BletchleyGeek

Who's arguing? You this whole time about nothing.
The best part of it is that nominally I don't even disagree with you, I'm just trying to add a bit of context here to the claim that Dreadnought was "revolutionary". It was, but as anyone can see doing a simple side by side match up of stats it was more than a little overrated.  The myth that HMS Dreadnought sparked an arms race is squashed by the fact that the Germans had already gone through with the Fleet Acts in 1898 years before the ship was launched embarking on the nation's biggest naval armaments program ever. The Germans didn't even know HMS Dreadnought existed when they finished designing the Nassau class of dreadnoughts. All the British did, literally, was beat them to the christening ceremony. 
Sorry about the whole World of Warships goalpost move but hey, you continued down that path. 
That you explain none of these quantities but constantly expect me to quantify every sentence of my own reasoning is exasperating.
U mad bro isn't really an answer man. Pretty sure that even if you are arguing it's in bad faith anyway so I wouldn't make the mistake of engaging in one with you. It turns out even discussing things with you isn't feasible. 
You're very odd. 

Nice example of folk history. But why not to post this on forum.axishistory.com? You would find qualified answers there. Why to post this doubtful statements on wargame forum?

You know this has generally been a pretty good community over the years, albeit one with a fair bit of Clean Wehrmacht apologia.
Sure, I can see the value Sicherungs units add, and while I disagree, I can see why some may want to see Feldgendarmerie. That inclusion has never extended to entertaining the idea that they were "just like" Commonwealth Provost Wing troops or American MPs. They weren't, and anyone who can open a book can see why.
I do not have a single kind word to say about the Waffen SS historically, but this is a wargame and they were unmistakably a major combat force. I can play Battle For Normandy and see why they were such ferocious opponents in the fight for the Carpiquet Airfield. Their massacre of Canadian prisoners there and elsewhere, to say nothing of the countless crimes of the Waffen SS as a whole are outside the scope of the game, and reasonably outside of discussion.

The idea of the Dirlewanger Brigade as "soldiers like any other" is absolutely sickening and reprehensible. There may not have been humanitarians on the Eastern Front, but one side waged an unprovoked genocidal war of extermination - and the other did not.

I don't want to see this thread locked, but I also don't want to read excuses for the war the Germans waged, only to see how BF is choosing to model it. To their credit, they have done a fantastic job balancing sensitivity with historicity and I expect they will do the same here. They are not in the business of morally exculpating mass murderers, just getting the colour of their tanks right, and they do it well.

+1.  This was my first scenario created for CMSF1.  I got it done with the help, adult supervision and encouragement of @sburke and @Combatintman.   I should probably make a redux version some day on the map used for Coup.  Coincidentally the consulates in both cities have almost identical layouts since they were built by the same general contractor.    
Consulate in Consulate Evacuation.

Front gate to the US Consulate in Coup d'etat.

 
 

Bingo, found a copy, wow never seen it before what a document! 
Thanks for the nudge in the right direction. 

As I already said in the thread about on-map bug guns, the late warfare phase was some different from the previous phases. Soviet troops encounterd with strong enemy defense, which relied on perfect ordered system of trenches, different bunkers, minefields, heavy defended water obstacles and the cities with old strong fortifications and very tough stone buildings. Sieges, assault actions, bloody fights in attempts to breakthrough rugged defense - this a feature of battles in late 1944 - 1945.  In that places, when neither tanks nor infantry could handle and even high-power guns  on direct fire culdn't help, then on the scene of the theater of war they appeared - ShISBR troopers , elite "Stalin's panzer infantry". ShISBR is from "Shturmovaya Inzhenerno-Sapiornaya BRigada" - Assault Engineer-sapper brigade. Under those rush, bravery and non-standart actions didn't remain standing no one strongest German fortress. It is very starnge that such interest unit wasn't reflected by BFC in CMBB, and I think, in CMRT they also weren't in the plans.
I hope, theese guys in bodyarmor will appear if not in this module, then in some pack. Here I will tell in short about these troops, their TO&E the kind of application in operations and examples of their actions. For now, just several photos
   

