LUCASWILLEN05

I can seconmany of thesuggestions above but for the Canadians I eould suggest Fields of Fire by terence Copp and, from he German side Meyer's divsisional history. Michael Reynolds has also produced a number of excellent accounts from the German side. He has also writtebn a history of the US 29th and British 3rd Infantry divisions ((Eagles and Bulldogs in Normandy 1944) Patrick Delaforce wrote a number of very useful British divisional histories.

UIsing the German option for NATO would be particularly interesting as they only have fixed wing air support. Easily dealt with as you can give them support from other NATO nations. Canadian, Dutch and Marinroptions or a mix would be interesting particularly for a Northern Front scenario circa earl to mid July after Alleppo has fallen. Looking at the printed campaign map tank battleswould be a particularly appropriate setting around Salamiyah and Zaydal Dutch and Canadians could come down as reinforcements for these actions

I played this scenario last night, not realizing until afterwards the lack of AI plans. It has potential. particularly when AI plans have been developed, perhaps initially for Red. What I might suggest is that Blue gets some armoured reinforcements later in the game, perhaps 40 or 50 minutes into the game.Red might also be given a force, perhaps from reservist infantry units to hold the bridge, farm and riverline. Later on some additional armoured forces might arrive to assist these forces. SAince this is a full scale Syrian civil war both sides could be given some air support. I note there is a NATO scenariobut it does not have a NATO force. The Blue Force could be replaced with Germans, Dutch or Canadians with some air support. Comments for Red as above.

You could limit US/NATO by requiring them to follow strict ROE (eg require protection of BUA. particularly buildings such as schools and mosques. You might extend the area to be protected for several hundred meters around such an area. Victory Point penalties applyfor breaking ROE depending on damage done. Syrians could be tasked to kill specific units that they can kill with what they have available with more points for success. You can also load the scenario in favour of the Syrians by placcing them in defence of the BUA NATO needs to take with the above limitations in place You can always give the Syrians a points bonus on top of everything else. In regard to training and motivation I think both are important as of course is leadership. I would suggest the combination of these factors would affect the overall quality of the unit. A Syrian Republican Gaurd unit might be well motivated with average leaders and be considered as Experrience. A smattering of individual units, some better, some worse around this base line is probably a good idea. Your typical US/Nato unit would be at least as good, probably better

Some Syrian units might be over ratedbut that is a scenario design question. But their Russian designed vehicles are not as good as typical NA\tO equipment so perhaps what you see is crews doing the sensible thing.

Most Syrian tanks are also outclassed by the M1A2 or Challenger II tanks which is as it should be given the evidence of the two Gulf Wars. Some T-72s have Thermal Imaging as does the T90 which brings them almost to parity. A well motivated and well equipped army or Republican Gaurd unit can and wil put up a good fight against een the best NATO units. You may well still win but you could take heavy losses if you expose your weker IFVs or close the range to soon with your MBTs. Best tactic for the Syrians is to go after vehicles they can kill like Bradleys or Strykers. You can kill part or all of an infantry squad if you destroy the vehicle. The Syrians also have some excellent ATGMs which could kill an M1A2 so their caabilities here are better than those of the Iraqis in 1991 and 2003. Games can also be balanced by the use of ROE )penalties for damaging mosques etc) Attacking built up areas reduces or eliminates US range and gunnery advantages if the Syrian defence is well thought through. As the Syrians you should make up your mind to go for a points win from the start, aiming to channel NATO forces into killing zones and going after achievable kills by taking close range flank shots at tanks where you can and taking out as many IFVs as possible. If you can force NATO into violaing scenario ROE and destroying protected buildings like schools or mosques (scenario specific) you can accrue more points. In terms of troop ratings the"Elite" Republican Gaurd are probably only as good as the old Iraqi Republican Gaurd. Elite by regional standards but in reality perhaps only Experienced. Probably they should be well motivated. But not Elite in game terms with indivuidual squads or crews rarely, if ever elite. Elite should be rare on the NATO side. The best US Marine units, Paratroopers, and Special Forces (if you use the latter on the tactical battlefield. Most NATO units should be Veteran

Also you need to use fire and manouvre tactics to pin down enemy units and suppress their firepower. You need to figure out how to use combined arms ttactics using the capabilities availablee to you in the scenario and in the army of which you are a part.

