Vark

Having read DAF,s post I thought I'd fire up Totenkopf and revisit it, as I'd never found it that hard. Winter wonderland was the source of many a bitter memory and frustrated impotence, but Totenkopf? Was my memory being selective to protect me from its horrors, no, not really as with other Andreas scenarios you have to look very carefully at the units and the terrain. Spoiler below***************Spoiler below***************Spoiler below****** Taking the Time, terrain and troops part of a M-ETT analysis leads one to a few conclusions Time Very limited given the command delay of your forces especially the AFV's, so no skulking, then again no dashing otherwise it's a slaughter Terrain Favours an advance from both flanks, the left has plenty of cover, allowing you to close with any defenders, especially the MG team in the corn field, then you can execute a right flank assault, taking out the PAK and pinning German reinforcements. The right has less cover but troops can move to the woods/scattered trees on the right hand edge as they are mostly shielded by the rise (on which the road runs). I say mostly as I lost 18 men to the MFC as they moved from the woods edge to the shallow depression infront. From there they can move to the clump of trees (where two PAKS are) and then stage an assault on the woods before turning left. Middle used to rush up light MG AFV's Troops Suprisingly good, with decent command ratings and stealth. Most powerful single unit is the three 60mm mortars, especially if the battalion HQ is spotting. AFV's used to draw out PAKS after infantry have eyes on potential firing points. Right flank Two BT-7's lost to a 222/PAK combo, but combined arms took out 2xPAK, 2x222 and an MMG, with AT assets gone the surviving BT's could effectively support the infantry in capturing the clump of woods, key to the German defensive position. Left flank 2 BA-10's lost to super PAK who eventually succumbed to 2 platoons plus mortars plus 45mm fire. PAK forced to fire after supporting MMG removed by infantry assault and BA's charged forward. Platoons infiltrated via the pine trees to be able to engage the central defenders Centre Wait for both flanks to be engaged and then sent both MG AFV's to fix the central defenders as they responded to the threats from the flank, lost one tank to AR fire. With time running out I gave all surviving units platoon orders to advance, from both flanks towards the victory flag, and although bloody it allowed a partial victory. I could have coreographed the final assault better but I experimented with a new bold strategy. Conclusion As with my comments on Gefechsaufklaerung the key is exploiting terrain and maximising your units abilities.

Yes, Kenneth Mackasey's? book Battle? is very good at showing the minutae that is condensed in a simulation. I'd love to have a game that rated traffic police to show how many tanks arrive on time for an operation! I agree that borg spotting reduces the capabilities of a defender as it reduces the chance of a rapid counter attack succeeding. Also the typical wargaming 25 minutes to take an objective lends itself to a 'rush'. Still an exciting game but not a model with which to debate real WWII tactics I feel

So if intel is the trump card who benefits the most from borg spotting. The defender who can position an all seeing forward screen of support units, or the attacker who can neutralise the defender if his forward screen is in spotting range. Again I refer to my previous query, who benefits the most from these understandable compromises in the development of this game, the attacker or the defender? In this I support Joachim, CMBB is a great game but a poor simulation of war so looking at real world force ratios/tactics is somewhat misleading, especially in the interminable attritionist maneuver saga.

To broaden this thread, who do players think benefits the most from the CMBB systems well known problems, attacker?defender, Russian/German? By problem I mean understandable trade offs to make a workable system, given the resources to hand that Battlefront had access to. I am not interested in gripes and about CMBB as the only realistic simulation of combat is a real battlefield, just perceptions from players. Do they balance out, if so please give examples, or do they seem to favour attacker/defender, again examples would help.

Having fought SMG infantry in various QB's the impression I get is that they are far too powerful. Does the game engine work out the firepower of a unit by assuming all soldiers with that weapon fire together? If this is the case and units cannot split their fire power between targets then it might explain their over modelling. Having said that I talked to a reenactor who had just been training British officers about the Red Army and he was chuffed to bits that he got to fire all the small arms of a Russian 1943 company. His take on things was suprising. The PPSH was reliably accurate out to 200 metres, and the range officer had instructed them to only fire 10 round bursts with the Maxim, as this would prevent the targets being chewed to pieces, this was at 6-800 metres range. I've fired a variety of small arms, mostly modern but have never shot the WWII Soviet variety, any one with any real experience, not WWII first person shooter 'experience'. How does it compare with the games factors?

