You know what bothers me a bit?

[JasonC]

If sburke wants to post about me he can get his own damn thread and stop hijacking this one. Or he can get a shrink. Or a bottle of pills or something. As long as he goes away, we can assure him we will not care.

[JasonC]

Read BGs list, and notice his use of the pronoun "you", as in "you get" and you need good tactics". Who is meant in each case? Which side does he imagine is the player side in each scenario? Why do you suppose that is?

Yes I did enjoy the tank riders scenario, and posted about my take on it, in one of the first experiences threads. I won't give you any odds at all which side I played, in a scenario set in Bagration with that title. Why do you suppose that is? PS Can we use the answers to this little exercise to decipher which "we" was meant in posts above?

[pocketrocket]

Yep, that's so. I for one don't have a problem with that. But that mythical majority who want a balanced, competitive game will willingly throw all that history out the window in order to get one. That, as I have said before, does not bother me as BFC has provided the means for them as well as me to have exactly what we each are looking for. It does bother me a little that some of the posters in this thread have taken the position that theirs are the only wishes that BFC should pay any attention to. Fortunately for all of us, BFC seems inclined to do what it has always done, which is to make its own way through the discord. Long may it wave!

Michael

Its those who want historical battles that are clearly being the most Nazi about it.

[LukeFF]

BG - "I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations" And I can go get a stack of Signal Magazine copies from the library and read all the German propaganda I can stomach. But where in God's name is Operation Bagration? Left on the cutting room floor, apparently.

Having a bad day?

[LukeFF]

Read BGs list, and notice his use of the pronoun "you", as in "you get" and you need good tactics". Who is meant in each case? Which side does he imagine is the player side in each scenario? Why do you suppose that is?

Does it really kill you that people would dare play those scenarios from the German side?

[pocketrocket]

Hmm according to this thread, this comment on a scenario shipped with CMRT should not be possible:

but having said that, this mission still kicks my ass. Three ATGs, two StuGs, two 'shrecks, and assorted Panzerfaust 30s doesn't seem like enough to take out what seems to be upwards of 40-50 T-34/85s moving at you in concentrated, coordinated waves. On my best try (the first one, oddly) I managed to take out 24 of them before they overran my defenses.

I'll give it another try, but I get the feeling this is one of those missions that may only be winnable by exploiting a quirk in the AI strategy after memorizing it from several repeated battles. Still, losing in this game can often be nearly as fun as winning, in my opinion.

As an aside, anyone who loves the gratification that comes from sneaking a Panzerfaust unit within striking distance of a tank and then knocking it out will absolutely adore this mission, because towards the end, that's all it is: perpetual 'faust ambushing.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I'm not talking about human waves or stuff like that, and I think most of you know that.

I'm talking about the obvious numerical superiority that the russians had.

If there was a near 10 to 1 ratio of troops on most fronts, why are most of the battles on a near 1 to 1 ratio of what it was in CMBN?

Let's take an armour example just for fun:

Total number of T-34's produced (all variants) during the war was around 84.000 units.

Total number of PzIII, PzIV, Panther, Tiger and Tiger 2 produced during the war was around 21.000 units combined.

Yes, I know that more T-34's were knocked out than panthers, tigers and whatnot, but still it points to a severe numerical advantage.

And let's not go into infantry numbers...

The point I'm trying to make here is that the russians severely outnumbered the germans in most situations and yet that doesn't shine through in most scenarios I've played so far.

Actually the overall Russian ssuperiority on the Russian front was not that great, I don't have the book infront of me right now but on the Russian Front as a wholer the odds were somethng like 2.5:1 in favour f the Red Army.

The reason the Red Army was able t get those 10:1 odds was due to their use of a range of deception methods described as Maskirovka. Bagration is probably the most spectacular example. Due to operations such as the Spring 1944 invasion attempt of Romania Hitler and the General Staff were tricked into the belief that the ed Army Summer offensive would be there too. Which is why Army Grup Centre was virtually stripped of Panzer Divisions which wereassed in Army Group South to defend Romania and the oil fields/ When Bagration hit and those ponzer divisions rushed north the Red Army ollowed up with a decisive left hook.In short it was Operation Bagration that ensured Germany would lose the war - any faint hope of a draw was now gone.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am also wondering what game they are playing. I have only played a few battles so far, But if I had to say which side has the advantage. The battles I have played have all favored the Russians.

