"Nazi Fan Boy" Scenarios

[zmoney]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

Next topic please ,,

and zmoney, yes ,, MILLIONS ,,, we were almost exterminated , and it was a deliberate policy,

Please feel free to minimize the genocide by coming to a rez and spewing your garbage to the elders, we need more fishing bait,

There weren't even millions in the US. Oh and who gave you the rez? Wasn't it the US? I'm sure the Jews would have liked to have casinos instead of the gas chamber.

I wasn't trying to minimize anything or can't you read. I never said it was nice, I just said it wasn't like what happened to the jews of Europe.

So go sing your sad false, inflated numbers song to yourself in the corner and quit threating me because we all know who won the Cowboy and Indian fight.

[Der Kuenstler]

I never said it was nice, I just said it wasn't like what happened to the jews of Europe.

So go sing your sad false, inflated numbers song to yourself in the corner and quit threating me because we all know who won the Cowboy and Indian fight. [/QB]

"Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; in the 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons."

That is a quote from Wickipedia - and as far as who won the fight for America - giving your enemy diseased blankets, repeatedly breaking treaties, slaughtering buffalo (food supply) and using Winchesters against bows and arrows sounds real fair. I agree that the Nazis were worse in that they were more systematic and efficient about it, but their goals were the same. They wanted land and wanted to spread their ideas and if they had to kill to do it, so be it.

[zmoney]

Hummmm I didn't know the US was a country when Columbus discovered the America's. But maybe I'm mistaken. I didn't even know Columbus was an American. Man just when you think you have a good grasp on history someone shows you something you never knew.

Again what don't you guy's get. I have never claimed Idians didn't die, I never said it was good. Your side is the one that is threatening me.

using Winchesters against bows and arrows sounds real fair

War is never fair to the losing side.

[JasonC]

Anyone who does not understand that there are real, live, full of conviction, believe in it completely, Nazis still walking around in this day and age is simply naive. Can't tell me otherwise, they send me mail.

Anyone who doesn't get that they like historical wargames and look around for recruits from fans of them is also naive. Doesn't mean anything about most wargamers, just a fact. Anybody around the hobby for decades knows it, it is no secret.

There is a lesser form of Wehrmacht worship they enjoy, which is much more widely spread, sometimes taken to silly extremes, frequently the result of mere ignorance. Some of it is the result of a deliberate campaign of historical whitewashing and propaganda initiated by German officers in the immediate aftermath of WW II, and stoked by the cold war.

Their basic line was that other westerners only realized they, the Germans, had been right about the enemy all along, thanks for eventually seeing we were right and showing up to the war against Russia. And please now sit at our feet and go to school learning how to fight the unstoppable but strangely inferior and mindless hordes that might show up in Fulda tomorrow.

In US military circles, this is all notorious enough that maneuver theorists are routinely described as having "Wehrmacht envy". The reference is not to Clausewitz, but to Freud. Self excusing fish stories told to Allied interrogators and to historians systematically distorted the history of the war in the east for oh about 40 years. Every modern competent historian knows it.

And some previous writers in the field have been exposed by time and inability to control personal inclination as outright Nazi apologists and holocaust deniers. Works of fiction peddled by such are still cited as accurate and/or moving accounts of the war.

Ergo, everyone should walk around the subject with hip waders for Nazi bullfeathers, because you are swimming it the stuff, whether you know it or not.

And I see that in scenario designs. I think most of the time it comes from projection backward of idealizations about German tactics and technology, sometimes from unstated theories about how it must have been. Which if traced, would wind up going something like "Mellenthin said they cleaned somebody's clock here, so it must be this way".

This interacts with other weaknesses of scenario designers. Giantism. The tendency to put in every possible toy in one scenario. Scripting. Armor focus. And yes, utter ignorance of Russian tactics and of the limits on German means. The result is often quite a false view of the war, sometimes laughably so.

Wittman in the East - the very title tells you the source will be Signal magazine reprints - the scenario that set this thread off - is a classic and perhaps a worst case example. Russian AT strongpoints were not formed around 76mm infantry guns. The author did not know anything about Russian guns. He just knew a caliber. He saw one called "regimental" and another "divisional" and figured the lower echelon one was right for a direct fire weapon.

That is the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable one is he wanted to avoid weapons that might penetrate the front of a Panzer IV - let alone of a StuG (designers took care of that one for him) or the side of a Tiger (ditto). A sign of how widespread this kind of error can be, is the fact that the sole gun-armed pillbox in the game sports a 76L17 infantry gun. Which is utterly useless for AT purposes. The German pillbox does not have a 75mm leIG in it. It does not have a 50mm PAK in it. It has the natural thing, a 75mm PAK 40. The Russian does not have a 76mm ZIS-3 or F-22.

I'll comment on a couple of other scenarios. (Note, all this is spoiler stuff). These are not the worst, they are the first in my directory. The problems they have are not all caused by the cause above, let alone by actual pro German sympathy, let alone by such sympathy motivated by active support for Nazi politics. They have problems nevertheless. I am not trying to pick on these in particular. I could go through my scenario directory and find similar comments to make about a solid half of the scenarios in there.

20km to Targul etc. Unplayable. The reason is giantism and uber-armor love. The Russians get 5 Pe-2 and 6 Sturmovik aircraft. The Pe-2s each drop half a dozen 500 lb bombs. The Germans get to try to stop those with 4 medium Flak guns on map. The Germans get a dozen Tigers, most vet and some crack, and 6 88 Flak. The Russians get 80 tanks.