Oh happy times playing Steel Panthers, especially SP 3. Buy huge ammounts of troops for both sides select AI player for both sides and sit back, or more accurately pop downstairs do something else and periodically visit the scene of battle. I especially liked the wave like way infantry moved, quite relaxing to watch. On a more serious note, when designing scenarios it did allow obvious mistakes to be corrected, especially when you fiddled around with the fire power toughness ratios. Shame some of the developers of the games scenarios had seemingly not used the feature. As my friend said, after playing the criminally inaccurate "Goose Green" in SP2, "I though I was playing a remake of the bloody Somme!"

Yeah, sorry not the clearest exposition. Yes, the corn fields crossed were to the right and the AFV's went along the far right edge and turned left facing the objective. Smoke was fired on round one, as I said "for zero delay" but as it was maturing the IG was tasked to attack the two buildings on the right of the objective.

Rankorian, was your game against the AI? I've just played the scenario last night and won a total victory by going for a AFV weighted right flank advance/assault. Spoiler...spoiler * * * * I commented, on another thread, that I'd used smoke from the FO to cover my move, but this time it fired a prep barrage centred on the church. Stug/251 combo dropped off the HMG, in the building to the right of the start line and the infantry moved down the slope using the scattered trees as cover. The IG was used to target the two buildings, to the right of the church, then switched to an interdiction/support role. The Stug/251-10 dashed across the far right corn fields, turning to their left and faced the church. The reason the infantry were infiltrating down the hill was that I'd noticed a gap in fencing of the lower right corn field. The rest was similar to my previous AAR, as a two staged advance-assault with the IG, 50mm and HMG used to prevent counter attacks or reorientation of enemy forces. The AFV's shot the troops on to the objective and the infantry protected them. The right flank assault seems to offer the best route for me, so I am genuinely interested in why you think it tactically wrong. Now I'm under no illusion that had I been up against squidgy grey matter then the AFV dash might have been punished and the troops forced to retreat. Though I tried not to deploy any gamey strategies. Losses were heavier this time, with 18 casualties (4 dead) but so were the Russians, 84 casualties (23 dead)

Spoiler Alert!!!!! I've played this a few times and normally managed a minor victory but two days ago after careful analysis of the force mix decided to change tactics. Creeping through the woods just got my troops caught in a viscious crossfire when they advanced. Stage 1 (Turns 1-4) This time the 105 FO was not used to prep the objective or even provide on call fire (the scenario is 15 turns and you spend three waiting for rounds out) but to fire a smoke barrage close to the barrier, on the road. The Stug plus 251 with one section plus mortar loaded, waited for three minutes and then rushed through the corn fields followed by the remainder of the platoon. The HMG took up position in the hut close to the start line, on the right flank. As the smoke screen was maturing (fired on the first turn for zero delay) the 75mm engaged the line of houses on the left of the objective. Stage 2 (Turns 5-11) The platoon assembled as the Stug+251 started to engage the houses on the right of the objective. The smoke cleared (high wind in scenario set up) The Russians pinned my HQ quickly and this delayed the assault for 2 minutes as fire was directed from two fronts. By going throught the cornfields I negated the anti-tank gun and the troops on the far left, these tried to relocate but were pinned by the HMG plus 75mm IG. The Stug buttoned and supported the infantry as they advanced, giving mutual support. When the HQ stopped cowering, the sections moved to their final assault positions covered by all support weapons and AFV's. 1st section was now in the ruins of the house close to the objective, after killing the company HQ. Second section was in the foxhole vacated by the 50mm Russian mortar crew. HQ was finally in command radius and advanced to the scattered trees just to the right of the Church (objective). Third section prepared to assault the trenches poking out the Church. most sections had taken 2-3 casualties HQ 1 Stage 3 (turns 12-14) Stug plus 75mm smoke objectives right and rear sides. Infantry are engaging the defenders in the objective and fleeing troops exiting to the rear. HMG and mortar are pinning any troops trying to interfere with the platoon position. When the smoke has matured, third section assaults followed by second section, covered by the Stug followed by the first, which was covered by the 251. The AI fights back ferociously but on turn 14 I get a Total Victory, as the combination of a multi pronged assault backed by HE and smoke causes the defenders to all panic or rout. Total losses: German 11 (2 dead) Russian 64 (16 dead) + prisoners

Thanks for the reply Michael, will this change in CM/SF as each soldier is individually modelled? Given that platoon HQ's act as combined super section leaders and their sub-units are punished severly for being out of command, would this explain Squatdog's problem? As for CM, I came to the game through an evolutionary path familiar to probably quite a few CM'ers. Miniatures (1/300) board games (Avalon Hill, SPI etc) then Steel Panthers (real hidden movement!) then CM. Although in need of an upgrade (to reflect better computing capabilities) it is the only game, I have played with a sense of real involvement in the game. Lose a platoon of troops in Steel Panthers, ho hum, two more for the grinder, see a poor section crawling for cover being slowly shot to pieces, or a crew bailing from a brewed tank, hmm, not nice. Paradoxically, watch an enemy tank go up in flames, in CM, and it's the Ken Tout line "burn you buggers, burn!"