I also wonder why so much hatred for the Panthers, they sure have been no uber tank against me or for me. I have seen 5 or 6 now go up in flames to T34/85s at about 1000 meters. So when some think it is so one sided. Yes maybe on a test map, but in the game, where the side that gets the jump and sighting first and able to put rounds on target, it seems that takes away the other advantages.

Get them T 34's to 600 meters or less and then the fun really starts. Hail the Russian Army.

Now I agree with the fact it would be nice to have some well designed scenarios where you have stugs and Pz iv's instead of Panthers all the time, because as pointed out, really this was what most battles might have had and they would reflect the challenges better as to what many soldiers really faced in the time frame. But it appears some just want to complain for the sake of it, like it really matters.

The T34-85 was made to kill Tigers and Panthers. And there are quite a few scenarions where the Germans do only have Mark IVs and Stugs. The usual organisation of a Panzer Regiment, as most of us probably know was One Panther battalion and one Panzer IV battalion. A fwew favoured divisions also got some Tigers but most of these were deployed in seperate battalions.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

BG - "I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations" And I can go get a stack of Signal Magazine copies from the library and read all the German propaganda I can stomach. But where in God's name is Operation Bagration? Left on the cutting room floor, apparently.

In case everyone just forgot, the thread started with someone noticing a mismatch between a scenario briefing he received that did describe a very typical tactical situation in the actual historical battle, in which Russians with mech forces were in pursuit of a flying German enemy --- and what he got. And he didn't get that, because it is not there, not because it didn't happen but because someone in love with black suits preferred 6 Panthers playing "clay pigeon hunt".

It would be one thing if this were a reflection of great variety. It isn't. The variety is conspicuously lacking. Every fight pretends the Germans are gloriously winning the war in Russia with their superior tanks, against occasionally oh so daunting odds of --- 3 to 2.

As for disposing of the straw men, I already explained what could make that situation reasonably historical, and still challenging for either side. You can go make all your panzer fantasy fanboy scenarios *too*, if you like. As long as we can *also*, *occasionally* simulate what *actually happened* in 1944 on the eastern front. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

Why is this so all fired hard to grok? Give us Bagration, and you can keep your additional clay pigeon hunts, and we won't play them but we also won't care. When all we get is your silly propagandistic fantasies, even in scenarios *billed as* and *briefed as* more like what actually happened, we are not amused. It is not clever, it just makes us first want to vomit that you think it appropriate, and second not want to have anything to do with you, henceforth.

For mos of July and August what was actually happening was that Model was desperately fighting to try and close that massive hole where \Army Group Centre used to be. Pleny of intersting scenarios in that

[BletchleyGeek]

Read BGs list, and notice his use of the pronoun "you", as in "you get" and you need good tactics". Who is meant in each case? Which side does he imagine is the player side in each scenario? Why do you suppose that is?

You as in the second person plural: those who play those scenarios as the Germans (since as the Soviets, you don't get to command much German armor at all). But you should first go through the History Homework, before continuing into English Grammar.

For mos of July and August what was actually happening was that Model was desperately fighting to try and close that massive hole where \Army Group Centre used to be. Pleny of intersting scenarios in that

NOOOOOOOO, that's a filthy Nazi propaganda lie!

The German Army was just meekly accepting their fate, holding fast in their many Alamovskys and either walking into Soviet lines with their arms raised or devolving into a brainless mob running for the Vistula. There's nothing else other than that, because The Big Man in the CM Community Back in The Early 2000's says so, and PITY THE FOOLS who dare to disagree with his word.

Now seriously, those attempts are interesting in itself, and they're useful to illustrate quite well how had, by that time, the Red Army "learnt" how to handle the "German operational art of war".

[JasonC]

And the Signal mag propaganda motive, never far below the surface, shows itself above the waves, gents. Clear as day.

As easy as ringing a bell, really.

[Baneman]

And the Signal mag propaganda motive, never far below the surface, shows itself above the waves, gents. Clear as day.

As easy as ringing a bell, really.

You know, some of us are wargamers. We play wargames for fun and for the intellectual challenge - like chess, only with lots more variables.

Historical accuracy is simply a tool we can use to raise or lower the challenge. And sometimes we can just "not bother" with it too, for pure nonsense fun.

I think you're seeing in most of these posts what you want ( or expect ) to see and are really reading way more between the lines than is really there.

[womble]

I think you're seeing in most of these posts what you want ( or expect ) to see and are really reading way more between the lines than is really there.

Maybe it's projection and Jason's feeling guilty about his love affair with the long 75...

