LUCASWILLEN05

Fair enough. I guess it depends on how serious the injury is and how determined the soldier is to go on. He might continue with a bad leg wound but not if shot in the stomach or chest. That said you are a professional combat medic who has probably had to do the real thing so I accept I am likely quite wrong on this point.

It is possible for infantry to knock out tanks in urban terrain but you can't micromanage them. You are a battlegroup commander, not a section leader though you can still influence what your computerized subordiates do. However, they will decide for themselves when to throw grenades and demolition charges. You might order rthem to assault that tank but thy might not do it at least not successfully.

But John I WANT t confront the Mountains and Valleys of "Sunny Italy" that are waiting to greet me (in the words of a Gernan propaganda leaflet of the time. And you know very well I mean MAINLAND Italy. Not the litttle football of the coast! Besides I am sick of fighting Italans and want to get stuck into more proper Huns :ike this :-)

Is that not the reason we have the civillian density option in the scenario editor data section. Apparently the heavier the civillian density the harder insurgents are to spot. You can also model ROE into the scenario victory conditions. For example firing on that village or the mosque incurs victory point penalties set by the scenario designer. He may or may not tell you about exact penalties (though you can cheat and go into the scenario editor But I think it is reasonable to give a clue in the briefing.

Batttles did not always happen where we think they did. Bosworth being a case in point

First, let's make sure he's dead:eek: Maybe buddy aid should have a chance of changing a severe wound into a light one. Maybe a small chance only though. And of course arms and ammunition still ollected from the unfortunate casualty/

Would be great if BF told us what was happening. We areall straining at the leash to invade Italy. I suspect they might be sorting ot the summer background to the winter maps. Really, I am not that bothered - I just want to invade Italy. You can patch it later!

An AI Plan version would be nice. Though I could probably work out my own. Love messing about with the AI

Nationalism is one of the more important factors and would certainly contribute to unit cohesion and motivation. Hate the cause for which they fough as both of us do these specific units certainly believed in what they were doing and stuck together even in the Falaise Pocket, in the final stages of the war and in the camps afterwards. IMHO youappear to besuggesting particular HJ and Leibstandarte were not much good but you produce no vvidence to support this hypothesis If you have evidence to the contrary the produce it. Otherwise it is a waste of my time contioneing this debate An intelligent person who knows a reasonable amount of history can work something out and should be quite capable of understanding, at least roughly what the various ratings mean. We can discuss the definitin of the various troop ratings on another thread if you want. And there was a pretty good definition in the old CMBB. How exactly you classify a unit for a scenario is up to you. Also, as I have said before there is nohing rong in having an overall "divisional" classification and different ones for sub units right doewn to squad level if that's what you want to do. You can fine tune your units in other creative ways using the headcount, motivation and leadership options. And if you really want to ensure a balanced game you can always calculate your force with the points system first as you do in many tabletop wargames rules sets. Snd you may fine tune your victory conditions to quite a sophisticated level if you want which is agnother way to balance a scenario. What is important is it needs to be as challenging as we can make it. A scenario gaming the Falaise pocket where the Germans must hold the road opnwith the battered remnants of a HJ battlgroup for other units ro escape while fighting against vastly superior Allied forces tryimg to close the pocket might seem very unbalanced at first glance but you could balance it by careful consideration of victory conditions. Units can be tasked to exit for points and some rear echelon types could be very valuable. For instance that column of trucks is actually a headqurters unit trying to escape. Or it could be a convoy carrying stolen art treasures.

I'd like a 1980s moderns ideally allowing both the European theatre and US intervenion in Iran (the feared Soviet plan to invade the Middle East oilfields. Whether it ids possible to do this in one game or whether we would need two is another matter.

Hmm yes and it might be asking too much from grasphics cards and would involve a lot f work. Having said that, for moderns games some inncrease in map size would be welcome but maybe 5000 to 6000 meters would be a reasonable compromise allowing a good size modern tank scrap but (hopefully) still allowing the visual effects we like.

Has anyone managed to get past the first mission of this campaign. How on earth are you supposed to win this one?

