Very unoffical "Top Five" settings.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

They were actual tactical entities. Each Feldkompagnie was pretty much independent. There was no formal higher command, save Von Lettow-Vorbeck himself. For the Battle at Tanga, only one Feldkompagnie and one Schutzkompagnie were based there orginially. Once the British intentions were realized, the local commander notified vLV, who then called in reinforcement FKs stationed throughout the country and along the British East African border. They were able to reinforce rapidly via the use of the East German railway.

Also interestingly, the FK's along the BEA border also detached a platoon to remain on the border, and so moved and fought as less than company level entities.

It was this tactical flexibility and decentralized leadership that allowed the Germans to take on and smack a vastly larger British (and Belgian, Portuguese and South African) force.

So when we play this game, you're going to make me take the British aren't you. :mad: And I get exactly one unit to command?

Oh, wait, I forgot - 99.873% of CMers play against the AI... </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

They were actual tactical entities. Each Feldkompagnie was pretty much independent. There was no formal higher command, save Von Lettow-Vorbeck himself. For the Battle at Tanga, only one Feldkompagnie and one Schutzkompagnie were based there orginially. Once the British intentions were realized, the local commander notified vLV, who then called in reinforcement FKs stationed throughout the country and along the British East African border. They were able to reinforce rapidly via the use of the East German railway.

Also interestingly, the FK's along the BEA border also detached a platoon to remain on the border, and so moved and fought as less than company level entities.

It was this tactical flexibility and decentralized leadership that allowed the Germans to take on and smack a vastly larger British (and Belgian, Portuguese and South African) force.

So when we play this game, you're going to make me take the British aren't you. :mad: And I get exactly one unit to command?

Oh, wait, I forgot - 99.873% of CMers play against the AI... </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

BF has stated that a modern game will not have a cold war setting, which rules out NATO v. Warsaw pact games. If BF sticks to historical games, that leaves the following usual suspects:

1) Korean war(1950-53);

2) Vietnam war(1945-54 & 1964-75);

3) India-Pakistan (1965,1971)

4) Middle east(1956,1967,1973);

5) Falklands (1982)

6) Desert storm(1991)

This list ignores guerilla wars and third world conflicts. To me, the choice is obvious (hint: it took place in october 1973)

Based on recent comments, my guess is that it will not be set in a historical war, but in a hypothetical near future conflict.

[37mm]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Based on recent comments, my guess is that it will not be set in a historical war, but in a hypothetical near future conflict.

Combat Mission: Luxemburg strikes (finally)

[Sequoia]

How about a title based on Japan's bombing of the U.S. Pacific Northwest with balloons?