Regarding anti tank guns the Germans and everyone else in the European War found the AT guns were a serious problem by 1943 or even earlier for the very reasons mentioned earlier (lethality to tanks and difficulty of spotting) Tactics were developed to deal with these problems sucgh as sending the infantry in first and keeping the tanks on overwatch, using smoke on likely AT poitions and calling in artillery. In short you needed a combined arms approach to the problem in order to even survive, let alone to win on the late WW2 battlefield.

I would love to see a tutorial on how to set up and conduct a rolling barrage, lifting barrage etc in Combat Mission. However, having too much artillery could, as others have mentioned spoil the game. But this does not mean that it should not be available in larger scenarios.

A scenario on Juno Beach would be graet when the Commenwealth module is published. A couple of sources I could suggest is the Battleground Europe series Junmo Beach and Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy by Terence Copp. Johm Englih's The Canadian Army in Europe was, I believe, recently republihed by Stackpole HBooks.

This is very similar to my thoughts. The only way to tackle the Zagros and Dasht-e-Lut would be to use vertical envelopment by helicopter. The trouble with Iraq is that, to use this nation as a base you need agreement fro the Iraqi Government and either Turkey or Saudi Arabia to give you the required land supply lines. If this is not forthoming then the main invasion would have to be via the Gulf of Oman. Sea supply routes would not be a big problem for the use of a sea supply route as no likely combatant in this war could contest US naval dominence. Thre most Iran could do is contest the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/Siegfried/Siegfried%20Line/siegfried-fm.htm And a nice link to an official history

Well I think the US troops who had to fight through it probably regarde the Hurtgen as being quite important. And certain commanders thought so too since it gave access to the Roer Dams

Is that like the Insane Welshman Quiz

iUt may be that Market Garden is actually a misleading title. To most of us, and probably most Brits Market Garden is a specifc operation - the Battle for Arnem, the US Airborne drops and XXX Corp's push up the Airborne Corridor. This is what I mean by too limited. If, in fact the intent is to cover the earlier West \Wall Battles and do the Bulge as a seperate game (maybe to thwe end of the war) then perhaps Siegfried Line would be a better title and the game should cover September, October and November 1944. Maybe the first fortnight of December finishing just before the Bulge. If there were options for specific German buildings included, grat. If not I can live with the French buildings, As for weather I think rain and mud was more of a feature of the Siegfried Line battles with snow really coming in towards the end of November. If a snow option is included then, again great, but I could live without it/

My concern with a new game series covering the rest of the NW European campaign after summer 1944, say Septmber 1944 to May 1945 is essentiallly reinventing the wheel since most of what you woould want would already be available in Normandy and Commonwealth. On this route you would need to add some late campaign orbats, winter weather, Dutch and German buildings and vehicles thjat only saw service late on such as the Pershing. I would certainly buy an add on moduke covering the later campaign as a whole but less likel to go for something that does something as shrt as Market Garden or the Bukge. As far as new series of CM games are concerned I would definately be interested in a Med series split into Western Desert and Italy. Or a Russian Front series. Perhaps an Early Blitzkrieg game allowing Polish, Norwegian, French and Balkans campaign. The Pacific might be nice but not enough tank combat.

Markt Garden does allow for lots of intensive scenarios but by limitindg the game to just one battle we are passing up on an opportunity to do a lot more in the same package like the gaming the entire Siegfried Line campaign which includes Market Garden. Wven if you covered the campaign. If yon untl early 1845 you have 5 months worth of fighting using a range of different terrain and weather conditions If your module extends to the end of the war you can also include the Pershing and Volksturm, Much more worthy of $35 - 40 than an expansion limited to Market Garden considering much of what you want is already there in CMBN and Ciommenwealth.

My concern with limiting a release to, let's say Market Garden or the Battle of the Bulge is that these cover a subject that is far too short (9 days and about a month respectively) The addition of new unit will be quite limited. The only major new unit you will get will be the Volksgrenadiers with some minor Allied changes. If most major units have already been introduced by the time Commonwealth has been produced then what do I gain from a module covering such a short period? On the other hand if you did a Siegfried Line module then it would be possible to cover the period September 1944 to January 1945 (end of the Allied counter attacks to eliminate the Bulge. Now we can do Market Garden, Aachen, Hurtgen Forest, Vosges Mountains, Ardennes scenarios in the same module. Plus of course potential for alternate histories, And you could just extend the module to the end of the war which is only another 4 months.