Yes I said 80 tanks. Half of them are clay pigeons in a field this uber-ed. The other half are split between T-34/85s, and every vehicle the man could think of. KV-85s, IS-1s, IS-2s, SU-152s. You can tell the author didn't know the different between an ISU and an SU because he would have used ISUs if he did.

It is a Panzerblitz game, with every counter turned into about 5 CM tanks. Utterly unplayable. Tactics, completely falsified and irrelevant. Tanks start or enter in LOS of half a dozen major enemy AT shooters, and die as fast as triggers can be pulled.

When you were 10, you wanted to have fights like this to use every plastic tank you owned. It is just comical as a historical scenario. I don't doubt some have enjoyed it anyway, just as some enjoy shooting off SturmTiger ammo, or 14 inch naval artillery from CMBO.

21st Army Counterattacks. A vastly better scenario, nearly an historical one, and close enough to be playable. Still suffers from historical tactic and equipment misunderstandings, but in relatively minor ways. Backs into uber-ed German armor without really intending to, as I will explain.

Thinks it has to include planes, one of the easiest mistakes. Russians get 2 I-16, Germans get a Stuka. This is a largely infantry fight, and they are out of place and overpowered.

There are essentially no 81-82mm mortars, either side. Designer just doesn't understand their role or deployment and so left them out. This benefits the Germans, because they are defending, dug in with trenches, and using towed guns to knock out pre-war model, light Russian armor. 82mms are the Russians PAK pinner of choice, they aren't in the OOB. Try pinning a 37mm PAK in a trench with the 45mm on a BT before it hits you.

Both sides get enough arty, maybe too much, of the off map variety. It makes for a powerful German edge, because they have more responsive 105s and trench cover, the Russian stuff is lighter, less responsive, and they are attacking. But that is a realistic enough edge - just a bit outsized for the infantry forces involved.

There, the problem is the Russians have to attack with close to even infantry odds. Initial odds are 3 companies to 2, each gets another as reinforcement.

Partially making up for this in balance terms but detracting from historical problems and tactics, the Germans don't have nearly enough HMGs as they would for a defense of this scale. The reason is, the designer just trusts the templates and put in companies. Which get 2 MG34s each. He leaves it at that, not noticing half the battalion's HMGs are in its weapons company, and would be present precisely in such a dug-in, positional defense.

The Russians get fairly numerous light armor, but as all know that is pretty useless when the other guy has sufficient towed guns. The Germans get half a dozen, plenty. Without weapons on the Russian side optimized to take them out. The Russians get no 76mm guns themselves. Nor do they get any 76mm armed tanks, no thicker mediums-heavies etc.

The Germans get 2 StuG Bs, as reinforcements. Historical enough but likely to face at least towed 76mm if not actual mediums or heavies. Instead, they become uber-StuGs, simply because the largest AT weapon included on the Russian side is the 45mm, with its early war undermodeled ammo. These have no prayer against the front of a StuG B (50mm). And not much against its sides, frankly (need very flat angle with the early war crappy ammo).

Net result - instead of historical Russian tactics, even with the weaknesses of their light armor and less responsive indirect artillery, facing realistic German advantages of good artillery direction and excellent MGs well dug in, the Russians are neutered in pure armor war terms, lights dying to guns without recourse and the StuGs killing anything they look at as soon as they appear. This is a false tactical impression, unintentionally created simply by editing out 2 essential items in the Russian tactical "kit" - the towed 76mm ATG and the 82mm mortar.

Overall, it is a close attempt at a historical scenario and a pretty good job by the standards one can expect. But ignorance of Russian tactics still manages to create a stacked battle.

Between Don and Volga - this one took a lot more work and has an historical thesis and task. But it misunderstands force mixes, and skews them in the predictable ways. The map is relatively nice - open steppe dotted with rocky mounds - though it would work better with gentle slope setting. The Russian defensive positions are cartoonish and doomed, largely through ignorance again. They get too much good armor as a balance, then the Germans get too much quality AT stuff to unbalance it back.

More specifically, armor focus is a big problem here. The author thinks everybody fought on the steppe armored. The German force looks like TacOps, not 1942 Russia. They have 35 armored vehicles for 4 platoons of infantry. They have 5 different types of medium tanks. The Russians have 4 infantry platoons and 11 tanks - this is supposed to be a defense on the approaches to Stalingrad.

They also get 9 bunkers, which are cartoon targets for the German armor, since 3 have infantry guns and 6 have only MGs. They hide at first but in locations with wide LOS - the minute they open, a German tank will KO them with a firing slit penetration. Russian tank hunters with molotovs only wait hiding too far from the roads to reach across them - more cartoon enemies.

Bigger problem is the uber-ness of the German armament mix. The Russians have 1 KV, which in mid 1942 might be important. But the Germans are given, count this - 5 Pz IV longs, 2 StuG longs, 2 long 75 or 76 towed, 2 75L24 with abundant HC (1 without), and 2 50L60 with T ammo (1 without, and 3 short 50). They also get FW-190 air support, and not 1 but 2 Me-110s, the biggest air strike available.

Now, the designer probably thinks all the long 75 stuff is reasonable, since this is late summer 1942 and those are production vehicles in that era. But in fact, half the German force had long 75 only by the time of Kursk. In late 1942, a third would be pushing it, and most of those were Marders. Production was low compared to fleet size, and losses were low. Fleet mix therefore seriously lagged current types. The weapon mix he gave them would be about correct for the following year.

