Broadsword56

Not aerials, but the most amazing 1:25000 scale Holland map you could ever want: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field(NUMBER+@band(g6000m+gct00040))

Which just about matches the historical accounts I've read of Allied tankers in Normandy that describe their constant, absolute vigilance and terror regarding lurking German AT teams. Certainly this is the case in our battles, in cases where map terrain has resembled the amount of cover and concealment of the real Bocage country.

Off topic but this question burns to be answered: Where did the whole "Hun" thing get started, anyway? I know the British used it in WWI ("Beware of the Hun in the Sun" the aviators always said), but why "Hun"? Did Attila have anything to do with Germany or the land that was to become Germany? Or was it just a label that helped portray the enemy as warlike barbarian hordes?

Even the persistent foggy weather was a wild card that hurt the Allies more than it might have done. Aside from the initial tactical airstrikes at the 30 Corps start line, which helped punch the initial hole in the German line, Allied air was never really a factor in the campaign as much as one would have expected at this stage in the war. And the weather delayed the later drops, messed with the resupply efforts, etc. One of the other weird but significant wild cards was the failure of the British paras' radios -- another one of those odd little hazards of war that can swing the balance of history (but which gamers would scream about as totally unfair in a wargame). That's what makes Market Garden so appealing for wargames -- take the same Allied plans but make a certain number of the wrong things go right, and then see if the plan really did have a decent chance to succeed.

What I'd love to see (but don't have the chops or the dedication to do myself) is a whole range of modded world/skyboxes for CMBN. One that would look really cool, for example, would be a beachfront horizon box for D-Day scenarios -- it would set one horizon looking out to sea, and the image would be receding water and the whole panoply of barrage balloons, naval ships, etc., that you see in D-Day photos. The other important use of these mods would be for non-Normandy terrains and climates, like Italy, Huertgen, etc.

Farm animals would be great and add enormous authenticity to the landscape -- but since they do nothing for gameplay and take resources, it makes send that they were omitted. Civilians, though, are worth considering. The only game I've ever seen civilians in were Men of War (where every so often during a battle you'd see some peasant ambling through the kill zone like a preoccupied zombie), or the console Brothers in Arms series (subplots involving civilians in the Market Garden game). In Holland for OMG, civilians really did affect the fighting -- jubilant crowds in the towns swarmed the Allies and slowed down the advance up Hell's Highway, and individual civilians, and individual Dutch civilians did things like point out enemy locations, mislead the Germans, and even join with Allied units to take an active role in combat.

Just asking about it doesn't mean someone wants to be able to do it. I think the whole question of surrender and POWs in wargames and PC sims is a legitimate one for thoughtful discussion. Many games simply ignore that whole aspect of war. But others try to address it in one way or another. I like games that allow for surrenders/POWs because without them, a losing player is more likely to try and fight to the last man, and the winning player is more likely to try to kill every last enemy. But there should be some game-level incentive for the losing player to surrender a force instead of fighting to certain death -- maybe units that surrender should cost fewer VPs to the losing player than KIA/WIA losses, for example. One of the reasons FPS games online are so unrealistic in HTH battles (like ArmA2) is because no one ever surrenders (it's no fun, and there's no game cost to dying in a blaze of glory). And players that take prisoners should have to deal with them in some way -- to have the burden of escorting/guarding them, just as the real troops did. One soldier with a Garand might be detailed to escort a platoon or more of POWs off a mapedge, for example (which reminds me of that scene in BoB where Lt. Winters made the soldier who had just killed a POW escort prisoners with an empty weapon).

There have been some great posts in mapping threads where some players have created impressive underground ammo bunkers -- large enough to hold ammo-laden halftracks. But I saved only the text, so I can't link to the thread or the author(s) who figured out how to do this. In future maps, I think I will start placing at least one of these to represent a HQ/rally point/fortified basement where troops can rest and rearm. But only in maps where the force would have been in that area a while. (Just a background note: In Hamel Vallee, the Germans rushed in and only just barely arrived the previous night to block the advancing Americans. So it's fair to say they might not have had this resource, and just had to go into battle with whatever they could drive or carry in. Now, if the Germans were to fall back slightly to Le Mesnil-Rouxelin, I'd definitely put ammo bunkers in the town and fortify the heck out of it -- because that town was the site of the 352nd ID's divisional HQ since before D-Day.)