[niall78]

Maybe it's projection and Jason's feeling guilty about his love affair with the long 75...

A bad case of cannon envy maybe?

[JasonC]

Baneman - I am definitely a wargamer. I play actual hex and counter wargames, with a board and everything. I even redesign old ones to bring them up to date, run clubs on the subject, and the like. I got a copy of Tactics II when I was 7, and attended my first Origins convention when I was 10. I think I know why wargamers play wargames and what is fun about them.

And I like playing the Russians in CM. Not exclusively, but the Russian approach to war in WW II is intellectually interesting to me. I am drawn to the unfashionable forces with bad press and a reputation for stupidity and attritionist pigheadedness, who inconveniently seem to win all the actual wars, while the prancing dazzling maneuver-ee prima donnas with their own press office seem to flash like a firework and --- lose. Catastrophically. Over and over. It is a military art thing, a where you learn your lessons thing. No politics in it really, just a contrarian streak in military theory and what matters in warfare.

So a game about the Bagration period on the eastern front is just my cup of tea. Almost my first comment on Red Thunder was that the T-34/85 is a beast. I like it, the game and that tank in particular. I know gobs about the operation and bought 7 more books on the subject when RT was just about to come out. And read them. I researched the terrain, and air war, logistics, fire plans, where all the major units were, the battle narrative, wargamed the operation. Yeah. So, some of the straw men and ad hominems here could not miss by more if they tried.

Parallel pursuit was one of the main tactical ideas of the whole operation. It was a key part of Russian doctrine and it mattered to the campaign quite a bit. Getting a briefing saying you will be conducting such a pursuit fits perfectly with an entirely reasonable expectation of what the release scenarios will be about, and I completely "get" what Oddball was expecting and why he was expecting it.

I also get why he didn't receive what he was expecting. And when in the course of that discussion, beyond the usual boilerplate of let a thousand flowers bloom and roll your own and hey it is one scenario and briefings often mislead --- all true enough in their limited and lame way, without quite getting Oddball's actual entirely cogent point --- beyond all that, I smell the panzer fetish, and get some honest pleas of the same (fair enough and thanks for that), and so I push ever so little and --- lo. There it is. A pure propaganda motive claiming that the Germans won the war in the east with their clever maneuverism and brilliant art of war and their superior technology --- in the face of the exact historical case of the greatest drubbing that transparent nonsense ever received.

Like ringing a bell. Just hit 'em hard enough, and they will sing out and tell you exactly what they are.

[ASL Veteran]

Maybe it's projection and Jason's feeling guilty about his love affair with the long 75...

I do find it a little bit ironic that the same person who was arguing passionately that the German army of 1944 was the best in the world bar none is now placing the label of German Army Worshipper upon those who make scenarios for the release game. This is especially interesting since he hasn't really provided any actual evidence backing his wild assertion regarding the content of the shipped scenarios.

[sfhand]

Well Oddball remains sensible. As for the suggestion to roll my own and share, how about yes on one and no on two? You all are such swell people, I would love working to make scenarios for you - oh right, no, you aren't.

Well, my notion that you were due any respect at all just flew out the window...

[TheVulture]

beyond all that, I smell the panzer fetish, and get some honest pleas of the same (fair enough and thanks for that), and so I push ever so little and --- lo. There it is. A pure propaganda motive claiming that the Germans won the war in the east with their clever maneuverism and brilliant art of war and their superior technology --- in the face of the exact historical case of the greatest drubbing that transparent nonsense ever received.

Honest question: where did you see such a claim in this thread? I've not seen anything of the sort personally.

[Lethaface]

Baneman - I am definitely a wargamer. I play actual hex and counter wargames, with a board and everything. I even redesign old ones to bring them up to date, run clubs on the subject, and the like. I got a copy of Tactics II when I was 7, and attended my first Origins convention when I was 10. I think I know why wargamers play wargames and what is fun about them.

I know for a fact that you don't know what I think is fun about CMRT. I don't know if I am a typical wargamer, but I don't really care. You represent just yourself, so stop the lame we'ing like you are indeed of inbred royal origin

And I like playing the Russians in CM. Not exclusively, but the Russian approach to war in WW II is intellectually interesting to me. I am drawn to the unfashionable forces with bad press and a reputation for stupidity and attritionist pigheadedness, who inconveniently seem to win all the actual wars, while the prancing dazzling maneuver-ee prima donnas with their own press office seem to flash like a firework and --- lose. Catastrophically. Over and over. It is a military art thing, a where you learn your lessons thing. No politics in it really, just a contrarian streak in military theory and what matters in warfare.