The Russians are given 10 T-34s - way too many for a static defense like this. The result is an armor heavy clash. Where the Russians really had 11 KVs or T-34s in mid 1942, the Germans would be in trouble tactically, particularly trying to attack. The Russians would also have 76mm towed, which would hole all the German types present. Instead, their tanks get hit by multiple uber-air strikes, then they get dusted by long 75s that match their own numbers.

The Russians are given 8 towed guns plus 3 gun pillboxes. Exactly one of them is a long 76, able to penetrate 50mm of armor at range. The rest are all popguns that can hurt only the halftrack part of the fleet. (Side OK with the 45mm if close, but against 15 tanks, that doesn't happen much or last).

Main problem here is the over focus on armor and the tendency to put in everything in the book. The author probably thought it was fair to hard, because the Russians have so many tanks that can all penetrate the German ones. Just being in a penetrable tank seems like a dangerous and novel experience. Of course the Germans must have had scads of perfectly effective weapons that killed the Russians right back.

In fact, the T-34s were rarer but so were counters to them. The Germans did not have tanks coming out of their ears that easily killed then at a kilometer plus, in this era. Meanwhile the Russians had plenty of stealthy towed guns that could kill the German types at range. The Russian AT defense against this sort of armored incursion, was therefore significantly harder to deal with.

In fact this era ought to be a bit like 1943 for the Russians, sides reversed. Just as PAK40s KO T-34s readily, ZIS-3 penetrated 50mm fronts readily. Just as Tigers were only killable with specialist weapons, rare and not found on the average armor, so KVs were for the Panzer fleet of 1942. But since German technical superiority is assumed, they must have 3 airstrikes 9 long 75s etc, and the Russians one solitary towed 76.

I hope this helps clarify what I am talking about.

I don't imagine for an instant the guy making Between Don and Volga was goose-stepping in his basement. He just bought a line on the war in the east peddled a long, long time ago, and doesn't understand the Russian tactical system.

[JasonC]

Now to be constructive, how would I fix Between Don and Volga?

Change the map contour to gradual slope.

Reduce the German air support to 1 plane. I'd prefer the FW-190, but if you want to play around with the big 110 strike, fine, leave just one.

Add a 150mm radio FO to the German OOB instead. Much more realistic way to show their on call firepower.

Replace the long 75 StuGs with a pair of Marders, preferably the 76mm model. Much more common way of getting heavy PAK firepower in the era. They can have towed PAK too, but make it more like 1 75-6 and 2 50 with a few T each.

No other long 75 vehicles. Not 5 different types of medium tanks, either. IIIs and IVs with 50L60 and 75L24. Some but not all of the former may have a half dozen T. Some but not all of the latter may have a dozen HC.

Fewer tanks and a lot less light armor, more infantry. The Marders and 2 platoons of Panzers would be plenty. For light armor, a pair of PSWs and one armored infantry platoon would be plenty. You can leave one 81mm halftrack. That cuts the armor fleet in half. Now, up the infantry to a full company in addition to the armored platoon, and a platoon of pioneers. They can have trucks or you can use Sd Kfz if you want them to have better off road ability (since frankly, CMBB trucks are undermodeled, off road). Include the HMGs and 81mm mortars.

Russians - 1 KV and 3 T-34s, not 1 and 10. But 4 towed 76mm. Reduce the 45mm ATGs to 4. As for the bunkers, don't really need them. Leave a couple if you like. Add a few Maxims and place them in trenches on the Kurgans, angled LOS. Double the ATRs to 8. Add mortars, 50mm and 82mm. Give the Russians an FO, 76mm or 120mm. Add a platoon of pioneers and have their demo charges replace the useless molotov tank hunters. Add another infantry platoon too. All the points you didn't spend on bunkers, spend on mines, especially hidden AT.

Now, for the Russian defense scheme, instead of a MG bunker with no AT ability plus an ATR here or there, build stealthy infantry heavy weapons positions. That means Maxim, ATR, mortars in trenches with an HQ, able to put out light fire at 500m without being readily spotted. Closer to the road, put AT mines and squad infantry positions, hiding. Idea is first vehicle hits a mine, pioneers come to clear it, infantry unhides and shoots pioneers, even if they die to tank fire in response.

76mm ATGs go well back, but with long and crossing LOS. 45mm closer, on flanks and angled inward, but behind squad positions not first things encountered. Tanks go well back, idea being to hunt out to fire a bit but able to break LOS again. KV is a roadblock with LOS to everything ahead of road position A, but no LOS to anything not yet that far forward. Idea being to isolate lead vehicle(s), without overwatch back on German side of the map able to see it.

If that forces Marders forward to hunt the KV, 76mm's unhide to kill the Marders before they get to duel the KV.

The Germans should have to stop on the road for mines. FO called arty and 82mm mortar fire should land on them when they stop. German infantry should have to scout ahead in places to see if there is a thick tank lurking (because sending a PSW or SPW will just get it killed by one, or by an expendable 45mm). Maxims and 50mms will go after those, while giving only sound.

Pioneers go back in the balka, reverse slope. Spread 50m apart squad to squad, so their DC ranges overlap, or reach out across the roads. A flanking 45mm might go there too. T-34s reverse into the Balka if they live that long. 1-2 platoons of infantry in the woods or buildings on the low ground, thus nothing hurts them until the German tanks make it all the way through the mines and ATGs etc.

