Zalgiris 1410

And Benes was prepared to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for what - peanuts! I'm with you BigDuke6 on these issues, though I must admit I had not previously suspected as much about the case before your postings, thanks. I had previously been coming at it from the assumption that the Czechs would have give them a really good fight, but not as much of a one as I do now. My other main concern with the Munich Treaty was that it ended up both giving Hitler the Czech military industrial complex and armourments & ordinance without a fight while depriving such Countries as Rumania, Yugoslavia, Poland and some of the Baltic States of a major arms supplier. AIUI it ultimately led to being a major factor assisting the conversion of Rumania into joining the Axis, its total lack of foreign military supplies gave Hitler his biggest barginning chip on top of her isolation.

As I said above I'm a layman so what's a sheaf exactly and what do you mean here Tero. Thanks for answering though, however I always figured that a barrage was just a type of artillery concentration. AIUI it was invented by the French on the Western Front during WWI and translates as 'barrier' of felling shell fire intended origionally to create impassible areas of terrain for tactical purposes rather than other kinds such as harrassment fire etc.

Thanks BigDuke6 that's what I wanted the Czech Generals name Syrovy, bewdy mate, and from Benes' memoirs no less, however does it come across that Benes had come around to this General's suggestion in the end or not? can you give some examples? ????????? This "little" Poznan army consists 14th, 17 th, 25 th & 26 th Infantry Divisions and two cavalry brigades (Wielkopolska and Podolska) plus. Also never heard about a march towards Berlin (smells like propaganda also), Army Poznan and remains of army Pomorze were falling back on Warsaw were challenged by German 8th Army, which tried to bar retreat (retreat towards Berlin?).In Such situation General Kutrzeba decided to lunch attack on left flank of advancing Germans troops. The result was hard fought "Battle of the Bzura". The Polish troops succeeded in capturing bridges across Buzra river and hit & drove back the German 30th Inf division. There was vicious fighting around Lowicz and Sochaczew before the Poles pulled back caught from the flank by Army group North diverted from Warsaw direction on Hitlers order. </font>

Wicky Search might be my friend if my PC's internet capacity was functioning at more than the 10% that it is currently so doing. I can't access any of the links or what-nots from the posts in this forum. I can't access anything that requires pass words and therefore I can't even look at my emails let alone send one. Tests show that my PC is now infected with bloody full blown HIV positivity and completely fagged and I'm practically on my knees and sucking on it! I'm getting it swiped and fixed very soon hopefully, but some how I'm able to get on to BF.C. Anyway, I'll access from another computer and I'll take a good look at the Search thingy thanks Wicky asap, but in the mean time I'd like to have the process explained to me in detail because I am a complete ludite. (And as I have posted before, I've actually got an ancestor who became a transported convict in 1835 for leading a band of industrial sabotours as part of a later ludite movement known as the Swing riots, whatever that was meant to mean back then!)

I don't know how to do this at all so I'm asking if someone can please explain exactly how this is done, thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain a bit further?</font>

Thanx JasonC for your insights base on your extensive experiences, I had always switched those "taking fire'" 'sneaking' troops just to 'move' and let them fire back as much as they possible can while still in their delay period. I now think that I'll take it on as an advisement to give them 'advance' orders from Tac AI inposed 'sneaking' after cought under fire. Sounds effective if the troops will first start to crawl from under fire and then get up and advance faster when they can, that sounds a bloody lot better than leaving them to 'sneaking' at a snails pace with their faces in the dirt. Actually I must admit that I haven't employed much tactical subtility while manoeuvering Infantry since I've mostly been on the defence and only 'moved' them while trouncing the enemy with coup de grace counter attacks. But I'm learning, hopefully.

Were you refering to the film 'Sahara', IIRC it has recently been on the cable Channel TCM (Downunder) and constitutes only the second movie that I've actually watched on that bloody fricking black & white station this year. Thanks for the info Micheal Dorosh, apart from perhaps also finding anything further about their uniforms, the main question that I am left with is regarding when the Brandenburgers started to operate as conventional forces exactly, say fight as regular line units in battle. BTW it now seems like I ought to take a good look into the history of the Brandenburgers from what you've outlined, thanks for that run down again Micheal Dorosh. Regards, Saul.