Nothing wrong with your likings and interests. But they are yours. Even if others share your interests and liking, it is not common form to speak out your opinion using we'.

So a game about the Bagration period on the eastern front is just my cup of tea. Almost my first comment on Red Thunder was that the T-34/85 is a beast. I like it, the game and that tank in particular. I know gobs about the operation and bought 7 more books on the subject when RT was just about to come out. And read them. I researched the terrain, and air war, logistics, fire plans, where all the major units were, the battle narrative, wargamed the operation. Yeah. So, some of the straw men and ad hominems here could not miss by more if they tried.

Congratulations! I watched some Russian documentary on History Channel I recorded previously but got bored with it and fell asleep while watching. Still to BF.C my $55,- was just as good as yours.

Parallel pursuit was one of the main tactical ideas of the whole operation. It was a key part of Russian doctrine and it mattered to the campaign quite a bit. Getting a briefing saying you will be conducting such a pursuit fits perfectly with an entirely reasonable expectation of what the release scenarios will be about, and I completely "get" what Oddball was expecting and why he was expecting it.

Where in the briefing it is said you will face a historical accurate representation of such a pursuit?

The designer probably tried to lure 'the wargamer' into believing he is playing such a pursuit and them gobsmack the sh1t out of the stupid wargamer forgetting he is playing the game, not historical reality. Also I bet the designer hates wargamers and reads propaganda before going to bed.

I also get why he didn't receive what he was expecting. And when in the course of that discussion, beyond the usual boilerplate of let a thousand flowers bloom and roll your own and hey it is one scenario and briefings often mislead --- all true enough in their limited and lame way, without quite getting Oddball's actual entirely cogent point --- beyond all that, I smell the panzer fetish, and get some honest pleas of the same (fair enough and thanks for that), and so I push ever so little and --- lo. There it is. A pure propaganda motive claiming that the Germans won the war in the east with their clever maneuverism and brilliant art of war and their superior technology --- in the face of the exact historical case of the greatest drubbing that transparent nonsense ever received.

Like ringing a bell. Just hit 'em hard enough, and they will sing out and tell you exactly what they are.

Now who needs a shrink here? Reading your posts I'm under the impression you actually do HEAR that bell ringing for real.

Now would you excuse me, got some other strawhominem work to do .

[JasonC]

The Vulture - fair question. Reread BGs #88 and #110.

[Lethaface]

The Vulture - fair question. Reread BGs #88 and #110.

Heh, it seems that it is you that should reread #88 and #110.

[Lethaface]

Now to be honest and frank, JasonC, your uncalled for personal attack on the man (scenario designer) was the whole reason we felt it was necessary to react. The bell of the person that knows the most in the world rung all to clearly and the masses reacted to it.

I mean it when I say that I hope you find more scenario's to your liking (even if I would dislike them). Also, your knowledge of the subject is not disputed and considered valuable to many people on the forum over the years. But, please stop attacking people that make scenario's you don't like.

Now put down that 8th Bagration book and read a book about form, tone and temper in writing. Even though in some ways I enjoy these type of threads, I enjoy productive ones even more!

[Peregrine]

and bought 7 more books on the subject when RT was just about to come out.

Could you list the ones that are most useful for scenario design please. I am considering revisiting this now that we have triggers.

[sburke]

Honest question: where did you see such a claim in this thread? I've not seen anything of the sort personally.

Apparently Vulture this:

And even during the "Deluge" that was Bagration for Army Group Center, there were a few major German counterattacks involving several divisions operating in concert. Obviously, they didn't achieve much (or, arguably, anything) of lasting operational or strategic significance, but they're there, mostly forgotten and very poorly documented. I've got one scenario in the works (and a few other planned) covering one of such operations (PM me if interested in playtesting it). On the other hand, I've also found quite a few examples of successful local counterattacks performed by elements of the divisions destroyed during Bagration (involving mostly infantry and assault guns, of course). But the historical record of those is fragmentary and obscure. Not many of the participants ever came back to have the opportunity to tell the tale, and the Soviet histories don't devote a lot of detail to very local actions where the Red Army wasn't successful and didn't affect operational outcomes.

