Erik Springelkamp

A submarine base in a dry valley in Antarctica? A dry valley has to be separated from the sea by a big mountain range. So they just made a tunnel under the mountain range towards the frozen sea, all the while camouflaging the huge amount of resources that were brought in to construct it. Sure

How do you both get to see the same movie?

I think it would be hard for me with just the infantry, given the time limit. I played with extreme fog of war, and then the German MGs are very hard to ID, and play havoc with the advance, especially on the recruits. I used most of my heavy weapons for area fire on the suspected positions to repress them a little bit, but they keep on firing once and a while and everytime they pin some squad or worse. Then it takes some turns to kill the forward Germans, before you get within ID range of the MG's. I used the tanks in a modest support role, not outadvancing the infantery, pretending not to know that the Germans had nothing to kill them, but they speeded up the killing just enough I think. Maybe one should use the artillery in turn 1 on one of the wooded areas instead of suspending it till turn ten as I did, when I expected it to assist the final closing phase. When you rush the tanks into the German lines from the start then it is quickly over indeed. In fact that's what is happening in the "one order" tactics: the tanks do all the work, and later the infantery recovers from a terrible suppressed state and takes the woods.

Yes

The Greek Infantry was know to be superior to anything the Persians could smash at it, as long as they were not flanked. The Persians have known that for a long time - Xenophon's Anabasis is written proof, and a fine reading. On the other hand the numbers of the Persian soldiers have always been way exaggerated - also by Xenophon by the way. Alexander was a good commander, no doubt, but describing him as David vs Goliath is ridiculus, as he was, in CM terms, the only one with Tiger tanks, while the opposition had no armour at all.

India was very much worth conquering, but his soldiers didn't want to go into a new country that didn't know about, but from what they were hearing was immense, and highly developed. They only won one engagement there on the border of the plains, but from the mountains they could see cities until the horizon. They were shattered that the world didn't end beyond the Persian empire. Alexander had aleniated (or killed) all his comrades by that time.

Djengis Kahn made the largest conquest ever, so he could compete with Alexander. His empire building was superior to that of Alexander - who more or less lost his sanity in the end, but I guess that doesn't count here?

Recently I have been playing this scenario with a new recruit for Combat Mission, to give him an attack scenario where he would have a good chance of winning. Well he lost totally, but learned a lot. Then I played it against the AI as Russian to check that it _is_ winnable, managing my infantery according to the JasonC book, and I managed a total victory in turn 27 (out of 25+), with little casualties. However, my friend followed another method against the AI: select everything in turn one and order a collective advance to the other side of the map. This tactic secures a total victory in turn 15, with hardly more casualties then the carefully excersized infantery manoevres. I feel kind of desillusioned.

A firewall

I make working copies of my original CD's and they are fully functional. The originals only left their jewel case once or twice.

Without further moral impications, just to straighten some facts: Rotterdam was not an "open city" in may 1940. The spearhead of the German attack to The Hague was going straight through the center of the city and was stalled by fierce resistence by the Royal Dutch Marines, who were holding out for days at the "Willemsbrug" (Williams-brigde) against the Germans, and German pantzers could not advance - and they were needed elsewere. So the bombing was aimed at a military target: the marines. De Dutch command was willing to capitulate locally in order to avoid the bombardment: there were negotiations about the German ultimatum. The capitulation failed because the Dutch command required a German officer of higher rank. Then they were just too late, but the last planes aborted the mission because by then the right coloured rockets were launched. The number of casualties was not 40,000 but 800. Which is just as bad for the 800 of course. From a military point of view the airborne attack on the bridges as a carpet for an armoured spearhead was interesting and a complete surprise, like a slightly more successfull Market Garden. Although the part where the airborne forces were supposed to capture the Queen and Government failed. And airborne losses were very high. Next day the Dutch capitulated generally (for Europe): - There was no more ammunition for the artillery - With the Rotterdam bridges conquered all of Holland lay open to advance. - There were threats of more bombardments (and those _would_ have been "terror-bombardments") - There was no hope of a French or Brittish relief - The Queen and Government had successfully evacuated [ November 07, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Erik Springelkamp ]

Sounds awfully close to Fascist politics.

OK, Sergei, thank you. I'm still a bit edgy by Jason's treatment :eek:

Sergei, Say what you mean, in stead of suggesting something. I don't want a senseless discussion here, but I don't want to be called a Nazi. I am posting under my own name here, and everything I said on the web can be scrutinized.