Now you've got a tactical problem. Driving down the road and shooting anything that prematurely shoots at you, won't solve it.

[David I]

Gee, and I thought that their uniforms just looked keen.

DavidI

[Count D'Ten]

Jason,

Admirable stuff. What little I know bears you out on OB and tactics. And I learned a lot I didn't know.

While I enjoy CMBB, I only play wargames from time to time. I wish there was a vast database of scenarios for us duffers that included historical accuracy data. Or are there sites I just don't know about?

I won't comment on the sociology of wargamers. Although I've played for forty-five years, I've only gotten to know a few well.

[painfbat]

= = Just because you know a tiny bit about history such as the US took over Indian lands.= =

The extermination of millions of Natives, their land stolen, their way of life destroyed, forced to become Christian, deportations to the desserts. The women and children of tribes massacred while the man were out fighting the Army. Should I go on? And you call that "the US took over Indian lands".

I wonder how you call slavery then?

Must be something like "We gave them bootcamp to become almost as good as people as we white folks".

= = Doesn’t mean you know the whole story, it’s obvious you don’t if you think that millions died.= =

There are some site's on the net saying the same thing about the Holocaust. Maybe you should join them, you do have the same statements.

= = Then to equate that to the holocaust is just another example of how little you know.= =

I can't blame you for being this stupid, obvious you know little more then MacDonalds, nothing happened to the Natives, we've won the war and smoking cigars is having savesex without having sexual relationships.

But I seem to remember that we've had our German neighbours visiting for 5 years in Holland. My family was on both side's of the front-line, they joint resistance, were send to Germany for enforced-labour,and we even have a KZ-victim in our family. My aunt still has the letter claming our relative died of a lung-illness.

Part of my family fought against Japan and spent years in the camps in Indonesia.

Yep, you're right I don't know ****. But I do know what genocide is.

Keep dreaming you're W.A.S.P.dreams, I'll be living in reality.

[JasonC]

painfbat - you don't know what you are talking about, but it really isn't on point either.

The native population of the US today is higher than it was the day settlers landed. By several million. Descendents are higher still, because most assimilated so much they are interbred beyond the point the recognize native ancestry. The original population was very sparse - hunter-gatherer life cannot support large populations.

The population of the 13 colonies when independence was achieved was only 3 million. From much denser settlement than the natives sustained.

In addition, population was depressed by centuries long genocidal wars between native tribes. They were not boy scouts (more on that below), were not remotely peaceful, did not recognize each other's "ownership" of anything, etc.

There were large populations in the Americas, only in Mexico and some parts of south America, where farming was more developed and city life existed. Which was not the case in North America.

Most of the population decline that did occur, both places, was due to epidemics of imported diseases for which the native population had no imunity. And most of that had long since played out by the time the average native saw a foreign settler - the vectors of spread were vastly faster the actual settlement. It happened while the population of newcomers was tiny.

War was endemic between native tribes throughout, from pre-settlement to final reservations. War was frequent between the settlers too, in case everybody forgot little things like the seven years war, revolutionary war, war of 1812, war with Mexico, or civil war. Natives participated enthusiastically in most of those, especially the earlier ones.

War was also endemic between settlers and natives. Somewhere between 90 out of 100 and 99 out of 100 times, the natives started them, with outrageous violence to civilian populations. Lacking anything remotely like government making actual policies, whenever a few hotheads decided to go kill people, they did so, scorning any previous agreements made in their name by elders or others. Occasionally the same was done to them by settler hotheads. Much more often, a few native hotheads started something, it escalated with raids and retaliation by private parties, and the US cavalry ended it. Violently.

The sense of honor the natives in this fighting consisted in burning captives to death over slow fires for days. Women and children turned out to hear the screams, laughing. Men wore tops of childrens heads on their belts as signs of their prowess. In other words, they were utterly lawless and deliberately cruel barbarians, in every operative sense of the word. Not fuzzy peaceloving worshippers of mother earth.

Descedents of natives are free to raise buffalo, hunt with stone hatchets, and hoe corn with a stick if they want to. They can live in tents, and can buy cheap ones at any sporting goods store. What they aren't free to do is chop off people's heads to keep them from doing anything else. The vast majority being utterly normal and completely civilized human beings, prefer to drive pickup trucks and shop at WalMart like the rest of the country. If they want to keep cultural things, and they do, that's very nice, and it takes in fine art and storytelling. But not hatchet murders or human roasts.

But hey, you want to go camping, knock yourself out.

Also, the country is quite as entirely theirs as anybody else's, so nobody took anything from them. They just now have democratic government instead of rule by whichever hothead decides he wants to kill and torture people today.

Also, please explain how much of Arizona the SS gave the Jews. And where is my piece, cause I love Arizona.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled PC agitprop diatribe.

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

I know of a pro-nazi scenario where the briefing states you must give the nazi salute at the end of your orders briefing. Then, right before you click "GO" you must sign off a loud "heil hitler".

Just imagining a poor d*ckhead yelling "Heil Hitler" in front of his computer screen each turn makes laugh to tears ! LOL

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Bogdan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MeatEtr:

I know of a pro-nazi scenario where the briefing states you must give the nazi salute at the end of your orders briefing. Then, right before you click "GO" you must sign off a loud "heil hitler".