 

The Italians had lots of excellent designs for many weapon systems. The issue was they proved utterly unable to produce enough of them to matter frequently. The Italians may have had the best AAA gun of the war for instance, the Cannone da 90/53...but built less than 600 of them. Just about all of the fighters built by Macchi were not only competitive with Allied designs, but lethal to them in the hands of a good pilot. How many were built though? Between all the types of fighter Macchi built they just couldn't build enough of anything. 
One of the issues facing Italian war production was that the more the Italians tried to ramp up production, the more they came into competition over resources with Germany. At first the Germans tried to just pass engines and resources to the Italians but as the war's prospects turned against the Axis Germany began to turn partnership into exploitation. 
The lack of output meant that Italian forces were frequently unable to execute the mostly sound combined-arms theories their forces were constructed around. This imbalance led to lack of flexibility, the lack of flexibility led to lack of realistic force projection, lack of realistic force projection led to defeat on the battlefield which further constrained Italy's options to better balance its forces. Strategic failures caused tactical failures, then tactical failures backfired into the strategy causing its failure. 

I thought that the Italians actually had very good aircraft.  Eg  205 Veltro was highly respected by Allied and Axis pilots alike. Widely regarded as one of the best Italian aircraft of World War II, it proved to be extremely effective, destroying a large number of Allied bombers.
(Or was that only at the beginning and were later outclassed?)

Well Shock Force 2 - NATO features Germans. And BLU vs. RED is pretty much seal clubbing.

I think you'd be correct in your assumption. I find FB to be extremely difficult as the allies when facing the Volksgrenadier's with all their MP44's. They also get a nice selection of heavy armor in late 44. I would also include playing as the fallshchirmjager in Battle for Normandy in the hedgerows is a nice advantage unless it's against other airborne soldiers. But the main question is why do you want to play as overpowered? Where's the fun in that? Play as the Italians in Sicily! Play against the odds and come out in victory!

Just keep track of what is the pose of the squad members. Leaders and gunners tend to switch to the "one knee down" pose while idle rather than being prone. Any soldier not prone is more exposed to fragments, incoming fire, etc. They may also not be able to take advantage of the "microcover" associated with particular tile types.
The job of a leader first and foremost is to ensure an adequate level of situational awareness. Being prone is not conducive to that. 
Similar issues with the guy with the squad status weapon. These guys are more likely to experience "weapon pull" - since they have the big gun they are more likely to use it. So he squats to scan for targets. Being prone is not conducive to use that cool gun. 
On top of the above we have the target prioritisation for higher value targets: leaders and the dudes with the big gun. In your examples my guess is that what you see is about the posture of the pixel truppen.
RockinHarry, several years ago, demonstrated beyond doubt how swapping the default animations had a significant impact on casualty rates.
There's still a lot of game to enjoy @semmes, don't get too caught up on the little artifacts that follow from the approximations to the real thing that were deemed necessary to get this game out of the door.
Peace out and stay safe!

Just keep track of what is the pose of the squad members. Leaders and gunners tend to switch to the "one knee down" pose while idle rather than being prone. Any soldier not prone is more exposed to fragments, incoming fire, etc. They may also not be able to take advantage of the "microcover" associated with particular tile types.
The job of a leader first and foremost is to ensure an adequate level of situational awareness. Being prone is not conducive to that. 
Similar issues with the guy with the squad status weapon. These guys are more likely to experience "weapon pull" - since they have the big gun they are more likely to use it. So he squats to scan for targets. Being prone is not conducive to use that cool gun. 
On top of the above we have the target prioritisation for higher value targets: leaders and the dudes with the big gun. In your examples my guess is that what you see is about the posture of the pixel truppen.
RockinHarry, several years ago, demonstrated beyond doubt how swapping the default animations had a significant impact on casualty rates.
There's still a lot of game to enjoy @semmes, don't get too caught up on the little artifacts that follow from the approximations to the real thing that were deemed necessary to get this game out of the door.
Peace out and stay safe!