Playing also a bit of John Tiller's Minsk'44 "breakthrough scenarios" it becomes obvious that there are plenty of opportunities for Soviet forward elements to find themselves confronting a locally superior or equal force. In any pursuit battle, where the pursuer is limited to not many roads, the defender has the opportunity to use interior lines and concentrate its strength against, relatively speaking, unsupported and isolated forward elements.

equals this

beyond all that, I smell the panzer fetish, and get some honest pleas of the same (fair enough and thanks for that), and so I push ever so little and --- lo. There it is. A pure propaganda motive claiming that the Germans won the war in the east with their clever maneuverism and brilliant art of war and their superior technology --- in the face of the exact historical case of the greatest drubbing that transparent nonsense ever received.

I am not sure what JasonC smells, but I am pretty certain it is not "the panzer fetish". As for the "pushed ever so little" - I don't think anyone would ever accuse JasonC of being too reticent in his comments. A Rotweiler with rabies and hemorrhoids has a better sense of a measured response.

There is an argument to be made that the more interesting battles for players would be when the point elements of the Russian advance run into German units desperately trying to stabilize the rapidly deteriorating situation. Someone could even make the argument that this type of engagement is not outside the realm of Bagration at all. But we don't have to do that. We can let JasonC do that, interestingly enough in a previous reply to BG.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1513320&postcount=46

As for the notion that the Germans would only have alarm units to defend such a position, of many less important ones throughout the campaign that would be true. But historically, by the time the Russians were pushing to Borisov, the German 5th Panzer division had arrived. This position was held not by a few rear area troops and security detachments, but by a kampgruppe formed around the armored recon battalion of that division, backed up by 29 Tiger Is. They first engaged east of the position your map depicts, and the recce guys had to screen a wider area to the north, to be sure. But the Germans didn't fight the whole campaign on a shoestring. Army Group Center may have been outnumbered, but it was a whole army group, and it was rapidly reinforced from the south.

I added the bold there just in case anyone per chance missed it. So who is erecting strawmen now Jason? Just WTF is your position and why do you have to create such a s**t storm when you yourself don't even believe it?

In Red Thunder there are scenarios covering a lot of different situations. Some have armor, many don't, some have Panthers (2 that I know of - one of which is the specific engagement JasonC highlighted) and most don't. Some represent fixed assaults, some meeting engagements and some probes. There is a bit of everything. Which is a long winded way of saying JasonC has erected a strawman and is strenuously defending a position that really doesn't have any factual stance. ASL Vet has asked repeatedly for him to provide some kind of detail. Frankly the designers are confused as to what game he is playing as it doesn't reflect the experience of the testers in preparing for the release. Hell it doesn't even match what he was saying before it was released.

So if anyone is not getting this yet, JasonC isn't arguing a point he believes in. He is just arguing a point that enables him to play the martyr uber grog.

Back to the OP

Oddball this thread may or may not have ended up being helpful. I suspect not and I am genuinely sorry for that. Thing is CM is a tactical game. Representing the big picture at this level frankly isn't easy nor is it necessarily what most gamers want. The scenarios are not all historical. Of the ones that are a couple represent German attempts to counter Russian advances which is why you may find the numbers more equal than you expect. Studienka, Gog and Magog, The Passage and Baranovichi come to mind. What would probably be really interesting , but unfortunately I can not provide, is to see the original scenario and it's development with Beta feedback. Benpark adapted it a lot.

[Apocal]

Probably a better showcase for unequal fights would be a a campaign, where the player could face a more realistic approximation of the actual decision made in the real war. Regarding the OP specifically an advancing Soviet player would be tasked with exploiting as fast as possible with his armor, but encounters an obstacle along with some resistance... is it a sham putting on the bold face of a determined defense? Or is it a real defense, intelligently laid-out and adequately supported? Can I push up armor aggressively and sweep the defenders off their feet in a few minutes' time? Or do I have to take my time dismantling it, bit by bit? Or have I encountered a strong front that I can't punch through without prohibitive losses, so I should back off? For a German player (I actually haven't played the German campaign yet), the questions could be something like: can I hold here with the forces I have? Can I at least delay or disrupt them? When should I extract to ensure my forces in contact aren't cut off and destroyed? Is there a possibility for counterattack? At what cost?

I think that could be pretty entertaining the context of a campaign, but I can't think of any way to make scenario feel right in the case of weak (or mostly non-existent) German resistance or running into an out-stretched fist of a tactical situation that has "back off" as a correct solution. For a "typical" German situation, I can see how a scenario/campaign designer could maybe make that interesting, but I've gotten the impression (since CMSF really) that many players dislike force destruction/preservation and exit objectives compared to terrain objectives.