Ike

We're just a bunch of "toys 'r us" kids; ain't we?

Well, that's sound like modern warfare to me... </font>

Perhaps the ME re-appears in CMC in the location where the most of the unit exited and the rest of the ME which was not either captured or destroyed shows up later after some pre-determined delay based on their distance from the main body of the ME, at the location of the "majority" of the ME. Stragglers, if you will, straggling in. I think that would encourage maintenance of unit integrity in the CMBB battles as well as prompting careful consideration of the composition of the MEs when the campaigns are constructed.

Travelling cross-country for extended combat operations without sufficient maintenance or logistical support is a guarantee of being in the communication status of "not too many radios working". That is true of any army's vehicles, in any war, in any era with both radios and motorized armored fighting vehicles. How much logistical and maintenance support is "sufficient"? Good question and the answer is: enough to keep 90%+ of the unit's built-in radios working. (laugh) Sorry; I couldn't resist the joke. But the real world point is the same. The Germans were no better off: at the beginning of the war, since they'd planned for there to be at least an armistice by December or January '42 at the latest, there wasn't enough winter uniforms, winterized equipment, etc. And believe me, once the logistics and maintenance are no longer "sufficient", everyone's radios go "ka-put!", which shortens road march columns among other "minor tactical adjustments" from the drill book. But I'm sure you're correct in the proportion of radio-equipped Soviet tanks by the mid-war years. No offense to you intended: my point is simply that field conditions tend to destroy the most "modern" equipment because it is the most likely to require regular constant repair or cleaning or something like that and is the least likely to get it.

Another potential factor for WW2 Soviet armored formations is simply that only one in three had radios - probably fewer in the field after a week's worth of being bounced around - so the tank commanders would want to be close enough to see where the one in front goes since radios were scarce and - as pre-war field maneuvers showed - signal flags weren't the answer either. Yes, the driver could see, but only a narrow slice - depending on the vehicle, I understand that part - but the TC wants to feel in control and it's yelling at the driver that feeds the TC's desire to be in control. Sort of psychological, but I think a real factor nonetheless. What am I trying to say? Closer intervals between vehicles was likely, closer than 50 meters and closer than whatever the books and manuals said. Which is what Bigduke6 said. Oh, was that a battalion or brigade road march?

According to "Unit Organizations of World War II", published in 1976 by Z&M Enterprises, edited by D. Myers (whoever they all are), the 1944 Soviet tank battalion in the Tank Brigades was made up of two companies of 10 tanks each plus one tank in the Bn Hq. In the narrative for this formation, the companies were composed of three platoons of three tanks each, plus one more for the company Hq. I am entirely certain that this was not necessarily the composition of Soviet tank units (above company level) for the entire period of the war, but it is the information I have in printed reference. So, given your intervals and tank sizes as being correct for the time and place (and I have no reason to doubt your information there) the tank battalion with 21 tanks would cover about 1,140 meters in single file. If the roadway was broad enough, I would think a staggered double-file colum would have been the practice, giving about 570 meters for the column's length. Add a bit for some trucks and "jeeps" and miscellaneous vehicles, the battalion in single-file road column could be estimated at around 1,200 meters; double-file at 600 meters.

magomar: An excellent site! Congratulations and if you would like any additional assistance, let me know. Ike

I'd like to join in that SCW campaign, but only if I have command of the International Brigades (laugh) ... okay, just the Abraham Lincoln Brigade then.

And will prisoner exchanges be allowed, either as such or by virtue of some feature in the CMC program which restores your surrendered troopers after the passage of some specific or calculated period of time? If you can get your surrendered troops back, in the "company hopelessly surrounded" hypothetical presented above, then surrender would make sense, in the game context. That is so - given the existence of a feature whereby you get your surrendered troops back - whether company-level surrenders occured in real life or not. Ike

Assuming relatively clear weather, that is no heavy rain or long-lasting fog or any snow heavier than "a few flakes", for anything of about 105mm FA and smaller - to include all the mortars - would require about 4 - 6 hours including setting up the battery positions, depending on how rugged the terrain is. More hills, etc, longer time. That is for Vietnam War era weapons, who didn't have GPS/laser range finders, etc for the most part, and had to use essentially the same methods and equipment as WW2. Oh, and that's U.S. Army of course - who did I serve with, eh? - but I'm fairly certain that's about right for any but the absolute worst or absolute "blue ribbon winners" of artillery crews.