Outstanding atmosphere in this one! My favorite screenshots are the ones that look least like in-game shots, with lots of post-processing to achieve special effects like old photos, desaturated lighting, black and white combat camera shots, or -- as I like to do -- mid-20th Century army comic books.

And that, my friends, is how the Santa Fe Division's finest take out a machinegun nest. (Unfortunately, Williams didn't get to savor the moment very long -- most of that platoon got mortared and MG'ed from another hedgerow not long afterward, then hunted down by a Marder...but it's of these small victories that larger victories are made.)

Here's a bit about the initial US plan, which I guess it's safe to share now: My analysis was: 1. Mission: Dictated by the operational boardgame situation. An "intensive attack" by the US force, meaning major HQ staff involvement and maximum commitment of resources and effort. The objective is the standard 280m x 280m terrain area, representing the defending battalion's boardgame hex. It's not a town, a crossroads, or anything of clear military value. So why would anyone want this particular piece of Normandy real estate, and why now? About 24 hours ago, this was a soft spot/gap in the German line -- an open door to HILL 122 and the campaign objective of SAINT-LO. The Americans advanced the 1/320th Infantry, but the Germans countered in time, moving the 518/GR 916 into a blocking position overnight. Capturing, clearing and holding an area that large is a massive task, even for a battalion-plus force. It could take more than one battle to get there. 2. Enemy: The German force is outnumbered roughly 3:1. They lack stamina (Two of their companies are unfit, 1 is weakened). Motivation is poor because they were bombarded all the previous night by the entire 35th Divarty and are "disrupted" in the boardgame. That also threw their command and control into disorder, giving them -2 leadership for this battle. Veteran experience. Ammo supply adequate. Worth noting are significant AT assets (PAKs and some 88s), and armor (StuGs and Marders in company strength). They have considerable 105mm artillery (12 guns) available offmap and a fair number of TRPs. All German units can be assumed to start in foxholes, since they had time to dig in overnight. No fortifications, except for some sandbags for the AT positions. Due to aerial recon and support from Division staff for this intensive attack, the Americans have 40% pre-battle intel. 3. Troops Available: 3/320th Infantry plus attachments: M5 Stuart company, M4 Sherman company, Engineer platoon. Massive offmap artillery and "full" ammo supply: 12 x 105mm guns. Onmap, the US battalion also has its 81mm mortar platoon. Experience level is Green, but due to the extensively prepared and well-briefed plan for this attack, the US has +2 leadership. Motivation level is normal. Fatigue level: 2 rifle companies weakened, 1 rifle company fit. 4. Terrain a. The HOTEL AU HEUP horse farm atop HILL 108 gives the US the ability to put supporting fire across the highway into the wheatfields complex and cover the top crossroads, as well as the dirt road from it leading W into the German positions. b. The map has a mix of dense bocage and relatively open, larger fields that offer good fields of fire and maneuvering room for tanks. c. The central area of the German line, between the two crossroads, is ideal defensive terrain -- thick with hedgerows and orchards. d. But the field pattern in that area is more open in the N-S direction. So, any attack from the E will have better chances if it can be supported by enfilading fire from open N sides of the fields. Below, an image showing the lanes for supporting fires from the hilltop farm (A) and then enfilading into the German hedgerow positions (: e. A small, square orchard at the N end of the map would make a good base for launching armored attacks SSW through the wheatfields, where they could support infantry making a frontal attack on the central German line from the E. 5. Time 4 hours for the battle. Loads of time. The US plan: I didn't want to let the Germans stall this attack and slowly wear my forces down, hedgerow by hedgerow. With all this armor and firepower, plus the numerical advantage, I felt it was time to try a lightning blow and overwhelm the German defense at some critical spot. Because the Germans are easily fatigued, they would have trouble shifting troops around quickly. So a rapidly exploited breakthrough could win the day. Speed could also keep the Germans off-balance, so they couldn't organize a counterattack or mortaring each freshly captured position. Attack plan image: The main effort was a two-company attack on the center (K on my left, I on my right, #2 on the attack plan image), between the two crossroads. Each company had an engineer section and a Stuart tank platoon assigned (some Rhino-equipped). To give this frontal attack a better chance of breaking through, I preplanned a British-style rolling barrage: All 4 guns of a 105mm battery on medium fire, medium duration, in a series of linear steps that would "lift" every 3 minutes to the next hedgerow or several hundred meters. 81 mm mortars added some smoke to the first "step" to help the first wave get a bit of cover. The other important aspect to the plan was a preliminary stage: A diversionary probing attack on the N orchard and wheatfield complex, aimed at drawing German forces and attention away from the center (#1 on the attack plan image). If the probe managed to advance, it would then try to reach positions along the road S of the wheatfields where they could threaten to enfilade the German hedgerows in the center (the "B" dotted lines on the fire plan image). The forces for the probe were L Company (minus 1 platoon that was in battalion reserve) and 1 Stuart tank platoon, with a platoon of Sherman tanks in overwatch from the HOTEL AU HEUP hilltop (The "A" dotted lines on the fire lanes image). In reserve was a platoon of L Company, plus the remaining Sherman platoon and its company HQ tanks. This last armor was my reserve, which would stay all the way to the rear on the E mapedge and remain hidden. This was my force to deal with the German armor; I wanted my infantry and/or light tanks to locate the main German armor first -- then I'd maneuver this armored reserve to try and catch the Stugs and Marders from the rear or flank. If the German armor didn't remain passive, but tried to come out and counterattack, then my armored reserve would be launched to neutralize it. That was the original battle plan. In the next installment, we'll see how that plan survived first contact with the enemy...

