Civilians?

[LC-]

Since WWII brought so many civilians into the battlefield (Russia, China etc.) are there any plans to introduce civilians into future versions of CM? It would add a more realistic and tactical feeling to the game since sound contacts could either be civilian or military. Any thoughts?

[David Aitken]

To paraphrase someone's comment from the last time this subject was discussed, there's only one thing that happens to civilians on a battlefield: they get killed.

CM is a combat simulator – civilians are outwith its scope.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

tactical feeling? civilians is the last thing I would consider tactical. Even dogs have more of a tactical use, as Russain AT weapons that is.

[G0gmag0g]

I think civilians and other non-military paraphanalia (scuze spelling) eg cars, wagons, farm animals etc are out of CMs scope because of the extra computing power needed to do them.

Going off track a bit here, I would jut like to add my favorite civilian in war movie scene: the elderly woman calling out for a taxi in Arnhem from 'A Bridge too Far'.

Anyway, it certainly would add great tactical value and realism, but then how far do we want realism to go, do we really want to experience what the real soldier saw, exploding bodies, blood and gore (not Al) etc etc... you know what I mean.

[YECoyote]

I read that CM2 will include Partisans.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote:

I read that CM2 will include Partisans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The really interesting question is will we see partisans from both sides, communist and anti-communist..?

[Username]

In WWI 1 out of 20 fatalitys was a civilian. In WWII, it was 2 out of 3.

But not many of those were in the battlefields CM represents.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

To paraphrase someone's comment from the last time this subject was discussed, there's only one thing that happens to civilians on a battlefield: they get killed.

CM is a combat simulator – civilians are outwith its scope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true; they are often a source of information re: minefields, troop dispositions - even shortcuts through forests, etc.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Ouch, what a bloody horrible satistic.

[Wesreidau]

Just finished 'Company Commander' by. Mac(someone).

As he pointed out they often found where civilians were, fighting wasn't. And vice-versa.

If you want to model cellars full of civis and woods full of civis camping out till the fighting passes.. well.. what's the point?

PeterNZ

[Skipper]

> partisans from both sides, communist and

> anti-communist..?

That war was not for or against communism. Hence, the "sides" were not communist and anti-communist.

Now, in the context of eatsren front, there were (1) soviet partisans and (2) other anti-nazy partisans (Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Poland, etc, etc, etc).

Of the second category, there were normally separate factions aligned with USSR and with UK.

Anti-soviet partisans were virtually non-existant (ie, there were, but incomparably smaller numbers).

[Soddball]

The war in the Eastern Front was very much pro-communism or anti-communism - at least, that is the way it was portrayed to its people.

See if you can get hold of Beevor's "Stalingrad" if you want more information. I found it very useful.

[Skipper]

Somehow, I got a feeling that the author of the originating post was thinking about "hordes of unarmed civilians pressed into a military service" or some such. Argh... Here we go again...

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]

[Tero]

>That war was not for or against communism.

>Hence, the "sides" were not communist and

>anti-communist.

>

>Now, in the context of eatsren front, there

>were (1) soviet partisans and (2) other

>anti-nazy partisans (Yugoslavia, Slovakia,

>Poland, etc, etc, etc).

What about the Ukrainian nationalist partisans who fought both the Germans and the Soviets ? And the Polish Home Army which was run from London and crushed while the Soviets stood by across the river ?

>Of the second category, there were normally

>separate factions aligned with USSR and with

>UK.

>

>Anti-soviet partisans were virtually

>non-existant (ie, there were, but

>incomparably smaller numbers).

Really ? Can you quote the source which gives the numbers ?

[Skipper]

> What about the Ukrainian nationalist

> partisans who fought both the Germans and

> the Soviets ?

WEST ukranians, "banderovtsy". That's about the only case worth mentioning.

> And the Polish Home Army which was run

> from London and crushed while the Soviets

> stood by across the river?

To quote myself:

>>Of the second category, there were

>>normally separate factions aligned with

>>USSR and with UK.

There were similar factions in Yugoslavia and Slovakia.

In all three cases, UK-aligned anti-nazy partisans attempted to incite an uprising just slightly before liberation by the Red Army, hoping to prevent occupation of their country by soviet troops. Quite naturally, Soviet leadership was not extremely enthusiastic to help such uprisings, and preferred to support their own friends instead.

For all I know, Armiya Krajowa did not fight soviet troops.

> Really ? Can you quote the source which

> gives the numbers ?