It might be nice to have, but how would CMC simulate it? As an actual, "Reinforcements have arrived!" and then you see them dropping in? That'd be visually fun, one battalion or so at a time, but can it be done? CM:BB doesn't have the programming for it; does it? I've not seen it if it does. One could plot the drop zone, schedule the drop, and then make some die roll for drop casualties (5% - 15% wasn't unusual even in German or U.S. drops, they being the best at airborne ops in WW2), and suitably reduce the strength of the airborne battalion on the ground, with a suitably scattered set-up, to reflect drop dispersion. Yes, doable, but would be it be worth it? Yes I think so, but .... Only in a game that already has a full-time GM or Campaign Coordinator.

I believe that in Russia perhaps throughout the former Soviet Union, WW2 is called "The Great Patriotic War" .. maybe no longer, but that is how it was called from '45 to about '85 or so, at any rate.

That's my point: in the CM:BB battles, the significant terrain is the small terrain features that will not show up on the battalion commander's map. So, the player in the CM:BB battle is more like the small-unit tactical leader than he is like the battalion commander and therefore the maps are useless to him in the battle. In the CMC maneuvers, etc, the player is as you say like the battalion commander and to him the maps are useful for the reason you stated.

I surrender!! Fingers! Kamaraden!! Chu Hoi!! LOL!!! CM:Bath and Laundry !!!!

Speaking from personal experience on the battlefield, let me tell you all that maps are nice and useful to the HQ staff at Division, Brigade, and Battalion; they are nearly useless to the tactical unit leader at Company and certain useless at Platoon and Squad levels. Why? Because terrain features of significance to the "units" which actually fight a battle are never visible and cannot ever be visible on any map from HQ. Because those "units" are the individual soldiers or perhaps a 3 or 4 man fire team and the individual AFV, machine gun team, and field gun/mortar/howitzer crew. I can hide an entire combat engineer platoon complete with bazookas, satchel charges, and Bangalore torpedos in a field that shows to be entirely clear and level on any map the HQ is likely to possess. And guess what? That ability, based upon relatively tiny terrain features, is what terrain is significant in combat. CM:BB isn't real life combat, but the terrain of significance is likewise that which covers and conceals the individual squad, gun team, and AFV, not what shows up as significant on a map. That may inject a bit of cool air into what seems to becoming an heated debate about the efficacy of maps in CMC and the merits of what we presently perceive to be the game's features. No offense intended to anyone here; just a little reality check from someone who's been in a battlefield environment over a three-year continuous period at the tactical level, using what was essentially up-graded WW2 military technology.

I think that you point out a very likely outcome with CMC. But, it requires that only one of the "Generals" achieve strategic or operational surprise and superior concentration of force against his opponent. What CMC implies to me is: (1) More recon, with those small-unit recon battles fought out by players unless it will be possible to get intel from such a battle if it is played by the AI only - not to mention terrain information valuable to the General; (2) More carefully fought battles, with concern for lines of communication, supply and retreat and with concern for withdrawing some significant fraction of a losing force from the battlefield to fight another day; (3) More genuine thought in operational maneuvering, timed concentrations of forces, threats to a genuine line of supply - in short more thoughtful maneuver at the operational level; (4) More combat groups/maneuver elements assembled based on the General's (or campaign designer's) ideas of combat utility not only "cause they're Russian Guards!" or similar sentimental bases; (5) In short and summarized, more application of real world military knowledge that formerly found in CM, even in some of the better campaigns that have been or are being run now. It will be fun, no matter how detailed a simulation of operational maneuver and conflict it may or may not be.