Actually I've not had success with using the 'follow vehicle' command come to think of it. I haven't employed it a lot, I haven't had to since my armour and ATGs seemed to ensure that it very rarely comes to me having to sacrifice troops in 'follow vehicle' close assaults. That said in those emergency times when I had to resort to close assaulting enemy AFVs I've usually just moved or advanced troops to positions close enough for their grenade bundles, panzerfausts or demolition charges to be within range, that is when I have to approach them rather than allowing them to drive into range of them laying in waite. I'll get around to doing some tests, but it seems from reading posts in this thread that I should avoid using the 'follow vehicle' command and stick with my own SOP for close assaulting.

As I said at this point I'm still holding Guderian responsible until I know absolutely for sure, but thanks for your input YankeeDog this sounds like a reasonable explanation though I must say. However, from late February 1943 Guderian had been given direct control of Panzer design and as much as possible (helped by Albert Speer) over production though he still had to contend with Hitler's interferrance at times. Thus he could have given his override to PzIVHs and later definately over the turrett front on PzIVJs. In his memoirs he mentions that Hitler demanded that the front armour on 12 PzIVs (as in for the first of the H series) be increased to 80mms in April 1942 for the invasion of Malta. Perhaps the same bloke who reduced the L60 50mm gun to the L42 gun being installed on the Panzer IIIs had a hand in only applying the 80mm criteria to the hull front and not also the turrett front on the PzIVHs and latter to PzIVJs here. Lets blame him now who ever he was I suppose.

Point of order sturmowik Poland did not co-operate with the German Armee in Czechoslovakia, she rather stupidly IMHO seized a small Polish inhabited mining area for the industrial value of possessing it rather than trying to attempt to keep afloat Czechoslovakia as an ally on her Southwestern flank. OTOH, in terms of Polish geo-political reasoning behind her deployments for September 1939 I would like to point three things out. Firstly, obviously based upon an under-estimation of the actual strength and capabilities of the Wehrmacht by the Polish Officers and other fereigners as well they actually thought that they could have fought relatively reasonably well enough against the Germans bearing in mind their own performance against the Soviet Russians in the early 1920's and especially considering that everybody thought that the Wehrmacht was still less ready for War than they actually were. Don't forget that the German Army was only supposed to have consisted of 100 000 men and had other restrictions until Hitler announced that Germay was officially unilateraly renouncing the Versaillies Treaty in 1936 IIRC. Just how well and fast they managed in the Polish Campainge came as a supprised pretty much to everyone like how well the Arab States come & hit back against Isreal during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 after their defeat in the Six Day War of 1967 and more recently how effective the US Army did during the early Blitzkiegeques phase of the invasion of Iraq which allowed them to pull back from exposing themselves so much on the North Korean border. Secondly the Poles expected to be able to hold out for a longer period of time which would have given the French the time to draw the Germans increasing away to the West for the Campaigne to bog down into the Winter, hopefully, given their record against the Russians and deluding themselves about their own military capability. Thirdly on in a more geo-political illusion some of the Poles at the top mistakingly believed that Hitler was only intent upon siezing the disputed Corridor and the port of Danzig and other German populated border areas such as South-eastern Pomerania and Upper Selisia. Therefore they had reasoned upon massing their Armed forced forward and in the Corridor with the expectation of mainly having to make enough of a contest in these areas in order to assist their expected aid by greater French intervention according to the above second consideration. So in this sense according to their estimation their deployments were correctly devoted to attempting to respond to the strategic situation but totally wrong for that which they actually were facing. [ September 24, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Bloody hell it took 4 pages to tell the poor bloke how he has spelt the name wrong! If not for all the other reasons MW44 then at least for this one you ought to change your posting name and BTW I don't think I would worry about losing your number of posts, it doesn't mean much and I think that you should be embarised enough to quietly create a new CM forum persona. SO I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR BLOODY NICK NAME. (Now don't change it to Nick Cave 'cos that would be just plain wrong!)

