dugfromthearth

um, MT you are now simply beating a dead horse and looking foolish by doing so. Make your statement and move on. No one wins message board arguments. The one who won't let go of the thread is ultimately the loser. sorry

I get the impression that there are 3 different monologues being posted on the same thread. I know nothing about Russian tank production outside of what I have read in this thread. But this is what it seems the argument comes down to: MT says that the Russians concentrated on producing T-34's in 1943. His argument is that they increased production of T-34's in 1943, and decreased production in everything else. The counter to this seems to be saying "yes they increased production in T-34's but they held steady in producing all other types combined, just not other specific types." Which seems to me to ignore the fact that they increased T-34 production. So far no one has claimed that in any situation where they could produce T-34's they did not. Instead the claims seem to be that they produced other things in factories that could not produce T-34's and then produced T-34's in any factories that could produce them plus all of the new factories that they built. Which would seem to me to indicate a concentration on T-34's. Not a concentration to the exclusion of all else, but a concentration nonetheless. Then there is the debate about switching over factories to produce other types of tanks - which MT claims the Germans did and the Russians did not do - giving the Russians an edge in tank production. There is the counter claim that the non T-34 production did in fact get retooled. The light and heavy tanks got retooled. This makes MT wrong. However, MT is only concerned with medium tanks. Per his argument the Germans are converting to Panther production, reducing their medium tank production whereas the Russians are continuing their T-34 production unchanged so they get more medium tanks. In essence both sides are right because they are arguing different points. MT only cares about medium tanks, the others care about all tanks. Given that the subject of this entire thread is "T-34 Lifespan" a fixation on the T-34 doesn't seem all that out of line. And then we have the comment made that the technical quality and quantity of the tanks didn’t really determine who was winning. The Russians strategic and operational abilities determined the result (since the Germans were about the same throughout the war). Early in the war the Russians sucked, and so they lost. Later they got to be competent enough to realize they weren’t as good as the Germans and started attacking the non-German axis divisions. And the Russians started to win. This is correct of course. The war didn’t end with the Germans down to 0 tanks and the Russians at 3. It wasn’t purely a war of attrition. The German campaigns to conquer Poland, France, and Russia were not based on superior tanks or tactics, but on superior strategy and operations. So in conclusion, the Russians won, the Germans lost, the Americans showed up at the end and declared victory.

of course he might be just the type of person who reads that site. a wargamer writing a review for a FPS-gamer site wouldn't be doing much good for that audience.

of course he might be just the type of person who reads that site. a wargamer writing a review for a FPS-gamer site wouldn't be doing much good for that audience.

he also seems to think that the missions are listed in order as opposed to just alphabetical. and he never mentions the scenario creation or quick battles.

he also seems to think that the missions are listed in order as opposed to just alphabetical. and he never mentions the scenario creation or quick battles.

mine are pretty much just historic drivel I never thought to include a force list since you can just see them once the scenario starts. But if people want one I can include one. [ December 30, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: dugfromthearth ]

people seem to put all sorts of different things into briefings. my main questions are: do you want a detailed list of your troops? ie: 4 Sherman V's 2 Companies American rifle 4 81mm mortar teams 3 MG teams ... a general list: some Shermans and a couple of re-inforced infantry companies what about estimations of enemy forces? or where the enemy is set up? "recon shows no signficant enemy forces on this side of the river" or "the enemy holds the town itself in force" it seems whenever I see a comment on enemy forces it is always a lie "the Germans have no armor" and then a half dozen panthers open fire. should any "advice" in the briefings be accurate or just random "historic" drivel? I find many scenarios with the "rush forward" advice/command in the briefing and then the enemy is dug in with heavy forces right where the briefing said they would not be. in general should briefings contain: lies, damn lies, or statistics?

5 flags. AI has 5 platoons and disperses them to cover all 5 flags. You have 5 platoons and take each flag in succession with 5 to 1 odds. that would suck. the AI tends to concentrate forces fairly well. it just can't do clever things with them. the attacks are not necessarily bad ideas, they aren't well done. and more importantly you know they are coming and plan for them. A predictable opponent is easily defeated most of the time.

1) drop artillery on the woods 2) use flamethrowers. The trick is not to engage with the flamethrowers. Once your recon spots the enemy, move your flamethrower to just out of sighting range, then use area fire with the flamethrower - it will still break the enemy. 3) use area fire like FT with your infantry. Move to just out of sight of the enemy your recon found and then use area fire. Best is to use a turn of area fire, and then the next turn "advance" with one squad to see if the enemy is still in position. The real key to this is that the attacker has the advantage. If the enemy is sitting in heavy woods, they cannot see to provide cover fire for eachother. If they bunch up, area fire will chew them all up quickly. If they spread out, hit each squad in detail with your concentrated units. ideally you use a flamethrower or other weapon to break a whole in their line. then penetrate their line and roll up each side hitting their units one at a time in the flank.

specifically you create 3 briefing text files (they must be text files, so use notepad) one is a general briefing, one for the axis and one for the allies (both see the general briefing) in the scenario editor click "load briefings". It will then let you search your computer for the files. You select the general briefing and click ok, then the axis briefing and click ok, then the allied briefing and click ok. I have a combat missions folder and then for each scenario I create a sub-folder in which I create my briefing text files, makes it easy to find them and I just name them general.txt, axis.txt, allied.txt for craters you hit the key (alt 0-5 I think) and it does not put down a crater, it puts you into crater mode. So wherever you click it places a crater of the appropriate size. you then click alt-0 or alt-5 (I forget which) and it takes you out of crater mode.

mortars have a minimum range and a maximum range. on-board mortars can only fire indirectly if they are in command by a hq unit that can see the target.

well my question isn't what is best. It is what was done. For instance the roads in France weren't usually paved in 1944, but they are now. So in practice were Italian railways elevated to any significant amount (ie at least 2.5m) in 1943-45? Was the terrain heavily modified for the trains, or did the tracks wind around to best suit the existing terrain?