So the Waffen SS in Normandy were cowards who broke and ran at the firstshot? Thay is not what happened And regarding ratings there is also a price the Germans pay for it such as use of the Headcount Penalty in the scenario editor. As you probably know you can reduce unit sizes by 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90% and you can do this on any unit. So you might have highly motivated, high quality Waffen SS but there are not many of them. The Alllies on the other hand are more likely to be close to full strength though if your scenariois set during a magor engagement like Epsom or Goodwood you can and probably should consider earlier casualties . Plu plenty of air, artillery and even naval gunfire support. Regarding history degrees these train you to assess historical source material and be aware of possible bias in those sourrces. Among many other things. And by the way, I earned that degree by working hard for it - over 20 years ago, So hardly one of the "dime a dozen" degrees you might get these days. I am sure you are just as competent of course but it is possible that your interpretation is coloured by the SS role in the Holocaust. As I am sure you are aware the Waffen SS was the military wing intended to be used in combat The Allgemeine were primarily responsible for the camps. This of course simplifies it as things were not actually that clear cut and they were all ultimately part of thesameorganisation reporting to the same boss - Himmler. Ceryinly the Waffen SS were guilty by association and to some extent in fact but that does not mean that the premier units were not tough opponents wh put up a very hard fight. That is the point I have been making for the last few days. Why is it s hard to see when the historical facts speak for themselves? I don;t like the Waffen SS and would certainly regard them as a nasty, brutal bunch at least sometimes. But they were also soldiers who fought for their country even if it was run by one of the most reprehensible dictatorships of modern times. And if you look at published scenarios such as Bloody Buron you will see that others also rated the Hitller ##jugund very highly in game terms. If you take a look at that scenasro yu will see they are graded as Elite Fanatics. And a final thought. If the Waffen SS in Normandywere cowardly and incomnpetent as alleged then the Allied troops must have been even more cowardly and incompetent because it took over two months for them to win. Of course, the premise that both sides were cowardly incompetents is quite wrong as we all know very well. Normandy was a hard fought campaign seeing some of the hardest and bloodiest combatof the war.

Bear in mind that the nature of the German replacement system, taking a division out of the line and trainng the conscripts would allow the veteranms the time to train the new replacements, take time to get to know them As opposed to the Allied method of committing the replacements n the front line. Both methods had their pros and cons. For he Germans it would improve unit skills and cohesion but, on the down side would result in greatly under strength units after prolomgerd combat So yes, the overall rating HJ might have on June 7 would be regular thouh you are well within your rights to include veteran squads and a good sprinkling of +1 and +2 leaders. This mix changes as the campaign continuesand experienc gained in prolonged and intensive combat. Liebstandarte might well have the overall rating of Veteran I suggested but it would be quite reasonable to give lower ratings to companies, platoons and squsds early in the campaign. Again they should tend toimprove later in the campaign but suffer from reuced headcount penalties due to thwe German replacement system. The divisional history of 9th and 10th SS (In the Firestorm of the ast Year of the War Helmut Tieke) indicates these unts were trained for quite some time but their first combat experience in Russia was not particularly impressive Maybe veteran overall but with a greater ratio of lower grades at combat unit level and definately lower quality leadership. But quite high morale 17th SS does not seem to have performned that well in Normandy so yes Green or Regular might seem to be reasonable grades

I think Liebstandarrte were superior to HJ in experience though not quite as fanatical. Most, if not all Waffen SS divisions did commit war crimes, including against civillians at one time or another though. In terms of ratings I think Crack with Extreme to High motivation would be about right for Liebstandarte. However Hohenstauffen and Frundsburg I would be inclined to give them a slightly lower rating though still good. Veteran with high motivation seems about right as they were well trained, had seen combat in Russia in April 1944 and tended to perform well during the Normandy campaign. Havng said that a good case could be made for rating them as Regular early on in the campaign. Probably a similar rating for 17th SS though I don't know too much about them to make a really informed decsion