Just finished playing this as the US.. I think they could use another infantry company, some anti tank guns/taank destroyers and an additional tank company coming in around 30 - 40 minutes before the end of the current scenario to face the German counter attack. Air support would be good!

I quite enjoy the US sector Bocage battles but am much more interested in the British sector. However, after Commenwealth I would really like a Siegfried Line Expandsion game dealing with the rest of the war or at least to the end of the Battle of the Bulge. A final game might cover the final invasion of Germany. Once that is done perhaps off to the Russian Front but this time could you please release a game covering a longer time span i.e Russian Front June 1941 to December 1942 and January 1942 to May 1945 to maximise potential scenarios.

I just happen to like a big tank battle using a 4000 x 4000m map and was thinking a couple of those would be a great way to end your campaign, No problem with static defences but maybe you could do some smaller scale Iranian armoured counter attacks earlier in the campaign so the tankies have someting to do :-) During the final battles of course you get to face the best Iranian armour defending the approaches to Tehran even if you don't want to do a big city fight fot Tehran. But a southern campaign in the future would be great as would a campaign dealing with the thrust out of Afghanistan.

Fair enough. Without the ability to base in Iraq an invasion attempt would be much more difficult as previously discussed although we still have to assume supply lines through Trkey or Saudi Arabi. We can still have an amphibiousinvasion by the Marines followed up by some army mechanized divisions to link up with the Afghan thrust, outflank the Zagros range and divert Iranian forces. As for tank battles these are more likely in the Marine sector as they face counter attacks early in the campaign, Also as NATO forces get closer to Tehran that is the probable point where the major tank battles could be expected. If your campaign extends that far you can still do a big tank battle or two to finish off your campaign maybe including Marine and/or European elents linking up with your units. I think magor tnk battles should use the largest possible maps. After the tank battles the final attack on Tehran would be a good way to end if you don't want to end with the tank battles Nice looking maps by the way

Or, to misqoute a certain film "I'm Peng" :-) Or is Peng perhaps a renegadwe North Korean General :-) Or perhaps the Scarlet Peng. They seek him here, they seek him there. That D****d elusive Peng :-)

In general bogging and immobilizing if fair enough. Annoying to be sure. The tank might have thrown a track (immobilized), just breaks down (also immobilized) or gets stuck, If ground conditions are bad due to mud then this s whatr happens. Just because the weather is light rain now does not mean it is not very muddy due to earlier heavy rain. And in rocky ground perhaps you are more likely to throw a track.

I like large maps and 2 - 4 hour length games for armoured battles. For a relief scenario something similar might be best depending on what the Iranians are doing at this oint in the campaign. They could attempt a large armoured counter attack against the Marines. This gives us a magor tank battle or two. Possibly the Iranians get some of their own air/helicopter gunship support at this point. Less likely later in the campaign except the occasional small scale attempt if you are feeling genrous enough. We will still have to consider the effects of US air superiority at this stage nd it will fast become air supremacy. Later I see the Iranians making a fighting withdrawl towards the north. A bit like Iraqi Freedom except the regular amy puts up more of a fight. The Basij militia meanwhile stay behind to launch insurgency style attacks on US/NATO convoys. US and NATO forces must detatch troops from the spearhead or reinforcements to protect the convoys required to supply the armoured push. Operations are also undertaken to hunt down the Basij, some of whom might establish bases in the Zagros Mountains and in the cities. Plenty of scenarios there for the insurgent types. We can also have Basij Militia fighting alongside the regular army, particularlly near towns and cities. One interestin possibility would be to base a scenario something on the An Nasiryah bridge but with more effective army nits fighting with the insurgents. There are, I am sure, suitable river crossings for such a scenario in Iran along our selected route of advance. A "Bridge too far" style battle could be a possibility wiith a US/Airmobile unit inserted ahead of the main armoured advance being cut off and hasving to face Iranian armour and militiaon their own,