Were European railroads built on elevated railgrades or were they the height of the surrounding terrain?

too bad you didn't start with a real tank

I am working on a map - Apennines to the Adriatic - a huge map something like 3600 x 3600. I already suspect I will never be able to finish it. At 10m per square (which I admit sounds lovely and a scenario designers dream) I really would never be able to finish it.

well I have never been in the military. My history interest has always been the rise and fall of nations and ancient military history. My particular thesis for ancient military history is that after the invention of cavalry to replace chariots (and iron weapons) and until the invention of the socket bayonet, there were no technological advances in military technology and tactics, just changes. Even after that the same basic unit types and tactics remain: infantry, cavalry, missile. Military history follows a few basic cycles of tactics. The key is figuring out where you are in the cycles. A tactic is recognized as useful and incorporated into doctrine. It will remain doctrine even when it is no longer useful until it is shown to be detrimental. So you have to not just do what was considered to be "the thing to do" at the time, but consider why it was done and if it was really useful or just a holdover from a bygone era. So in a sense I have strong interest in adaptive military tactics. I have read The Art of Maneuver by Robert Leonhard which is very good at describing and giving name to ideas for maneuver warfare (although he has a pro-German anti-Russian bias that colors his views and he is advocating a particular style so he is not as impartial as I would like). I have played several war games, but actually very few compared to probably any typical board member (say 3 games of Squad Leader, Europa a few times, etc). The tactics I use in Combat Missions did evolve a bit during play (particularly mortar use) but are mainly just basic WWII doctrine as far as I know and an analysis of point costs. My particular bias is that I want to win boldly and cleverly. It is not a good trait - I never won a game of Steel Panthers against my friend because I could simply not accept that the way to win was to mass tanks and rush at full speed to the objective. I tried clever ways to win and always got crushed. I arrange my armies like ancient or medieval armies. I like the model of Gustavus Adolphus - units are organized for effect. I want each unit to have one effect, not to have generalized units. A unit absorbs damage, inflicts infantry damage, inflicts armor damage, or spots. I don't want a unit that does all at once. For me the key is the maneuver theory doctrine that I am always looking to get the effect I want. Effect does not necessarily equal killing. It could be locating the enemy, fixing their position, or killing them. Or bypassing them once I know their location. But really, I'm just an armchair general with a few books on theory and a couple of thousand years of examples. That's why I gave very basic tactics. I am a strong believer that battles are typically won by the general tactics employed. But very good micro-tactics can still carry the day. And my micro-tactics are not very refined.

wait until night a problem with CMAK is that you are presented with tactical dilemnas that were not solved tactically. it has already been discussed with the "how to take out Matilda's if you don't have an 88". The answer is you don't, you withdraw and bring in an 88 from somewhere. If you are playing in the desert, the desert is for the most part worthless. You wouldn't launch infantry assaults over flat terrain with no cover. You would wait until night, circle around strategically, or do something else. There is not a tactical solution to every problem.

minefields represent where mines might be located - you can dry over a field without hitting a mine, or you might hit one. mine fields were not used to kill people or destroy vehicles, but to stop them from passing through an area. Hence the signs warning of the minefield. If you want the mines to kill people you don't put up signs. Of course then your people walk over them too.

yes all of the buildings are the same except for the 45 degree angle I find it very annoying as well for precisely the same reason. Instead of a jumble of builings you get perfect rows, even the roofs are aligned the same no matter what the "facing" of the building is. If you throw in 2 story heavy buildings which fill an entire square it helps create more of a jumble.

a 3 point system is all that is required: 3 really liked it 2 it was okay 1 didn't like it like grade inflation, a rating system only works if everyone uses the same system. If you have a 1-10 scale and some people see a 7 as "okay" and others see 5 as "okay" then you might have a rating spread but it is meaningless.

http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/CMAKscenarioreview03.php?UniqueID=29&Name=Forlorn+Hope if someone manages to win it please let me know, plus how you did it so I can prevent anyone else from winning.

yes, when my friend and I complain about something over the phone about Combat Missions we start with "of course CM is the best game ever, but..." as my friend pointed out we used to play The Perfect General and say things like "I wish there were more then two useful unit types." Now we say things like "I wish that the British airborne squads had the option of carrying extra grenades".

the two story light buildings with pavement around them let you make nice "medieval" towns like you find around Europe. Don't put in roads, just put in a mix of buildings surrounded by pavement and 2 story stone buildings to get a patchwork of buildings and narrow paved alleys/streets.

Oh, one last thing. There is a rocky hill face by the garden. It looks like it is man-made rather then natural (since it is fairly square). If it is man-made you might label it as something because I couldn't figure out why there was this big square rocky hillside. then again it could be natural.