Nevertheless, I still should have known better and pulled back the Stugs at the first sign of a counterattack--buried them in some scattered trees, or keyholed them for a first shot. .....but I cannot get over the Stuarts plugging 2 of them.

So, I made the mistake of reading the CMBB forum a lot. I saw many references to the Stugs being such a powerful, almost overly so, tank weapon--particularly the 80mm front armor variety. Then I play the CMBO scenario, Hello Second Armored Spoiler, maybe--or, at least info on the forces * * * * * * * * * * * I think it affected my thinking about using all those German Stugs in the scenario. I was doing fine until about turn 20-23. Then I lost 6 in a couple of turns. 2 to bazookas, 2 to side shots from --Stuarts!-- the AI actually ran one quickly around to my side and plugged me, and the other one was lost when my silly tank driver turned to shoot some infantry, leaving the side open to an unseen Stuart. 2 more lost to long shots from a tank destroyer and a Sherman. Turning what was to be a crushing victory into a possible loss. First, I remind myself, CMBO is 1944, and most of the CMBB talk likely refers to earlier year. The Stugs are on the attack, in woods--likely not their ideal operating environment. CMBO does not have firing arcs, so they would be more vulnerable to distractions. I knew better. Indeed, I tend to generally prefer tanks/assault guns to be infantry support weapons. But, I goofed, pushed too hard (my infantry was running low of ammo, and I wanted to finish off some last enemy infantry strong points.) Rats, rats, rats....even when one has an idea of the correct tactics, it can be hard to concentrate on executing on every turn. I'm glad it was only electronic carnage, not real flesh.

Perhaps the foxhole exposure number be a concession from BFC to allow for better play? I would think that attacking very well dug in infantry would usually take more than the hour or so that most scenarios involve. Also, it would likely take a major artillery barrage--which BFC purposely avoids by stating the scenarios take place after the major barrages. (and I think many players find large artillery barrages less fun than infantry and tank tactics)