My post was factual: the name of the youth organisation, and the number of Dutch SS-ers. Names and numbers of units is what a lot of discussion here is about, isn't it? And it was an attack on the arguments of the old man: his mother could not have been starving in 1940, and joining just after the occupation doesn't look good at all. I just don't go around shouting insults at people who's intentions not clear to me.

So it is the word idealist you object to? I didn't use that in any approving way at all. I meant it to be followers of the ideology, as opposed to those in the occupied countries who collaborated for own profit. Often the idealists were the worst, as the ideology was despicable, although one could argue that acting only for profit is even worse. I think - as we play simulations about these soldiers - that we should be able to talk about them in an analytic way without being accused of beeing a Nazi. Although you are a strong analyst on this forum, there seems to be a taboo spot in your mind where analysis cannot enter. You should consider that a weakness.

Jason C, I think you were reading something from my post that wasn't there. And didn't read something that was there. And I don't appreciate beeing called a Nazi here.

The fascist youth organisation in the Netherlands was "De Nationale Jeugdstorm" and the boys called themselves "Meeuwen" (sea-mews). 25,000 Dutch boys and men went to serve into the SS. Most of them were killed. When he was 17 when he went to the Eastern Front (1944?) he was born in 1927, which makes him 78 today, and he joined the Jeugdstorm in 1940. People were not starving in 1940. Only in late 1944 and early 1945 there was hunger in the cities of the west of the country. There is a large difference between people who joined the fascists before the Germans occupied the Netherlands - those were kind of idealists because their choice meant social isolation and repression - and those who joined after: those were mostly opportunists, joining the winning side - or so they thought.

I have a problem that might be related: when I take screenshots during the movie-phase many parts of the screen (vehicles, trees, units) disappear; sometimes a few, sometimes everything apart from the ground-surface. Also the 2D text in the panel below is missing in the screenshot. I find this mildly annoying because I like taking screenshots. When I pause the movie I can take the screenshots without problems though. Anybody recognize this?

About spotting distance testing beeing gamey... I was in the army for 3 weeks[1], and didn't get much field training, but the first day out in the field we spent estimating distances and doing spotting excercises with and without camouflage. So I think this _is_ very basic training, coming before any weapons training. [1] I ran out of study postponement for draft, and while investigating different options I decided to take a look before definately refusing to serve. Interesting 3 weeks by the way, but not interestingly enough to loose 14 months of free life; anyway, they didn't need me in the end.

Often it is good, but when the thread just shows for a short time the price is that the original target is forgotten. It would have been perfect if the unit would resume it's previous job.

The division of Lebanon and Syria after the colonial times was artificial in a way. They were always closely connected culturally. Both have several Moslim and Christian communities with across the border. There is still a large pro-Syrian minority in Lebanon. They almost won the last election.

I have done several tests in a simple scenario, and I don't see a fixed rule for this behaviour. A mortar ordered to area fire in the neighbourhood of an infantry gun will continue area fire when detecting the gun. An antitank gun ordered to area fire in the neighbourhood of a PzII will directly target the tankette regardless of a very small covered arc. Area fire outside a covered arc will work. I think it all depens on the - perceived -seriousness of the threat of the enemy target whether the unit will override it's area target orders. And I don't see an effect of a covered arc on this decision. But maybe there is in more special situations.

Well, my mortar is the only one that stayed behind, far on a ridge, while his company is out on the attack. No HQ left behind. But I know the trick, I am applying at at the frontline with my smaller mortars. But it seemed to overrule my order to area fire when a direct target presented itself: the orange area line changed into a red direct line, which disappeared when the gun ducked, or whatever - I still not see how this works precisely: can a gun move back and forth in the building? Anyway, this turn (EMAIL just arrived) it hit home: bomb fell right on the building, gun destroyed ))) Finally time for the carriers to join the fight...

In a scenario I am playing at the moment I have an 80mm mortar that I want to fire at an enemy gun position. The gun is in a small building and the gun moves into/outof LOS depending on beeing active (or hiding I presume). When I order the mortar to put area-fire on the building, it fires one or two shots, then sees the gun, targets it, and when it disappears it looses the target and stops firing. This way I only manage to get 1 or 2 shots per turn out of the mortar. (and it still has 38 bombs that I would gladly spend on the nasty gun that paralizes my attack). Is there something I do wrong, or is this just a quirk of CMAK?