Sburke's insightful post about the CRT mindset vs. tactical thinking also made me realize how both have shaped our operational-tactical campaign using a board game with CMBN. Because, when you think about it, the division staff planning an attack from way in the rear HAS to look at things more the way a war gamer does -- assets, firepower, odds, etc., while the CMBN tactical level forces us to take those missions a higher HQ dreamed up and actually try to make them work in the messy, chaotic world of tactics. So we get situations that look one way on paper or map and turn out very differently in 3D. And we get an ever greater level of realism, I think.

Just anecdotal, but after about 1 simulated hour of intensive HTH combat in a battalion-plus vs. battalion-plus combat, the WIA to KIA ratio for US infantry companies is: Company: 2:1 Company: 1:1 Company: 1.86 : 1 Company: 1:3 : 1 The armor figures produce many more KIA and few WIA because a tank kill is more often catastrophic (flames, smoke, blast) to the crew. There have been some German POWs but no American ones yet -- although this really depends so much on the tactical situation of a particular battle. The German surrender I saw was from a unit that got cut off. But in a situation where, say, defenders manage to wage a fighting retreat and keep falling back before getting close-assaulted, I wouldn't expect to see many POWs because the opportunities just don't come up. Also, we should bear in mind the scale of battle that CMBN represents. In-game, in a company-level fight, we might see a squad surrender here or there during play. But keep in mind that if the game ends in a total victory for the enemy, maybe all the survivors of the friendly company would have ended up surrendering in real life, once the fight for that particular farm or town or woods had ended.

FWIW: One thing I'm finding in my current Hamel Vallee monster battle with sburke is the vast difference I get in troop behavior from having mostly +2 unit leaders across the board (while he has -2 leaders). I can't quantify it in laboratory terms or stats, but I can definitely say I've never seen Green infantry fight so well or so persistently (and all my infantry is Green). This must be due to the integral NCO team and squad leaders, who are somehow getting even "broken" units to fight or at least shoot back, and to rally a bit better and faster too. In previous battles I always had -1 leaders. And in those cases I found that once a unit broke or even got "rattled," it would go to ground/cower at the drop of a hat I (or even the sound of a nearby artillery round), panic quickly under fire, and rarely remain an effective fighting force -- even with Veteran experience.

Wow! One of the best and most realistic looking maps I've seen posted on here lately.

Well, LLF, I think you told it pretty well. But given all that, y'all may be surprised at how the battle's first hour plays out. Either I'm one heckuva lousy US commander, or the Germans aren't in as imbalanced a situation as it looks on paper...

I used to use HUNT all the time for tanks, in any area where contact was likely. But because any fire -- even an MG burst from infantry -- cause the tank to halt and discard the rest of its orders, I've evolved a more subtle mix of commands. I prefer SLOW with some pauses (no less than 15 sec) and very short segments, with area fire on different spots at each one. Then HUNT at the very end segment to be able to acquire any unexpected targets. If the enemy ahead is more dangerous and unknown, then I might use all HUNT but with lots of short segments and pauses to increase the chance of being able to fire from a stationary position, spot targets, etc. And lately I've discovered the virtues of the FAST command. I used to think it was suicidal to ever use it with tanks in contact, but actually when used in short dashes, mixed in with pauses to spot/shoot and a HUNT here and there, it can be the most effective of all. I find my tankers more often can surprise the enemy and use the shock effect of armor better with the well-timed FAST dash than with the slow, predictable creep forward. In WEGO, especially, a slow creep can let the opponent predict the time and direction of your advance, then maneuver to counter it and set up an ambush. How about you? What's been your experience with the best armor commands (other than to whine about the lack of CM x 1 HUNT and MOVE TO CONTACT) ?