Just keep track of what is the pose of the squad members. Leaders and gunners tend to switch to the "one knee down" pose while idle rather than being prone. Any soldier not prone is more exposed to fragments, incoming fire, etc. They may also not be able to take advantage of the "microcover" associated with particular tile types.
The job of a leader first and foremost is to ensure an adequate level of situational awareness. Being prone is not conducive to that. 
Similar issues with the guy with the squad status weapon. These guys are more likely to experience "weapon pull" - since they have the big gun they are more likely to use it. So he squats to scan for targets. Being prone is not conducive to use that cool gun. 
On top of the above we have the target prioritisation for higher value targets: leaders and the dudes with the big gun. In your examples my guess is that what you see is about the posture of the pixel truppen.
RockinHarry, several years ago, demonstrated beyond doubt how swapping the default animations had a significant impact on casualty rates.
There's still a lot of game to enjoy @semmes, don't get too caught up on the little artifacts that follow from the approximations to the real thing that were deemed necessary to get this game out of the door.
Peace out and stay safe!

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.
 

So Romania did or did not have forces in the field at wars end? ...hence fought to the end.
I doubt there is a player here unaware of the general history of the ETO.

I had WW2 in my mind when I wrote the above. You are completely right re: contemporary mechanized infantry.

@BletchleyGeek and @Splinty, modify the rules anyway you want.  
I doubt though that a Company CO would send a valuable mortar crew on a scouting mission even if their tube was unusable. 
Bil

Hi @Bil Hardenberger,
I quite like this revision of the rules. The two waypoint limit seemed to me a bit arbitrary, given how micromanagement usually helps the TacAI to achieve better/happier outcomes.
I don't think it is invalid to use a dismounted mortar crew as regular infantry. Most countries train (and trained) their mortar crews as regular infantry, they have additional training that makes them special, but still should be capable of fighting if needs be. 
Drivers can be assumed to have basic training at least, but certainly sending them out by themselves, like some kind of 1980s action hero, is gamey and should be ruled out.
The rules are at a state that seems fit for trying - will try to covince my next PBEM opponent to give them a try.
 

I love this sort of stuff, so good to see you giving it a go. The real issue is what comprises you are happy to make to fit doctrine to the game and how important scenario balance is to you. I'll ignore the second point, and just throw out some thoughts on the first.
Reality on the ground is very hard to determine if not based on historical records, and even then it is likely the TOE is overstated in most case for this stage of the war, but some principles can be applied.
With regard to German outpost defense 
...the width of a defensive sector assigned to a unit is approximately twice the width of the sector the same unit attacks. Normal sectors are : Platoon, 220 - 550 yards, Company, 440 - 1100 yards Battalion 880 - 2200 yards ....advanced posn, the Germans organise the advanced position 5000 to 7000 yards in front of the MLR, within the range of their medium artillery. ....outpost posn's are normally established 2000 to 5000 yards in front of the MLR. When the fronts are stabilised the outpost position is the only position forward of the MLR .... outpost posn's are occupied from platoons to companies depending on mission, terrain, width of sector and number of troops available. ..... the main weapon, however, is the light machine gun which opens fire at ranges of about 1300 yards, while riflemen commence fire at about 850 yards ...positions normally are  selected at the edges of woods, villages, hedgerows or hills. A good field of fire is considered mandatory. Numerous dummy positions are constructed. Withdrawal of the outposts is conducted so as to not hinder fire from the main battle position. After the outposts are abandoned they are likely to be covered by carefully registered fire of heavy weapons in order to prevent occupation by the enemy.  That's what the book says, well one book anyways, but the reality on the ground could be almost anything I would imagine.
 
I did try to give a sense of this in my Shadow of the Hill series of scenarios, where a British infantry brigade advances over some 4k distance through the German defences, spread across 4 separate scenarios.
 