How are the abilities of these essential people reflected in CM? Platoon HQ's offer obvious advantages, but how is the lowly corporal/sergeants input modelled in the game? Is the status of their section ie veteran, regular etc a reflection of their abilities or the overall composition of the unit?

Talking of a section/squad, what role does the commander of such units play in CM? Platoon HQs confer advantages (interestingly no disadvantages) in a very basic fashion, ie combat/morale etc, but what of the strategic corporal/sergeant? How is their vital role simulated in the game, or is their effect already accounted for in the hidden game mechanics? For example, is a veteran squad counted as veteran because of the section/squad leaders abilities or is it simply that a majority of the squad is veteran ability? If the former, does that mean a section commander can raise the overal value of his troops? For example a veteran section commander can upgrade his green troops so they are regulars, in game terms. If the latter, is there a difference between various veteran sections, or is it cookie-cutter modeling (quite understandable given the limitations of the system CM uses). Finally, what is the role of the 2ic of a section, given the fragility of half squads, are they simulated in anyway or is that too complex to simulate? I'm having trouble with my damn paras again (they are at it again John) and need to know if I have to adjust my tactics more to fit the CM simulation, ie using platoons as super squad leaders. p.s. To preempt any "it's been covered before doh!" comments please give a link and I'll read the info, thanks.

Section (Uk), squad (US) both represent the sub-division of a platoon. Half-squad is a generic term to cover the splitting of a section/squad, In modern terms a fireteam. Given that CM does not allow a realistic depiction of a section/squad leaders flexibility in dealing with various tactical situation, I think criticism of Squatdog for inaccurate terminology is somewhat ill advised.

Andreas, that brief passage, debunking the uber-Peiper myth rang true. In Reynolds "The Devils Adjutant" (good book, awful title) detailing the dash for the Meuse, Peiper is seen to be an aggressive commander with little, if any, tactical subtlety. Perhaps this was the reason he was made commander of the most powerful KG for the operation, as he habitually ignored his flanks and just drove at the enemy, often suffering because of his recklessness. Correction, often his men suffered because of his fanaticism.

Misereor, when you talk about control of the battlefield are you talking about getting into and dominating your opponents decision cycle? The British Army used to talk about the OODA loop (Observe, orientate, decide and act) and how important it was for commanders to dominate their opponents OODA. This would then result in the enemy constantly executing plans that were out of date as they responded to your plans.

Verdamt! That was tough. I finally realised my error after the fourth attempt. Previously I'd tried to regroup my FJ's into platoon units by selecting two RVs. This wasted half the scenario as they moved to contact, with short arcs selected, using all available cover and crawling where the tactical situation demanded it. Although I hit the enemy hard from multiple directions I only had to suffer one setback and I'd lose on time. Demon Bofors crews, Stonewall Jackson reincarnated in a NZ platoon leader and a 'blind' sniper meant the plan was hopelessly optimistic and doomed to fail. Going back to basics I looked at the disposition of my troops and their abilities and realised that my scattered force should just attack the nearest objective to it. Even though half the troops were out of command and attacked as fire teams they demonstrated the true value of good quality troops. Result a major victory with 21 casualties taken and 56 inflicted, plus those sodding guns were finally destroyed, after their crews were exorcised first! At first I questioned the morale model for may defeat, now I realise the game was just punishing a plan that ignored a basic METT-T analysis, especially the last T,.. time! I still think the morale model leads to bizzare results but only at a local level and not enough to skew the inevitable result. Well executed plans lead to victory, hopelessly optimistic ones, or ones reliant on predictions, end up in telegrams home to electronic families!!