Just imagining a poor d*ckhead yelling "Heil Hitler" in front of his computer screen each turn makes laugh to tears ! LOL </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

21st Army Counterattacks. A vastly better scenario, nearly an historical one, and close enough to be playable. Still suffers from historical tactic and equipment misunderstandings, but in relatively minor ways. Backs into uber-ed German armor without really intending to, as I will explain.

As the designer (I believe you are referring to the CD operation of that name which I created), I am going to take the opportunity to comment. I would like to mention in advance a couple of points that I think are required to understand what went on in the design process. But in any case, your post is extremely useful feedback, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain at length what is wrong with the scenario.

- '21st Army Counterattacks' is one of the first CMBB scenarios I did, and I was never quite sure it would work the way it was intended. I also did not then know as much about the whole topic as I do now. I see it as a learning exercise.

- At the time it was designed, a code switch made the Stug B impenetrable to the 45mm ATG. I am not sure if I took account of that during the design, it may have been simply me overlooking things. I am also not an armour buff, so it took me a while to learn all these things.

- The scenario has a historical setting in oeprational terms. It is supposed to portray one of the many STAVKA attempts to cut off the advancing German forces in the AGC sector. While it was powerful enough to give the Germans a fright, it failed in the end.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Thinks it has to include planes, one of the easiest mistakes. Russians get 2 I-16, Germans get a Stuka. This is a largely infantry fight, and they are out of place and overpowered.

I agree.

Originally posted by JasonC:

There are essentially no 81-82mm mortars, either side. Designer just doesn't understand their role or deployment and so left them out.

Correct.

Originally posted by JasonC:

This benefits the Germans, because they are defending, dug in with trenches, and using towed guns to knock out pre-war model, light Russian armor. 82mms are the Russians PAK pinner of choice, they aren't in the OOB. Try pinning a 37mm PAK in a trench with the 45mm on a BT before it hits you.

That is correct, and is an error I would not make again.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Both sides get enough arty, maybe too much, of the off map variety. It makes for a powerful German edge, because they have more responsive 105s and trench cover, the Russian stuff is lighter, less responsive, and they are attacking. But that is a realistic enough edge - just a bit outsized for the infantry forces involved.

That is one thing that for an early war scenario I would do again.

Originally posted by JasonC:

There, the problem is the Russians have to attack with close to even infantry odds. Initial odds are 3 companies to 2, each gets another as reinforcement.

I do not think this is completely unrealistic for a late-summer 41 scenario.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Partially making up for this in balance terms but detracting from historical problems and tactics, the Germans don't have nearly enough HMGs as they would for a defense of this scale. The reason is, the designer just trusts the templates and put in companies. Which get 2 MG34s each. He leaves it at that, not noticing half the battalion's HMGs are in its weapons company, and would be present precisely in such a dug-in, positional defense.

Two things - first I agree with you, and maybe today I would do things differently. Secondly, you have to remember that this scenario is just part of a larger battle. It is entirely possible that this is just a secondary effort, and that the heavy weapons company is used elsewhere, or has its own line to cover.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Russians get fairly numerous light armor, but as all know that is pretty useless when the other guy has sufficient towed guns. The Germans get half a dozen, plenty. Without weapons on the Russian side optimized to take them out. The Russians get no 76mm guns themselves. Nor do they get any 76mm armed tanks, no thicker mediums-heavies etc.

There is a logical disconnect between my previous answer to the HMGs, and the presence of lots of AT. Again, today I would give the Germans less AT. I still would not give the Russians better tanks. I think giving them craptacular light tanks is realistic for the setting, and is a nice tactical challenge for the Russian player.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Germans get 2 StuG Bs, as reinforcements. Historical enough but likely to face at least towed 76mm if not actual mediums or heavies. Instead, they become uber-StuGs, simply because the largest AT weapon included on the Russian side is the 45mm, with its early war undermodeled ammo. These have no prayer against the front of a StuG B (50mm). And not much against its sides, frankly (need very flat angle with the early war crappy ammo).

Agreed. Clearly a mistake.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Net result - instead of historical Russian tactics, even with the weaknesses of their light armor and less responsive indirect artillery, facing realistic German advantages of good artillery direction and excellent MGs well dug in, the Russians are neutered in pure armor war terms, lights dying to guns without recourse and the StuGs killing anything they look at as soon as they appear. This is a false tactical impression, unintentionally created simply by editing out 2 essential items in the Russian tactical "kit" - the towed 76mm ATG and the 82mm mortar.

In an ideal world the Russians would have the 76mm ATG (I agree they should have the mortars). Just not necessarily in this scenario.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Overall, it is a close attempt at a historical scenario and a pretty good job by the standards one can expect. But ignorance of Russian tactics still manages to create a stacked battle.

That analysis is partially correct, but not the whole story. Part of the stacking was intentional, not for Nazifanboy reasons, but because historically, the attack failed. If everything had been perfect on the Russian side, that would not have been the case, against the opposition they were facing.

But all in all you are correct, and the scenario could be improved. I'll see if I find some time to do that, in between goose-stepping in my basement.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

All fair comments. I do note however that the outcome - attack failed historically - is not sufficient to justify a stacked battle. The designer may not script the outcome. He must leave that to the matched wits of the players, or it isn't strategy. Doesn't mean balance has to be perfect, does mean the designer should emphatically not have an intended winner in mind, for reasons of supposed history, or national bias, or any other reason.