Well it took 6 years to defeat the Wehrmacht including 11 months to liberarte NW Europe. This was because the Wehrmacht as a whole were a very tough, resourceful and determined opponent. The fact that they were defeated in the end is, in itself, a compliment to the Allied soldiers who finally achieed that victory. However, no side has a monopoly on courage. I actually have relatives who fought on both sides in WW2. One of my Dad's sisters married a German who fought in Russia. Another relative, on the Britsh side of the family was killed during he war. I think it might have been in the Western Desert. So perhaps it is easier for me to see that there are two sides to this and, with my degree level training in history I can recognise the importance of using both Allied and German source material. Plus of course recognising a writer may, and probably does have bias. Anyway, getting back to the question of ratings I would start Hitler Jugund at Regular on June 7 because they hadspent a year in training and effectve training at that but lacked combat experience. Morale ratings of Fanatic or Extreme to reflect their very high motivation. After a week or two they could rise to veteranbut morale goes down slightly to Extreme or Highas they have seen serious action by this point and, while remaining motivated and determined have lost their illusions. Towards the end of the campaign we might raise them to Crack because of their very intensive combat experience. But there is a price to be paid for this, bearing in mind the nature of the Wehrmacht replacement system. Firstly, while the HJ might start the Normandy cmpaign with many +1 and +2 leaders these should be lost as the campaign progresses. By August we might have only the occasional +1 or +2 leader particularly at small unit level. And we should make use odf the Headcount function at all levels. Hence in August our HJ forve might still be Crack troops and are still highly motivaed there jmjust aren't that many left.{lus of course we can simulate their supply problems by giving them limited, sparse or even severe ratings for supply. Allied troops are much more likely to be up to strength but ay for this by having ratings much closer to average ratinfgs. We can allow for certain Desert Veteran Divisions like 7th Armoured to be prone to "stickiness" by allowing them Veteran status but giving them only "Normal" or more likely "Low" morale after they have seen action once or twice. Though these rating suggestions are for the unit as a whole we can certainly manipulate ratings belowe that level fr individual companies, platoons and even squad. Generally up or down one level from that of the parent unit would be enough.

Not until Battlefront do Combat Mission Kursk. Then I expect to see Russian Mine Dogs. Sorry Shepski but for you ze var is over":D With apologies to all dog lovers on the forum - don't blame me - it was the d*** Bolsheviks!

Yes te Germans committed a lot of war crimes particularly on the RussianuropFront and in the Balkans. Also in European Theatre. And yes, while Allied War Crimes were often (but not always) investigated they were not always actioned or thoseresponsible punished. There is a case for the Victor's Justice argument. And whether the methods used by the Allies in te Dachau trials were legally fair (such as mock executions and mock prosecutions) is a good question. Because of these methods many of those charged got off and it is always possible that some of these were actuaolly guilty as charged. But that debate has nothing to do with the combat effectiveness of the units concerned. Yes they shot POWs but that mmakes the unit somehow ineffectve in combat? Committing atrocities, while reprehensible is irrelevent to the assessment of combat effectiveness. End of debate on that point. So, can you offer evidence that the units of I an II SS Panzer Korps performed poorly in combat in NormandyDid they fail to press counter attacks without good reason such as Allied Naval gunfire? Did unit break and run particulary without good reason. Did tey even become "sticky" like certain British Desert Veteran divisions?Or did these units put up a highly determined fight against the odds. And if they did it took a lot of hard slogging for the Allied troops who finally defeeated them. Which, in short, describes the entire Normandy campaign.

Sounds great Rokko. Are you intending to publish some of the more intersting historial actionsfrom this campaign as standalone scenarios?

Look at the evidence of the Battle of Normandy. Why was did Liebstandarte, Hitler Jugund, Frundsburg and Hohnstauffen repel so many attaccks and by the way mount so many effectve counter attacks against Allied forces. The British troops were even forced to withdaw from posittons they had previouslty captured (for example the abandonment of the Epsom Salien. That despite beating off the German counter attacks which were in large part the work of I and II SS Panzer Korps any history book will tell you. Surely you do not believe that British troops in Normandy were incompetent???? They weren't though some units might have been a bit "sticky" due to factors such as war weariness and being asked to fight in unfamiliar terrain to that they had previously used to. Now I am sorry if you don't likle this but the truth is that British troops ansd for that matter the US as well were up against a well trained, disciplined and highly effective opponent when they went up against I and II SS Panzer Korps. The SS were not very nice people to put it mildlty and they did some reprehensible things BUT we must judge their combat performance on THE FACTS as they would be admissible in a court of law. IN THIS CASE we are judging Waffen SS BATTLEFIELD COMBAT PERFORMANCE and, as anyone who has undertaken any formal training in assessing historial evidence is concerned WE MUST TRY TO PUT ASIDE personal or any other form of bias and make our assessment SOLELY on the basis of the RELEVENT historical evidence. I think we have taken this as far as we can/should though and perhaps we should call a halt here andmove on