Not air portable I'm afraid! My sections were positioned in textbook supporting roles (ie out to a flank) and as the unit ran away at 40m I dont't thing friendly fire got in the way. If I remember correctly from previous posts, small arms fire affects within 25m of the aim point. I have since managed to destroy the offending die-hards by moving up a section in short bounds and wiped it out using grenades (only then did I find it was a Regular half section) . After clearing the foxhole the unit went firm and covered as the two other sections advanced to contact The Veteran section then took fire from another position (foxhole in scattered woods)at a range of 45m and wiped it out with two bursts of fire! On closer inspection it too turned out to be a Veteran half section. Why the disparity in results? 5 Mg-34's generate seemingly minimal returns in one minute yet 2 wipe out a similar target in 10 odd seconds. From the replay it tried to bolt, instead of hugging the bottom of its fighting position. At the moment I'm fighting a demonically possessed crew of a bofors gun. To use the term fanatic is an inadequate description for their performance. Ignoring point blank MG fire (are my 34's fitted with blank adapters) and a shower of grenades they bravely traverse their gun and shred an advancing section. Oh, and my elite sniper is unable to effectively target a gun crew at 300m. I don't know what those Kiwi's had for breakfast but my elite paras desperately need some of it! Perhaps the scenario designer has tried to replicate the stubborn defense, by the Commonwealth troops during the battle, by setting the fanatic generator to maximum. I've played some tough scenarios before but this is a slog.

Talking of the reactions of men under fire, does the pinning of a unit affect its situational awareness? I can find an enemy easily, but when I try to fix and flank things often fall apart. Although the suppressing fire is of the same intensity that caused the enemy unit to be pinned, as soon as my flanking unit appears, often at ninety degress to the enemy frontage a miraculous transformation occurs. The enemy unit rallies, turns to face the new threat and often dispatches it, seemingly with little firepower penalties. Only after this process will it resume being suppressed. What are the penalties for being suppressed in CM? I often feel the suppressive effects of fire, especially MG's, are under-modelled, resulting in extended slug-fests to capture objectives. I'm battling with "Hunters in the Groves" on CMAK and have had an advancing unit of FJ (Elite) panicked by a previously spotted NZ section in a foxhole. The covering force used was a Crack MG-34 (150m) an Elite sniper (200m) a Crack FJ section, less 3 rifles (55m) and a Veteran FJ section, less 1 SMG 2 rifles (65m). All were in command control of a 2+ Combat leader and all FJ sections had 2 MG-34's. The assault was conducted by a rested and fit squad through scattered trees and it failed at approx 40m. I had even delayed the attacking unit for 30 secs to allow the covering fire to take effect. Because the Platoon HQ has a stealth +2 rating the platoon had spotted the foxhole before the attack. Please any helpful advice out there in CM forum land? I have a semi-academic interest/knowledge in the military, and this result seems a little peverse. If 5 MG-34's (not including the 2 from the advancing unit) cannot suppress a foxhole what can?

As a new member to this forum can I tentatively suggest the insults and name-calling stop and the discussion once more centres on the mechanics of the game/ineresting observations etc. See, you can tell I'm a teacher!! p.s. Squatdog, could you have come up with a less inflamatory term to describe your criticisms of the moral model?

I think that the use of battles in the Falklands, to justify a 'theory' of how men react under fire is fraught with potential problems. The Paras took so long to achieve their objectives, at Goose Green, because of numerous factors which cannot be replicated using the CM engine. Here are some examples. 1. D company took nearly an hour and a half to reorganise itself, in the dark, after their initial contact with the Argentinian defences. 2 Colonel H. Jones' plan was aggressive and bold but overly complex. It did not take into account the 'enemy has a vote' concept and limited his company commanders in their use of initiative. This meant that at Darwin Hill and Boca House the advance was stalled for hours when Colonel H. Jones was pinned down and eventually killed, on Darwin Hill 3. Artillery support was meagre due to lack of ammunition, faulty guns (105's) and a delay between adjusting fires, due to an enforced system of radio relays. 4. HMS Arrow, which was to have provided the initial fire support was unavailable and the plan depended on her firepower and star shells lighting up the battlefield. 5. The decision to centralise fire support, off to a flank, greatly limited the effectiveness of the SFMG's and the Milans had no night vision capability. Personally, I am sick to death of having my advancing troops crawl across crest lines instead of just ducking behind them, when taking fire. My personal favourite, being a 251 driver (Veteran) who decided it was better to drive over a crest for 100 metres (in view of the anti-tank gun) rather than back down the slope some 10 metres. However many times I selected reverse the computer ignored me. Result, one dead veteran driver, though how the hell he managed to become a veteran, given his tactical incompetence is a mystery to me. Bottom line, CM is a game whose flaws (much sited in previous posts) often mean the preclusion of real world tactics. Still, it's a good game that has provided me with many happy hours of entertainment.