Second, even if the attack failed, I sincerely doubt it failed because the Germans had locally uber armor against crappy undermodeled 45mm ATGs only. One, because the undermodeling of the 45mm is serious, beyond what can be justified by history. Two, because the Russians made lots of attacks like that and the Germans did not remotely have armor at all of them, or anything like all of them.

If a scenario creates the impression that the decisive tactical relationship in era or operational occasion X was mismatch or technical issue Y, when in fact Y did not even obtain, and X was decided by other factor Z, then the designer has simply failed. The whole point is to recreate the tactical dilemmas of the occasion.

In the case of the mid summer Russian counterattacks in the center, crappy armor for the Russians was doubtless one of those reasons - although careful examinations suggests the armor was crappy mostly because it wasn't supplied or maintained, rather than because it was thin or its ammo made out of mud brick. But surely the more basic reasons were (1) good German infantry-artillery cooperation (2) good German infantry heavy weapons, particularly effective on defense (3) green quality of the Russian infantry and especially of its leadership at the time and (4) poor Russian infantry-artillery cooperation.

You won't show that by sending low odds regulars against regulars then given the receiving side unkillable AFVs. Instead you distract from the infantry battle and its issues, and suggest that all fights were decided by technical dominance and armor dominance. Since in fact, in this era, the losing side had the better tanks in gun and armor terms but lost by world record amounts anyway, that is not an accurate impression to leave.

I'd reduce the Russian arty (off map) and perhaps their infantry (or leader) quality, while upping their numbers. I wouldn't improve their tanks. But I would either pull the StuGs entirely, or add 2 long 76mm guns (on map) to the Russian OOB - along with mortars etc. The Germans get more MGs. Because it was much more a matter of the MG34 and the 105mm working on defense, than a matter of 50mm fronts against mudbrick 45mm guns.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

All fair comments. I do note however that the outcome - attack failed historically - is not sufficient to justify a stacked battle. The designer may not script the outcome. He must leave that to the matched wits of the players, or it isn't strategy. Doesn't mean balance has to be perfect, does mean the designer should emphatically not have an intended winner in mind, for reasons of supposed history, or national bias, or any other reason.

I agree with the conclusion. It was however not supposed to be scripted, but supposed to be very difficult for the Soviet commander. The scripting is the result of flaws in design, not of a conscious decision to make the scenario unbalanced.

All the best

Andreas

[Rob Ross]

Originally posted by Bogdan:

Stalinism was a totalitarian and genocidal regime too.

Sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this 'moral equivalancy' Nazi apology bull****. The USSR was NOT genocidal. Look up genocide in a dictionary, then tell me where Stalin was intent on murdering every man, woman and child of a particular racial or religious group. That was a Nazi policy which was wholly different to those in the USSR. Furthermore, to those who say 'more died under Stalin', if you used your brains for one moment, you might consider how many would have died under Hitler if he had not been stopped.

/end rant.

I quickly gave up playing scenarios for CMBB because this Nazi fanboy stuff was rife. Very few authors took the care to be neutral and historically accurate, and I couldn't be bothered to sort the wheat from the chaff. I ended up mixing my own with the QB system, but therefore had to put up with rubbish maps and formulaic games. Still I enjoyed them more (and still do) than starting up a scenario to find that an author has certain ideas of how battles on the East Front should play out.

This problem is only going to get worse with the future of the CM series. I haven't delved into CMSF deeply but if there is no QB system it's bad news. CMSF is being designed to sell to the US militaries, and the devs cannot programme something which shows their key customer that their military equipment is potentially rubbish. CMSF has enormous bias built into it from its very conception.

[David I]

"Speaking for the Great White Father in the East, let me say that we respect you Savages for your native ability to adapt and survive in what-ever God Forsaken Wilderness we move you to. Sign here."*

DavidI

*The Firesign Theater "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him".

[76mm]

Sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this 'moral equivalancy' Nazi apology bull****. The USSR was NOT genocidal. Look up genocide in a dictionary, then tell me where Stalin was intent on murdering every man, woman and child of a particular racial or religious group. That was a Nazi policy which was wholly different to those in the USSR.

Rob Ross, your state is technically correct but morally irrelevant. While it is true that Stalin did not practice genocide, which is wiping out a particular race or ethnic group, I don't find that his killing of millions of innocent people belonging to religious, economic, political, or intellectual groups which he believed threatened the Soviet state to be "wholly different" from Hitler's policy of genocide. I don't think that it is less morally reprehensible to kill millions of people just because they belong to a group other than a racial/ethnic group.

That said, if I had to choose which of the two regimes were "more evil," I would certainly choose the Nazis for two reasons:

1) rightly or wrongly, mass gassings just seem even more demented and evil (to the extent that is possible) than the typical Soviet methods (starvation, bullet to the back of the head, etc.); and

2) at least Stalin seemed to believe (however wrong that he was) that the millions he killed had to be done away with to ensure the survival of the Soviet state and the world communist revolution. Hitler's apparent justification--to cleanse the Reich of Jewish and other filth to "purify" the nation (or whatever it was) just seems like an *unbelievably* trivial reason to slaughter millions.

Bottom line: both regimes were morally reprehensible, but the Nazis were more so (to me).