58

Right; that's what I said. (laugh)

What Phillipe said about logistics: Yes, and I don't want to play "Bean-Counting in the East" either, but more logistical input into operational level command decisions would be a good thing. And, Sergei, I read that article too and I agree with it, but what I think you'll agree with is more logistics without bogging the game down in counting socks. By the way, does anyone remember the old "monster" boardgame, Campaign for North Africa ? That thing had I don't remember how many "Strategic Phase Supply Phases", but I do remember that they took longer than the combat turns and there was a "water allocation" sub-phase. We don't want that, please, sir. (laugh)

And has several variations of the 76 mm field gun available for on-board artillery as well.

Okay. Let me start from the beginning, so I don't confuse myself or anyone else. In CMC, the basic map square is 2 km by 2 km. This is the size shown in the "features" section with the smaller red-outlined squares within it. If I understand it right, the smaller squares are 1 km x 1 km squares from CMBB. As I understand things, the 1 km x 1 km squares have to be made in the CM:BB Scenario Editor by whatever method the designer of the campaign wants to use, but it has to start there. Then you can use the CMC Editor to map Campaign Maps in 2 km x 2 km squares, from either CM:BB or wherever. But, there has to be 4 of the CM:BB 1 km x 1 km maps associated with each CMC map square. I think that the word "tile" has been used to refer to both the 1 x 1 km CM:BB map squares that the battles are fought on in CM:BB and to the 1 x 1 km "quadrants" that are shown outlined in red on the "features" examples of the 2 x 2 km CMC maps. Maybe used also at least once - but I may be wrong in this - to refer to the 2 x 2 km CMC map squares. What I'm talking about is the in the view shown of the 2 x 2 CMC map square there are four flags, one in each of the four 1 x 1 "quadrants" that form that larger CMC map square. My post refers to those flags in those "quadrants". Hope that made sense. I think I may have confused myself again, though. (laugh)

I'm not certain that is what should happen. If I understand what has been said Moon and the folks, there are four flags, one in each of the 1 km x 1 km "quadrants". If you control all four flags, you control all four "quadrants" and therefore you control the whole square. If you control 1 flag, you control only that one quadrant, and so on. There doesn't seem to be a need for a fifth flag to indicate who controls the entire CMC map square. There is apparently no distinction made in CMC between "control" and "ownership" as there is in some other games, noteably board games.

Well, there are two situations: (1) Playing one of the pre-completed campaigns that come with CMC: on the CMC level map you have a certain degree of matching between the CMC map and the CM:BB map. How much is anyone's guess. (2) Playing on a "home-made" campaign map: if Mapping Mission is used for all the map-making in such a campaign, then you'll have four regularly-tiled CM:BB 1 km x 1 km maps that will make up the CMC map square and I expect that the terrain will be visible, although reduced in size. If Mapping Mission isn't used or some similar program and if the person who creates the campaign's maps doesn't use CM:BB maps to make up the CMC maps, then it's anyone's guess as to how much relationship there will be between the maps we will see in CMC and the actually CM:BB maps we'll fight on.

Sure, General Bolt: when the big guy spreads out to cover the two 1km x 1 km squares on his side of the CMC map square, he should do so with a view to preventing the little guy from sliding past. Depends upon LOSs of course and terrain and weather, but I would think that a realistic chance to stop the little goy is there.

Evidently, Londoner, as I read the FAQ pages, etc for CMC, I gather these points: (1) Largest formation that plays well in CMC is the division level formation; (2) AI-controlled officers fill in command positions not filled by players; (3) So, based on those two things and a rough idea of how many "commanders" - battalion level (an assumption on my part) and above in a division-level organization, I would say the maximum number is 16 per side; (4) I figure that number as follows: 1 Division CO 3 Regiment/Brigade COs 9 Battalion COs perhaps 3 more "Battalion COs" to command tactical formations that are groupings of 'left-overs' from battalion-based battlegroups. More or less, but that's my final guess.(grin)