Vark

Ok, how about the scene where they wake up and fins they have been left behind. The Germans win if they exit the squad, via the factory the Russians are oblivious to this and are tasked with attacking a forward position and capturing the factory.

I'd like the squad to move in tactical pairs, not all running close to each other, just lost a British recce team to a RR, because they all insisted in moving as a group!

You should try this method of object location then.

Shades of ' The Truman show' Don't forget the empty shop, that fills up as soon as you walk in and the rain that always starts to fall just as you go out!!

For me, it's the scene with the new recruit stepping in the sunlight, playing a child's game and being rebuked for it, that gets me. Thinking about it, even the poster for the film scared me as a child, I always imagined you'd see tanks crushing men alive! http://www.movieposterstudio.com/detail.aspx?ItemNumber=1598

Also as a teacher I have the dubious honour of trying to salvage many of my students from the sludge modern UK culture has immersed them in. Again true Steve, but Hitler also became a very convenient excuse to cover up major professional balls ups by the 'professionals'. The Generals were all too keen to coattail him in the glorious years, and all to quick to 'despise' him when it turned sour, i.e. people fought back effectively. Your Orsha example can be used at the CM level, by use of clever scenario design, Soviets win if they reach x, sod the losses, Germans win if they can stem the tide for y turns. When's this damn thing going to be available?

True to a point, but the GTA commanders were still complaining about rigidity and lack of initiative in some of the units, especially the rifle regiments. The spear, the armoured divisions had evolved substantially, Kursk really being the start of the process of putting doctrine into action (fortifications did not halt the Germans, the armoured reserves and subsequent mobile threats to their flanks did) other units less so, especially as they had the greatest amount of new recruits, due to high casualty rates.

That's only because Steve doesn't want anyone drinking his beer.

Trouble was, it was based on a simple calculation, if you were moving toward an objective (within a cone, radiating from the obj. flag) you would pay no command points. All you had to do was set the objectives at the enemy baseline and you had far more flexibility.

Regimental control might impose delays, but top down edicts, from a well placed RHQ, could move massive amounts of flesh and steel to a critical point at a critical time. Not all Soviet breakthroughs were because of attrition, the Germans were tactically more impressive, but they took an age to release operational reserves. Reading Soviet accounts, they moved operational reserves around like a board gamer moved counters. Again the flipside being a poorly placed or less dynamic RHQ would loose that edge, by mid-44, due to a Darwinian whittling, most RHQ's (especially those of the GTA's) on critical sectors, were competent and dynamic. Another reason for the rapid breakthroughs and exploitations, which wrong footed the Germans, who sulked and blamed Hitler after the war, and sold the Allies a crock about their overall military superiority. The Spearhead rules, for micro miniatures forces players to set those timetables and Soviet style armies need senior commanders to change them. Perhaps you could adopt that system. Roleplaying CM, what an intriguing idea.

The problem I foresee is that the Soviet style of warfare, requires a system that reproduces the command chain. Steve's description is pretty sound but it does not emphasise the forward deployment of the Battalion/Regimental HQ. In his example the battalion commander would be given the tank support, told to guard against the flank attack, but if he was attacked from another direction he'd be expected to deploy those assets, by the regimental commander, as the new attack threatened his main attack. After getting chewed out by the RHQ, for not committing all forces (a bit unfair as the BHQ was probably unaware of the new attack), the BHQ would chew out the company commander of the tanks, who would leave in a cloud of dust, vulgar words ringing in his ears. The Company commander would be under no illusion, if he failed to carry out his new mission, as the battalion commander's neck was on the block. He would then be expected to use his training, not act as an automaton, but planning would be done very quickly, which is where the dedication to drill came in. For the Soviets, initiative meant following orders and conducting drills rapidly, though the commander was unrealistically, expected to adapt these to the situation. This though was more in hope than reality, as most of his soldiers would have been raw recruits. Once the armour scooted off to attack the new threat it could not be recalled and re-tasked, as the command loop did not allow time, which is where the problem occurred. Even late in the war, the Germans exploited this rigidity to engage these units, who did not have the security of the painstaking planning of the original attack. The emphasis on higher echelon HQ's of being close to the front (look at how many accounts there are of RHQ security units beating of infantry attacks) was risky, but allowed paradoxically, a far quicker OODA loop, in a narrow sector, which the Germans could not hope to equal. Moreover a good RHQ, could move huge reserves quickly to a threatened sector or to reinforce success. Perhaps scenario designers could include these elements, when thinking of the deployment zones. In short, the Russians are a regimental/battalion led force in a company orientated game.