No. We are talking about the Biscari Massacre on 14 July 1943 which was actuallly two seperate incidents. The first, known as the ompton incident involved the shooting of 35 unarmed Italian POWs. The second, known as the West Incident was the shooting of 35 (again unarmed) Italians and two Germans. Captai Compton was court martialled but acquited and later KIA. Sergeant West was court martiialled and dishonourably discharged. The commander of the US unit involved was never called to account for the actions of his men. And consider issues like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II The truth seems to be that no side was competely innocent and there were even cases like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicatt%C3%AC_massacre. The difference being Allied soldiers were not always held accountable either during the war or afterwards. The Waffen SS were often held accountable at put on trial. Then thre are questions about the way some of the post war trials such as the Dachau Trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_Trials were conducted. These are described in some detail in Reynold's Books. Certainly the SS involved were probably guilty or partially so but some of the methods used to establish guilt were niether fair nor just. Some indeed are reminiscent of more recent scandals fro the Iraq War such as the Abu Ghraib scandal. The point again is that nobody was entrely guiltless. Finally one might also consider this http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/Historians_Controv.html and this http://historyimages.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/waffen-ss-german-elite-fighting-machine.html within the context of the historical evidence. Certainly the SS fought for an evil cause and certainly committed war crimes.But they were not the only ones, The Panzer Divisions and the Falscirmjager fought for the same cause but do we judge them as harshly as we do the Waffen SS. If not, why not? And soldiers from all armies committed war crimes (like the Biscari incident) And, if we don't judge them as harshly as the Waffen SS (or at all) then why not? And did the German Panzer Diviions and Falschirmjager fight more or less effectively than the Waffen SS. Or were the best units of both broadly the same quality based on their combat performance?

Except most of the fighting took placwe outside the city in the fields and villages. Sure the Allies had their own probles. Supply as you say. Also terrain whether that be villages, bocage, more open areas (ef Operation Goodwood)or indeed Caen itself. It only took a few days to take the city itself (Operation Charnwood. Plus, as every historian from Wilmot to Hastings to Reynolds agree was a determined and competent German opponent. Normandy was a hard fought and bloody campaign. By no means a cakewalk. So, where is your evidence that 1st and II SS Panzer Korps were not particularly competent. When you answer this bear in mind wht they were up against. And bear in mind other examples such as the Falschirmjagers defensding Cassino. Were the Allied troops trying to take the place incompetent or were they up against a tough, resourceful opponent in a strong defensive position. Then apply the same criteria to Normandy

But Allied troops also committed war crimes, specifically a well known case during the Sicily campaign. And there were instances of Allied soldiers in Normandy doig the same thing we condemn the Waffen SS as doing. The matter of civillian exrcutons are however a different matter. But, the historical record shows that theGerman army held the Allies up in Normandy for two months. Are you suggesting that the Allied soldiers were completely incompetemt? Because if the Waffen SS divisions they were fighting were the low grade incometennts some people apparently still suggest that is the only explamation of why it took so lomg to win despitre the Allied air supremacy, naval gunfire support and probably superior numbers in the end. The truth is that the Allied troops were far from incompetent. They were up against a tough and resourceful opponent and it took a lot for the Allies to finally achieve victory in Normandy and, in the end, a final victory in Europe.

Yes 5GTA was badly maule. Read Zamulin and Nipe. Not the older sources which rely on the now discredited acounnt by Rotmistrov and his Soviet masters in Moscow. The truth could not be admitted in the early 1960s because Nikita Khruschev was Commissar to the Voronezh Front which gave 5GTA its orders which very likely came direct from Moscow in any case. Had thge truth been revealed then it would have reflected very badly on Khruschev even if he was not directly involved. And it is hard to beieve that, given his position he did not have some invlovement. And later it was too difficult for the politicians to admit they had lied about Prokorovka. Politicians will do thesame in the democratic West if it suits them - look at how long it took to expose the truth (or some of it) concerning the Hillsborough stadium Disaster. And because the German records, though held inthe US were available and since most historians of the 1950s to 1980s believed the Soviet line most, if not all Western accounts gave what has now been revealed a false view of the battle. Which was used as evidence for the qualitative inferiority of the Waffen SS Panzer Divisions. Yet it was these "qualitatiivel inferior" SS Panzer Divisions who held off the Britishand US in Normandy for two months. This despite Allied air supremacy, intensive artillery barrages and often superior numbers. So, if the Waffen SS were inferior why did it take over a month to ta\ke Caen from thm? Hre is a clue - he Waffen SS in Normandy were far grom being inferior soldiers. They were, whatever elsethey may have been, were highly trained, corageous 9or fanatical) fghting force. Yes they executedcaptured Allied soldiers on the battlefield but there are cases of Allied soldiers doing exactlly the same thing. SS front line units also committed atrocities against civillians nd that Allied soldiers are not known to have done. But war crimes are irrelevent to th task of judging a unit's combat effectiveness. To do that we must assess the only admissible evidence, their combat performance on the battlefielf