P

That looks about right actually. You start with a basic screening line, have a second, principle line consisting of outposts and a third line in firm positions behind geographic chokepoints. Supply and HQ elements occupy the back of the map pressed into service as last ditch infantry.
The only note here to me is that your outposts are concentrated on geographic "set pieces". If I was the Russian commander you can bet i'm planning on dropping an avalanche of 122mm and 76mm fire on local high ground, *especially* named hills. The villages with the railway station, hospital, and school overlooking the bridges would get the heaviest fire. Perhaps rockets if I have em. Don't get me wrong this is all good and that's just what I'd do. You might consider eliminating some of your positions entirely and just folding them up into other locations to strengthen those positions and decrease the geographic footprint of your defense. If the Russians are supporting this attack properly you should expect them to just smash some locations while mostly ignoring some others. They might set aside smaller field guns for suppressing or pinning fires against suspect locations. 
Once you get an idea of how AI deployment plans work you can do some seriously diabolical things with randomized AI deployments that can add way more replay value to your scenarios too. You should consider deployment plans that are non-doctrinal or sub-optimal as well to undermine your opponent's expectations a bit. 
 

Chief thing you should consider as you put yourself in the mind of the German commander thinking up his defense arrangement is "what can I do to minimize my own casualties" rather than "what can I do to stop the Russians from winning" if that makes sense. The favorite method, as well known, was the "denuded front" or outpost defense concept which wasn't universal or always desirable. Usually it enabled the Germans to compartmentalize their losses by ensuring most of the Russian's fire support fell on nothing, then hopefully outlying pickets consisting of snipers and machine guns might trick the Russians into deploying prematurely so that the Germans can most efficiently use their own limited fire support assets to inflict a disproportionate weight of casualties on the Russians while they're busy treating a sniper in a treeline like it's your whole force. 
That's the textbook success anyway. Savvy Red Army Officers knew better than to overthink every encounter they might have. Not every pinprick was worth committing an assault against and things could go wrong quickly for the Germans if the Russians had lots of dead ground to maneuver inside of. The Russians proved ridiculously good at infiltrating huge formations, entire Battalions even, in-between German positions and then just collapsing the defense from inside out by overwhelming enough "nodes" in the German defense that the other locations became irrelevant. Once a big enough hole is torn in the line the rest of the Russian's parent formation can just advance inside the gap and the rest of the German defenders are presented with the ugly choice of attempting to hold out being whittled away by starvation and partisans and the even worse choice of trying to withdraw while being enfiladed from multiple directions.
This is a major reason why the Germans had to use "conventional" trench-line tactics on the Leningrad front. Because the forests and swamps were so dense it was impossible for disconnected outposts to protect anything let alone themselves, so the Germans had to use a continuous line of trenches stretched through miles of forest. This is just to give you an idea of what you consider when you look at your map as the German commander. There's times doctrine is right, and times it's very, very wrong. 

This may belong in an already open thread, in which case my apologies for starting an unnecessary one, but I am pressed for time at the moment and can't spend a lot here yet. But I did want to bring friends and colleagues up to date.
On December 20th. I suffered a fall which fractured my upper right arm and had to spend the next three months in a nursing facility more or less incommunicado. I only arrived back home Monday and am scrambling to pick up where I left off. I had for instance 751 emails waiting for me which I have so far only managed to put a small dent in.
Anyway, expect to hear more from me in the future. For some inexplicable reason, I missed you guys.

Michael

The pictures by @Haiduk do not seem to be staged. What is interesting is that in the first the howitzer is firing in almost a flat trajectory, maybe from an elevated position? In the second one, given the elevation of the gun, it looks definitely like indirect fire.
I am with @DMS, I think that using such guns on the field was more of a spur of the moment tactical expedient (like the use of the self-propelled 155mm's in Aachen), than a standard operating procedure. Given the more static nature of the fighting in Berlin, I think it is reasonable to assume that Soviet battalions in the city had access to wired comms, enabling to call in support fire from the howitzers (and assuming as well that by "attached" it was meant "on call" for a battalion).

Agreed, but here we are talking about the inclusion of a howitzer on map or off map. Not about the atrocitiesvcommitted by different parties. I don't think anyone here applauds what happened to german woman in 1945.
 

No- that's the Alt-Moabit overpass by Lehter Station. I'm not sure exactly where the picture was from vantage-wise, but the bridge would seem to be to the right of that view. That scenario includes.