[Abbott]

I find this topic to be a bit "out there" myself. While I agree that there are some German fan boys out there, never once have they effected my enjoyment of the Combat Mission series of games. They are easily sidestepped. I have found the people associated with Combat Mission more informative then prejudice. While some may have a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation I find it easily set aside and replaced with my own thoughts on the matter at hand.

In my opinion the German military was more advanced then its opponents for a time. The Germans also built some interesting equipment that I find enjoyable to game with. I also find some Russian and American equipment of interest. Personally I enjoy the fun of Wargaming without any thought wasted on the politics of the era.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Also, the country is quite as entirely theirs as anybody else's, so nobody took anything from them.

Jason that is so inaccurate I am surprised you posted it. No justification other then greed applies to the situation. I have family members who are still living who lost everything and were forced into almost utter slavery by the U.S. government. While most have learned to adapt to the best of their ability they will never forget what was taken from them or their ancestors. It was a dark time in history for Native Americans as are/were many times for many peoples. Native belief systems make it a bit more difficult to forget that then it may be for other s.

[ April 13, 2006, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[JasonC]

Abbott - I notice you don't bother trying to say why or in what sense. Certainly I have no more rights than any American of native descent - a few less actually, though marginal ones. And certainly in terms of way of life, present justice, knowledge, wealth, etc, they are vastly better off today than anyone on the continent was 300 years ago. If you exclude tiny nobilities in a few of the most civilized countries then, you can shorten that to simply "anyone". Not that it is any great comfort to the last brave killed on the warpath - or to the last cavalryman.

I see you extended your remarks. I also note that you are spending rather of lot of time and effort on politics, all of it utterly irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread, and despite protestations that it doesn't concern you. I also find it highly amusing that PC nonsense about Americans exercises you no end, while admitted and existent Nazi fanboys are water off a duck's back, you just ignore them.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Abbott - I notice you don't bother trying to say why or in what sense.

Jason, I was still gathering my thoughts when you posted. I posted the edit version of my comments above. I took the time to post them because I have respect for your posts to this Forum. Guys like you and Andreas (if I agree with you or him or not) have earned that IMO.

[ April 13, 2006, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by Rob Ross:

Sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this 'moral equivalancy' Nazi apology bull****. The USSR was NOT genocidal. Look up genocide in a dictionary, then tell me where Stalin was intent on murdering every man, woman and child of a particular racial or religious group.

Calm down.

Be safe, I'm not a nazi : I'm not yelling "Heil Hitler" each time I press the "Go" button. So don't expect me to make any apologies about any dictatorial regime. If my message may appear doubtfull by this point of view, or I wasn't direct and explicit enough, or you misunderstood it.

Now, if you want to play with words, you can advance that Stalin's regime wasn't genocidal. If it makes your day. But this is at least controversial as it depends how you define a genocide : is it a mass-extermination only motivated by racist and/or religious criterias ?

Soviet genocide http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-genocide

Soviet Genocide is a controversial term referring to deaths of millions of civilians before, during and after World War II as designed to eliminate domestic opposition to the Soviet Union.

While it is indisputable that Soviet Union brought deaths and suffering to millions of its population, some consider the term "genocide" as inappropriate, claiming that Soviet repressions were based on the notions of social class and class struggle ideology only, rather than on racist or nationalist motivation. Nevertheless the term is indiscriminately used in emotional and politically motivated texts. This usage is often motivated by the fact that, e.g., ethnicity-targeted population transfer in the Soviet Union, while arguably lacking genocidal purposes, has effectively led to considerable numbers of deaths due to inflicted hardships.

The problem, then, is how to define de mass-deportation of the entire Tatar population of Crimea by the soviets in 1944 ? Regardless of their age, sex, activities, political ideas, these poor people were deported because they were Tatars, like Gypsies were deported because their were gypsies. No class-discrimination here. Needless to say that their condition of deportation were absolutelly horrible and a vast proportion of deported people died during the journey or soon after it. This is another way of extermination.

"And this must be remembered !"

Stalin’s Ethnic Cleansing of the Crimean Tatars

and their Struggle for Rehabilitation, 1944-1985.

The Stalin regime began planning the deportation of the entire Crimean Tatar population to special settlements in Uzbekistan immediately after the retreat of the German Wehrmacht from the Crimea. On 11 May 1944, the Soviet army recaptured the last pockets of the peninsula. The very same day the GKO (State Defense Committee) issued resolution 5859ss, “On Crimean Tatars” signed by Joseph Stalin.[8] This decree accused the Crimean Tatars of massive collaboration with the German occupiers of the Crimea and collective treason against the USSR.

In the period of the Fatherland War many Crimean Tatars betrayed the Motherland, deserted from units of the Red Army defending the Crimea, and turned over the country to the enemy, joined German formed voluntary Tatar military units to fight against the Red Army in the period of the occupation of the Crimea by German-Fascist troops and participated in German punitive detachments. Crimean Tatars were particularly noted for their brutal reprisals towards Soviet partisans, and also assisted the German occupiers in organizing the forcible sending of Soviet people to German slavery and mass destruction.

Crimean Tatars actively collaborated with the German occupying powers, participating in the so called “Tatar National Committees” organized by German intelligence and were extensively used by the Germans to infiltrate the rear of the Red Army with spies and diversionists. “Tatar National Committees,” in which the leading role was played by White Guard-Tatar émigrés, with the support of the Crimean Tatars directed their activity at the persecution and oppression of the non-Tatar population of the Crimea and conducted work in preparation for the forcible separation of the Crimea from the Soviet Union with the assistance of the German armed forces.