Bugger a bloody CMx3 I now all that I want is some kind of a CMx1.04 please; with as many of the easy improvements that the BFC can operate on the old engine, while combining CMBO & CMBB & CMAK as a complete all in one and with the addition of the early continental WWII period with the Polish, Norwegian, Low Countries and France and also the Bulkan Campaignes including having the Italians fighting with the Greeks from Albania and the Russo-Finnish Winter War.

The BFC has stated that Civilians will definately not be in CMx2, not that I've been asking since I agree with them for anything until say Vietnam except for may be partisan warfare.

I have to agree with Foreigner for the most part here in this descussion because he has employed some well documented and based analysis while as usual JasonC has just merely expressed his opinions without providing any sources on which to back up what his doing all that typing for! JasonC you got torn to shreads this time by Foreigner and I strongly suggest that you ought to fagging bloody stop your posting until you can do so in a constructively informed fasion, what you post is often insightful, but however I am now thoroughly sick and tired of having to assume that it has gotta be complete and utter nonsense because you have probably just made it all up for all we bloody know. BTW how's your RSI? [ September 24, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Sergei WTF is the meaning of the girl in the picture, I don't get it. Is she she supposed to be TNT for some lonely blokes crewing a pillbox or is she an example of a boring sight? :confused:

I never use 'sneak' and when the Tac AI makes my squads and teams bloody 'sneak' when under fire etc, I immediately change it to something else cos they are usually 'sneaking' in a ridiculous direction and not returning fire. OTOH however I'd like to use it more since I recently played a game where I tried to close assault a gun damaged SU-76 in a wheat field approximately 70-80 metres away from a couple of my units. I sent a Pltn HQ, a Squad and a 1 man TH team against it. These units arrived in that order and I ordered them all to follow the vehicle. IIRC only the HQ threw a grenade at it and missed while the Squad fired off its 3 rifle grenades while negotiating a wooden fence as it approached to under 50 metres. In the end they all chased their target into the LOF of my lone 37mm PAK 35/36 which knocked it out with one AP shot. I thought later that after I had moved my troops into the wheat field that I should have ordered them to 'sneak' upon the vehicle rather ordering them to follow and close assualt the SPG. I think it didn't notice my approaching troops until the HQ threw its grenade at it, then it moved forwards and back like a yo-yo until it was forced to move from the field by the presense of all these infantry units. Mind you I was surprised that it eventually took the little PAK to get it considering all my infantry efforts! Anyway, I would just like to ask for some advice on using the 'sneak' command effectively since I am coming round to thinking that I ought to be employing it. Anthing good and definate please would be great before I have to carry out my own tests thanx. [ September 24, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I agree with you Michael Dorosh, the kind of commando style raids by the Brandenburgers would not at all be appropriate for CMx2, because simulating those would be more for a shoot'em up / spy killer game AIUI. That said Micheal Dorosh I'm only slighly aware of that book on the Brandenburgers or something like it and I've a couple of questions for you if you are able to look into it a bit. When exactly were the Brandenburgers formed into a Rgmt / Brgd and started to operate as a conventional line unit with or independently beforehand of the Grossdeutschland Pz or PzG Division or the Korps? Had they already converted to the normal Wehrmacht uniforms as such in this non-specialised role or did they still ware their own distinct type of uniforms? [ September 24, 2005, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Yeah, count my vote for something like this and for YankeeDog's further ideas as well. That said, I would like to have an option that provides one side or both with a capacity of 'spotting with map co-ordinates'. It wasn't like they didn't use them to do that I mean even the Germans went into Russia with maps that had 250 metre squares on them. Obviously not exactly precise but I should think effective enough. I too would like to bitch about on-board mortars not being able to fire indirectly at unseen and unspotted targets, not even into TRPs. And while on the subject of on-board mortars I would like to add that I think that they ought to be able to fire at wooden bunkers for some suppression effects with direct hits of 81mm types at least. I definately would also like to have the IGs be able to fire both directly and indirectly in CMx2 since that is what they mostly did AIUI from what I've read. On having planned Artillery fire in CMx2 I too am also for creeping barrages and curtain/wall of fire as well as better player defined zones and amounts of fire with perhaps multible batteries and multible or phased targeting options as well. BTW, because I'm such a bloody Artillery layman can someone please explain to me the difference between barrage and consentraited fire for the sake of having a clear opperating definition, thanx. OTOH what exactly makes you butt happy undead reindeer cavalry? :eek: [ September 24, 2005, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I thought so Dillweed, hope youy keep it up. BTW I've started to give this a full go myself. I've given the CPU opponent an extra 100% increase in strenth (ie doubled) just for good measure. I'm still placing my units, got 2 Inf Btlns and all the vehicles to go, but I must admit that it's been a lot of work. I hope to finish deploying and play the first turn on this weekend. I hope to figure out how to post screen shots and with them provide a little commentry, firstly my plan.

