Arthur Krupp

I was just wondering what kind of support will there be to the modding community? Re: Scenarios, new planes, rules etc

I believe it is

bbaker-While I am not a major "grog" neither am I a kiddie with experiences in medal of honour for my history lessons. It was a broad generalisation I grant it, but better than sitting down to compare the sherman to the panzer IV in detail. If I have gotton people going over this then I apologise, but sometimes you just have to take broad statements in the spirit rather than the letter. I am well aware of the strenghts and weaknesses of the german "leet" infantry soldier and so on but did not feel the need to go into it in that post-I was simply referring back the the allied high command statement that whenever allied forces met german forces on anywhere near equal terms the germans usually prevailed-this was true more so on a tactical level as the war progressed moreso than a strategic level (as it was put in one history, "German units were like isolated rocks in a vast torrent of water"). Again I apologise to those who tend to take their history so seriously at all times.

depends on where it is-if it has its back to a see tile then it'd be less than if it were out in the open....I believe its more than 4 at least when out in the open.

Whats all this? I raise the point that the germans had the "brains for warfare" and I get shouted down as being some sort of neo-nazi? And as for the wittmann getting blown up by a rocket strike, I was not aware that it was the case-the last time I read up on wittmann that was a generally accepted theory and I apologise if that is now outdated-such is the nature of history that the details can change from year to year as new evidence comes to light. I'm afriad the only username I've ever used on this forum is Arthur Krupp, I can certainly say I'm not a neo-nazi and give my apologies once again for my historical error on the case of wittmann.

well the germans certainly had the brians for warfare (just about the only tactic that could ever be used to beat them on the battlefield was to outnumber them at least 2:1 and even then you'd lose a lot of men) its just that despeirate circumstances required despirate thinking.

wittmann was killed by an aircraft rocket strike... Well the SS obviously didn't have any trucks on hand and they were known to waste a lot of equipment (not to mention manpower) in the persuit of their goals.

could well be. Another thing I've noticed is tanks and other vehicles continueing to roll throguh minefields even after they have been detected-I thought minefields were supposed to be "impassable" terrain as far as the AI was concerned.

I'm not sure in CM terms, but certain panzer units used to do it when they needed to get to something quick-for instance during the battle of the bulge SS tanks were rushing to get their hands on one of the vital bridges before it was blown but there were daisy chain AT mines on the road-the solution? Drive a tiger through, get its tracks blown off but clear a path.

only problem with snipers is if someone locks on with an MG they're up **** creek.

btw, is this a scenario or QB? If its a scenario I'd be interested to get my hands on it

do as the SS and just sacrifice tanks to make way.....?

most likely a mistake....hell, you plot every CM of a panzer 3's armour and chances are you'd miss out a pak 40 or two.....

Are all the bunkers concrete? Wooden bunkers can be taken out by artillery alright, though still pretty high cal and it'd want to be accurate fire too, so an experienced spotter with a direct like of sight is a must. As for concrete bunkers, I've never seen one taken down by arty....you should probably concentrate on the wooden bunkers to open up a few gaps for your infantry to get up close and personal....it ain't gonna be easy and chances are little timmy won't be going back to moma but war is hell....

Wittmann may not have been the gunner but if it wasn't for him half the kills would not have been made-in a tank every member contributes-the gunner may take the final aim and fire but without the commander to spot targets, prioratise, order to good locations and coordinate both the men in the tank and with other units you would be dead very quickly.

unfortunatly the tech tree in SC doesn't go to those lengths, ala Hearts of Iron

yes-there's all these things to consider. Any sane commander would never dismiss the amount of skilled generals as Hitler did, so allowing you to choose may give the germans an advantage they did not have during the war itself

the brits were a bit slow with their tank ammo.....for instance giving a tank nothing but smoke shells......"lets do their lungs in!"

all this goes back to manpower availability. As it stands in SC you can use cities you capture to purchase troops with....perhaps "free troops" or the equivelant. However if SC2 had a manpower system then you could merely take the "free" men and add them to your manpower reserves.