These improbable charges formed the basis for the punishment of the entire Crimean Tatar population. The decree’s first operative clause reads, “All Tatars are to be exiled from the territory of the Crimea and settled permanently as special settlers in regions of the Uzbek SSR.” Thus the decree not only punished members of German formed self-defense battalions, but women, children, the elderly and invalids as well. It made no exceptions for veterans of the Red Army, members of the Communist Party, Komsomolists or even NKVD agents.

What could be unaffordable is to say that, for example, the planned massive starvation in Ukraine, 1930, is far from a genocide. Those millions people were just killed by starvation for a political reason. By this point, I can agree with you : this is not a racist motivation...

...but the result is the really same.

So telling soviet regime is not genocidal is "technically correct" if you want to play with your dictionnary. But the whole idea sounds immoral, and irrespectfull in front of these millions of victims.

The Great Famine-Genocide in Soviet Ukraine (Holodomor)

Collectivization's roots begin with Stalin's belief that NEP must be ended and that to accomplish this required "the liquidation of the Kulaks as a class." By the end of 1929, nearly one million Kulak families, a vague appellation of shifting political meaning, "were deprived of their farms and property and sent into exile or forced labor." It was during this phase that Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago began to receive its massive population.

The remaining peasants were encouraged to collectivize. This too was a disaster of epic proportions. The peasantry was required to produce artificially inflated quantities of grain of which the state claimed the first and greatest share, leaving the peasants with the remainder, which in the majority of cases amounted to nothing. The state's grain quotas were brutally enforced. Theft from the state even in piddling measure was punished with death. Stalin then cut off the rural areas from the rest of Russia. The result was a calculated and artificial famine.

United Human Rights Council - Stalin's Forced Famine - 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths

A good starting list for an overview of eastern european genocides :

Genocides and Ethnic Cleansings of Central and East Europe, the Former USSR, the Caucasus and Adjacent Middle East -- 1890 - 2005

Sad picture of a young ukrainian boy.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Abbott:

are easily sidestepped.

Shurely you meant to say 'goosestepped'?

If you drop me an email I give you some feedback on Destination Lodz.

Thanks for the compliment above.

All the best

Andreas

[JasonC]

Let's consider it reasonably, without the flip romantic hyperbole. What did individual concrete natives lose, or lack now compared to then?

I do not doubt that at the time, some lost relations in wars, and that is the primary real loss involved. They were losing relations in their own wars from time immemorial, many of their young hotheads inflicted the same harm on others, and now happily they neither suffer nor cause either on the old scale. A few serve in the military etc, same as the rest of us.

At the time, some no doubt lost entirely modest items of personal property that bulked large because of grinding poverty. A horse, a rifle, a tent. This is not a recommendation for grinding poverty as a way of life.

As for art and stories, they didn't lose them, those are still here.

As for everyone living as they once did - the green romantics real complaint - that was not a coerced by a freely chosen change. They could go ranch or hunt if they want, today, nobody is stopping them. If they prefer a modern life it is because a modern life is simply preferable, objectively. Give millions the choice and a handful will go camping occasionally, but everyone is well rid of it otherwise.

The same holds for traditional ways. If younger generations were not interested in them, or found old stories poppycock, that is hardly the fault of the US cavalry or any just cause for complaint. Such things are offered to others. If they don't want them and don't take them, it is their own business not that of those doing the offering.

As for land, they didn't have land ownership themselves. None held real tenure of any of it, beyond what his own hatchet could enforce, which was precious little and entirely temporary. It is not like natives were in high cotton living on their investments until someone came along and snatch them. Wall Street didn't exactly look like it does now, then. Actually, Wall Street is a big hole in the ground, but that is another story.

A few million settlers were denser users of the land than they were, vastly so. Hundreds of millions scarcely fill a tenth of it today, vast stretches are completely devoid of human beings or have 5 to a square mile, now, after 100 fold population increase. And vast stretches of all the western states are deeded to native nations. Fat lot it does for them, one might say. Fat lot more did for them before.

Then there is political power, I guess. Not clear to me your average squaw or less than strongest man in the tribe has less of it today with one vote in 120 million than they had then. When power was a strong right arm and the willingness to butcher human beings. I think it curious to bemoan the passing of the reign of ax murder and its replacement by democracy.

If anyone prefers the precarious freedom of the former, however, they have only to travel to war torn central Africa and they can have all of it they can stomach. The downside as ever is that somebody else will come ax murder you.

So what, please, has supposedly been lost let alone taken?

Then we will get to the nonsense about who it was taken from. Because nobody around today is the wronged party, or the wronging one, any way you slice it. My ancestors were trying to survive famines in Ireland. A few on one side of the family showed up soon enough to get shot fighting to free the slaves, but I barely know they existed and they certainly aren't me.

[Sergei]

Surely it is then nonsense to remember Holocaust, because Jews are doing so well today.

[JasonC]

Flip moral equivalence nonsense.

No one has even bothered trying to establish that individual native A or B was unjustly murdered. Because basically it simply didn't happen. A few hundred during guerilla wars, occasionally, that is all. The grievance is at the change in political power in an area.

And I'm still waiting for the explanation of how much of Arizona the SS gave the Jews.

Notice also how for Jews to be doing well today, somebody had to come along and bomb Nazis into oblivion. Who was that again? Oh yeah.