Except the "banderovtsy", I've never seen any notion of partisan problems in soviet memoirs.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael Dorosh wrote:

That's not true; they are often a source of information re: minefields, troop dispositions - even shortcuts through forests, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which remains outwith the scope of the game. At the beginning of a battle, all your reconnaissance and intelligence work has been completed. You have a comprehensive map of the terrain. If a scenario designer wishes to impart knowledge gained from sources such as civilians, he can put this into the briefing, eg. "French resistance has informed us that the village is held by around a company of German motorised troops, and the woods to the northeast have been mined".

[Gen-x87]

That war was not for or against communism. Hence, the "sides" were not communist and anti-communist."

Huh? This is common ideology knowledge that the Nazis and Communists were on opposite ends of the spectrum. This was all about Nazism trying to eliminate the Communists. When the war started. People in Berlin were not surprised that it happened. They knew it had to.

As for the partisans I could really care less since I am sure they will be about worthless on the battlefield that CM2 is going to simulate.

Gen

[Skipper]

> This is common ideology knowledge

Common knowledge usually means that nobody knows nothing.

> that the Nazis and Communists were on

> opposite ends of the spectrum.

My turn to say "Huh?". NSDAP was a national SOCIALIST party. VKP( was a SOCIALIST party, as well. If you want an opposite end of the spectrum to VKP, that was british conservatives, perhaps.

> This was all about Nazism trying to

> eliminate the Communists.

No. That was all about Drang nach Osten (sp?), the concept pre-dating Hitler's birth. Anti-communistic rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. It was reiterated many times after the war, for obvious reasons.

To illustrate this point, I would make a suggestion. Find yourself a british (or US) veteran and tell him that he and his buddies were fighting for the communist cause.

> As for the partisans I could really care

> less since I am sure they will be about

> worthless on the battlefield that CM2 is

> going to simulate.

Hmm... we'll see. The way value points system works, nothing is ever worthless. Besides, soviet partisans were often combined into regiment-sized formations that possessed firepower and combat experience exceeding that of a regular infantry unit.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

Anti-soviet partisans were virtually non-existant (ie, there were, but incomparably smaller numbers).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In his memoirs Marshal Rokossovsky stated that he visited some formations of his front in an armoured train, and returned in a light aircraft to avoid the partisans of the Ukrainian Liberation Movement. And General Vatutin was killed in an ambush in March 1944. The Kaminski Brigade alone numbered around 9,000 men. Partisan activity also continued into the Cold War period.

[Skipper]

As I already mentioned, West Ukraine was the only place where KA had to deal with guerillas on a meaningful scale.

> The Kaminski Brigade alone numbered around

> 9,000 men.

And iirc, the total numbers of "banderovtsy" was estimated at 30,000 fighters or so.

Compare that to several hundred thousand soviet partisans.

[Triumvir]

Hmm... Skipper, I think you may be unconsciously letting some things slide. For one, while NSDAP was in name a Socialist party, it certainly did not act like one. National Socialism is a nice name that grabs both ends of the political spectrum, but in fact was more like feudalism than any kind of constitutional politics.

NSDAP and CPSU were most certainly opposed in practice and creed, if not in name.

As for fighting for the communist cause, as the old proverb goes; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For now.

And I agree with you on the partisans; value point system ensures that they won't be useless. Even if they end up like the WWI Imperial Army, with a rifle for every two men (it was WWI where there weren't enough arms; CPSU learnt from that hard experience to make enough for WWII) they will be useful as ammo-depletors, if nothing else.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:

And iirc, the total numbers of "banderovtsy" was estimated at 30,000 fighters or so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Estimated by whom..? I'm no expert on partisan activity, but I would certainly be cautious about accepting Soviet figures, and I wouldn't accept their descriptions of anti-Soviet partisans as simple bandits, either.

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G0gmag0g:

I think civilians and other non-military paraphanalia (scuze spelling) eg cars, wagons, farm animals etc are out of CMs scope because of the extra computing power needed to do them.

Going off track a bit here, I would jut like to add my favorite civilian in war movie scene: the elderly woman calling out for a taxi in Arnhem from 'A Bridge too Far'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to nominate the Fraulein in the chateu in the Dirty Dozen.

"Wolfgang? Wo bist du?"

Enter Telly Savalas...

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Enter Telly Savalas...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...In more ways than one, if I remember correctly.

[Skipper]

Triumvir:

> Even if they end up like the WWI Imperial

> Army, with a rifle for every two men

You'd be surprised if I tell you what real partisans had. Most accounts I've seen suggest a picture of colourful, but very respectable arsenal of infantry weapons. Some bigger formations even had tanks and BTRs.

Sirocco:

> Estimated by whom..?

By SMERSH organs responsible for the area. I dont see what's funny about it? These guys were quite competent in their job.

> I wouldn't accept their descriptions of

> anti-Soviet partisans as simple bandits,

> either

Uh-oh. I wouldnt either. But who said that?

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Skipper ]