true-there were many incidents of units holding out against insurmountable odds-for instance during the battle of stalingrad the 48th panzer corps came up against a dig in unit of Russian troops in a sort of a dry lakebed (common on the steppe) who refused to give up until a concerted assault was launched at them-it later emerged that there were a thousand men in the position, completely cut off and eating grass for their rations. Such occurances while strainge are quite common on a small scale. For instance in a game of CM I'm playing I had regular SS units who broke under the initial assault but now that the squads are down to 5 and 2 men they are stiffening and battleing off entire squads of GI's-I put it down to the fact that the remaining troops are the fanatics in the squad and so now fight better. It is however rare for any unit above divisional strenght to hold out for a long period such as with the 101st airbourne during the adrennes offencive-usually with entire armies one group begins to panic and give up, thus both affecting the other units and also opening holes in the line with cannot be sealed leading the a general rout.

true-there were many incidents of units holding out against insurmountable odds-for instance during the battle of stalingrad the 48th panzer corps came up against a dig in unit of Russian troops in a sort of a dry lakebed (common on the steppe) who refused to give up until a concerted assault was launched at them-it later emerged that there were a thousand men in the position, completely cut off and eating grass for their rations. Such occurances while strainge are quite common on a small scale. For instance in a game of CM I'm playing I had regular SS units who broke under the initial assault but now that the squads are down to 5 and 2 men they are stiffening and battleing off entire squads of GI's-I put it down to the fact that the remaining troops are the fanatics in the squad and so now fight better. It is however rare for any unit above divisional strenght to hold out for a long period such as with the 101st airbourne during the adrennes offencive-usually with entire armies one group begins to panic and give up, thus both affecting the other units and also opening holes in the line with cannot be sealed leading the a general rout.

There are numerious factors to be concerned with-for one the experience of the troops, but also their "fanaticism" levels, range from HQ, where the enemy is hitting them, what they're hitting them with and so forth. CMAK does the "mental" aspects of combat much better than its predecessors-think about it, if you were sitting in a field and suddenly a platton of tanks come roaring in with MG's and guns firing, probably support fire coming in from MG positions, mortars and artillery, and then you had infantry coming at you close quarters, if you were a run of the mill WW2 conscript would you really stand there and die? I think more likely you would ask yourself "Where is old Adolf/Joe/Winnie now? Probably off enjoying a good nights rest!"-franksly under such circumstances I don't think too many units would last it out long unless they were fanatics, very experienced or well dug in/with good support.

There are numerious factors to be concerned with-for one the experience of the troops, but also their "fanaticism" levels, range from HQ, where the enemy is hitting them, what they're hitting them with and so forth. CMAK does the "mental" aspects of combat much better than its predecessors-think about it, if you were sitting in a field and suddenly a platton of tanks come roaring in with MG's and guns firing, probably support fire coming in from MG positions, mortars and artillery, and then you had infantry coming at you close quarters, if you were a run of the mill WW2 conscript would you really stand there and die? I think more likely you would ask yourself "Where is old Adolf/Joe/Winnie now? Probably off enjoying a good nights rest!"-franksly under such circumstances I don't think too many units would last it out long unless they were fanatics, very experienced or well dug in/with good support.

actually the Russian losses are quite contraversial-after the war and as is with such things they took the lowest most reasonable figure which stood at 20 million. Also the Russian government went to great lengths to disguise their actual losses-today the widely accpeted figures among military historians ranges from 35-55 million dead in Russia.

You would set up the 88's in a rearward gun line yes, though they could also be brought into play mobile-for instance if you get the guns around behind an enemy (particularly in the desert where there were no traditional "front lines") in his line of retreat you could batter him with your panzers, he loses 3 or 4 tanks out of a regamental unit and thinks he got off lightly only to find a quickly thrown together line of 88's sitting behind him to ruin his day. Also they could be brought around the battlefield, set up and used with such effecivness by their crews that you could fortify and breakin in a matter of minutes, freeing your tanks to exploit it without having to worry about being cut off and so on. The reason the germans were so successful with their 88's is that they used them creativly and in ways shunned by the law abiding commanders-it was the same with a lot of their forces-and so their guns turned up in unexpected places and did things no one thought they could-basically if it has a reasonable chance of working, why the hell not try it?