No worries mate I'll do a test to put my mind at rest on this very unimportant issue one day.

I stand corrected thanks Rune, I checked me manual to be sure, not that I wasn't taking your word for it. Still for me this conserving of ammo thing whatever is bloody handy IME, but I've always wondered why snipers don't do the same thing? I can't remember does this feature apply to LMG teams in the way it does for HMGs? Regards, Saul.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: we'd rather spend our art time adding 1:1 graphics for something that is already in the simulation rather than having to add simulation elements to support 1:1 graphics. An example of the latter is WIA, an example of the former is loading/firing a mortar. So Steve does that mean that we're gonna see real and good 1:1 graphics for the loading/firing of mortars and guns then? But seriously I firmly agree with you on the subject of not getting worried about all the WIA issues for CMx2. I have just slightly re-aranged a quote from Hoolaman: OTOH, swapping each man pixel for some kind of WIA abstracted marker will look more than a little too odd. Bloody oath for sure, it would ruin CMx2 for me I think. BTW JonS I think that I may be one sick sack that just wants to get my woodies looking at all the dead and wounded, and buckets of blood, guts, and brains on my screen. *shrugs* Dunno what my problem is, realism?

AIUI the 'Low' ammo statis for squads and some teams (manly HMGs) represents them reduced to saving their last few rounds for as long as possible, but does not mean that they are scrounging or actually sharing ammo. Note that for all snipers, rocket teams, on board guns and mortars 'Low' ammo statis really means that they are out of ammo and arn't able to even pick up the unfired rounds from knocked out similar units. Same goes for all AFVs. I don't know what's happenning with 'Low' ammo statis in CMx2 yet, I guess that ultimately it's all up to some BFCs, but I would like to call for theere to be a more generous usual amount of ammo provided to units and better handling of it. It's part of their designer's making decision though.

I definately concur with Tom W. I also agree with J Ruddy that for newbies all they are really going to need are fairly basic tactical advice at the most. The only thing that the BFC has to do is basically define all the aspects of UI clearly enough for newbies to begin to play CMx2 and to progress while they are learning from their own experiences. (Especially for those that constitute the non-wargamer market that BFC seems keen to target for greater sales no doubt, and why not I say.) OTOH I would like to pick up on this quote from Barrold: Levels of AI would be nice. As a game based on realism, it's actually the only way to change the difficulty without compromising on the basis of the game. I would like to see this idea of being able to choose different CPU opponents which employ verious qualities of Strat AI in CMx2, this could even include options that allow it to be governed by different tactical tendancies as well. May be this could be taken to an nth degree and provide an auto-deploy option again with different tactical inclinations that explains a little bit of the tactical reasoning behind the adopted positionings. I'm not going so far as to demand that this kind of hand holding be developed for the length of the game though, now that would be unreasonable for sure. [ September 16, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]