I beg to differ: The advantage the Germans had in Market Garden was mainly at the operational and strategic level. The Germans won because of the way their senior commanders were able to improvise and rapidly deploy the necessary forces on the fly. And the Germans had lots of tanks and heavy weapons to deploy against lightly-equipped airborne troops. But... Those who love to play as Germans need to brace yourselves for a radically different type of army than you have been used to playing with in Normandy. The summer battles in France left the German units shattered, most of the good veterans and leaders dead. The majority of the German units in Market Garden were thrown-together formations of hastily equipped and scarcely trained green recruits, Luftwaffe "ear" and "stomach" battalions of invalids and old men, aircraft signallers, Feldgendarmerie MPs, you name it. The exception to this are the 9th SS Pz (Hohenstaufen) and 10th SS Pz (Frundsberg) divisions. So, if you want to play historically at a tactical level along Hell's Highway, for example, you'd need to set up a lot of equipment irregularities and "soft" factors to represent this in CMBN. And these hopeless troops will be facing the battle-hardened best-of-the best: 101st and 82nd Airborne, and the British 1st Paras. However, I'd give even green and poorly led German units a very high motivation level because in OMG they knew they were fighting on the doorstep of the Reich.

Yes, the definitely did. I don't have time to cite units and dates, but if you read Ken Tout's books about his experiences as a Brit tanker in Normandy, they sometimes operated directly with US infantry along the W edge of the British sector and the E edge of the American sector. More often, though, it might be a situation where an adjacent American and a Brit battalion were coordinating their simultaneous attacks and attending each other's "O Group" to make sure they knew what each other were doing so they wouldn't accidentally shoot at each other or get in each other's way. And of course when we get to Operation Market Garden, you'll have all the British armor operating closely with the US 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions.

Thanks for the great reactions to Hedgerow Hell Comics. If/when we see some more great dramas unfold, I'll make another installment...

My favorite panel is the closeup of Clark cowering.

A true story, from a few days ago during my HTH battle -- still in progress -- with sburke. Enjoy!

It depends on what type of recon you need. If it's just a pair of eyes and ears to watch a flank or creep up to locate the enemy unseen and avoid contact, then a scout team can do that just fine. Even broken troops can do that (although not as well). But if you're sending a patrol out where contact is likely, or you want a more aggressive recon to, say, find and destroy AT tems ahead of your advancing tanks, then the 3-4 man team "armed to the teeth" is of course the better choice.

Yes, I also vote for "no base." We spend way more time looking at the outsides of buildings while we play. Having the outsides more realistic-looking is important, and having no base also lets you put creeping vines and weeds, etc., on walls without having them look weird.

Also, if you skew the alignment of your map to a NSEW axis, you'll get the ability to have some straight roads that would be fine for a standalone, one-off historical battle map or a fictional battle map. But... Beware! If you skew the alignment, you also lose the ability to line up your map precisely on Google Earth and use it as one section of a larger area -- say for a 4 km x 4 km master map, a campaign, or to fit it into a grid scheme so you can easily use the GE Path tool to draw your grid automatically, and then use the new HTML automatic mapping tool to draw your battle maps. True, you could make your skewed map first, and then try to match all your neighboring maps to that same skewed alignment, and then manually draw a grid over all that...but you would have to try and match that alignment by hand. It's much easier to set your grid to the coordinates of a known point in real space (like the corner of a latitude-longitude box), and use that as the starting point for your mapping grid. Bottom line -- Think carefuly first about what's more important to you and the gameplay on your map: dead-straight roads that look pretty but may seriously distort the proportions of your battlefield, or accurate proportions and scale but unrealistically zig-zaggy roads. Personally, I take the zig-zags and just live with them. Country roads are rarely straight anyway. But if your historical battle featured a railroad or a major highway and it was important that units were able to shoot along its length, for example, then it's a tougher call.