Not much, they'd have probably got them conduction CAS, instead of interdiction strikes. Another mistake the Germans made, although tactically spectacular, using dual purpose air assets fro CAS is a waste. The Germans didn't need to destroy the Russian fortifications, they needed to stop the reserves from moving up to the front. By 43, the writing was on the wall anyway, Germany's defeat was assured, they just could not keep pace industrially and were rapidly running out of their most precious resource, their veterans.

Fess up Steve, the launch of CMRT and the forum page was simply a device to unmask Steiner14, you knew he could not resist the lure of the Eastern Front. The DAR between Bil and Elvis is just a sham, and now you have the neo-Nazi, you will claim major coding errors have delayed the game.

I always thought the shadows in CM1 were a neat idea, even when it was overcast! There was a certain sense of dread, as the enemy winged assassin zoomed toward critical units, even worse if it was a friendly winged assassin!

It's demonstrated in the classic Manner Gegen Panzer 12:30 for the throw Hated those RPG's! They seemed to be laser guided, floating out of nowhere to hit and destroy your tanks with uncanny precision, even at 30m range!

Something you could never carry out in CM1, good luck, I'm rooting for the 'scum of the earth', over the 'bloody assassin of the workers', but thanks for the time and effort to entertain us.

Back to Soviet tactics, how hard will it be for CM players to adopt the brutal logic of Soviet warfare? I always found myself in CMBB defaulting back to force preservation, so designed a series of forest scenarios, most of my lead platoons ended up down 60% and to win I had to keep on pushing. Time and time again, just when I thought the Germans would hold, the battered Soviets broke through. Perhaps fortifying the spirit with spirits (vodka natch), or getting my wife to threaten me with making a flatpack from Ikea if I loose, might help. Suggestions on preparing for commanding the Rodina's best, as they need to be led? As for debating, HL, perhaps you and your ilk are suffering from a classic case of projection, perhaps it is your perspective that has been swayed by an insidious narrative, perpetrated by expert propagandists. Your argument is rather like the ridiculous piece in the Atlantic, trying to draw moral equivalencies between Communist and capitalist governance, but dressed up as an exercise in pseudo-intellectual superiority. Germans bad guys, Allies good guys (with the exception of Soviet Russia) is fine with me, baring in mind historical precedent and issues of ethical relativism.

Let me show you where the excuses grow. Sorry, family and friends lost too many members fighting the 'misunderstood' Germans to buy into that revisionist line. Ever thought Hitler and the Nazis were just evil, just a thought.

Cute, but still a piece of junk, IMHO.

Steiner, that you?

Speer's version was adopted very quickly by some Western historians and politicians who wanted to diminish the role of strategic bombing. Bomber Command only got an official memorial in 2012, which is a disgrace, given nearly 56,000 CW aircrew died, but a testament to how effectively its role was both demonised, politicised and belittled. Steve, they had US factories as well, The Stalingrad Tractor Factory was based on a Ford plant I believe.

Read Tooze's 'Wages of Destruction', for a forensic dismantling of the myth of German wartime efficiency. The Germans knew they had a problem, well before the war, given the fact they had to requisition thousands of private commercial vehicles just to get the Siegfried line built. Hundreds of companies went bankrupt as they had no means to transport raw materials or finished goods. They had to rely on captured French vehicles, to boost their mechanised logistic train, which suffered badly in Russia, and as for the horses! Steve, you are correct, but they also never mastered, or even attempted to create rapid production lines for large pieces of machinery, my favourite story has to be the Ju-88 production line. After each aircraft was built, the line stopped, assembled for stirring speeches and the new plane was read a factory dedication and a band played classical music! Meanwhile the US plants were open 24/7, endlessly rolling out 4 engined bombers. Hitler was a gambler, whose luck held out remarkably well, but with the benefit of hindsight the end was inevitable. As they say, failure to plan is planning to fail. Nice, high tech weapons, whizzy doctrines and smart uniforms can never replace strategic industrial planning. The war revealed the Germans as talented amateurs, when it came to any strategy, not surprising, given that's exactly what the leadership of the Nazi party consisted of.

Looks like something from robot wars! A fitting tribute to German decline, in the later war years, rather like the ME163.

Tell that to most of the CAS pilots in the second world war. The risk from fragments of ordnance and collisions precluded that type of attack, unless by specialist units.

They also had specialist medical units who were tasked with returning wounded tankers to the front, to form the veteran core of fresh units. One of the GTA commanders even had an iron brigade, specially composed of veterans and tasked with cracking open defences and leading city assaults. It will be interesting to see how CMRT challenges many people misconceptions and preconceptions of the Red Army. Why can't they split into teams? I've seen real combat footage, photos (you can tell, the camera man is shaking) of Soviet units in ad-hoc teams, often a DP team covering an attack, or small groups in BUA's. Games which artificially impose national characteristics often entrench stereotypes and invariably favour the Germans.