Normandy Game

[Sequoia]

Now I read somewhere here the initial release will have both a US and German campaign.

Plenty of large counter attacks after all. And yes I think many US customers would like to play attacking Germans against a.i. defending US troops. It's all part of that Big Cat envy that's being talked about.

[GSX]

It's all part of that Big Cat envy that's being talked about.

Wouldnt that 'Big Cat' envy be kinda lost in a real life representation of Normandy US Vs Ger? The US didnt really face that many 'Cats'. I supose a Mortain campaign could include some interesting stuff though but in the main it would be Stugs and PzIV's.

All the best armour was on the Brit/Commonwealth front for the vast majority of Normandy, then the stuff thrown into Mortain was pretty much written down by then too.

However, I suppose it would work for the Bulge until the Germans run out of fuel!

[Pvt. Ryan]

The campaigns don't have to be all attack vs defend. There could be meeting engagements. although I guess it would be harder to program the AI.

[MikeyD]

I've programmed enough 'meeting engagements' to know it can be done. What I hate doing is trying to concoct defensive battles that aren't static. I've resorted on more than one occassion to having a civilian taxi scoot onto the map just to provide a little Red movement!

The problem with 'meeting engagements', though, is unless its small unit actions its usually pretty hard to justify. One full Company doesn't often blunder into another full Company while driving down a quiet road. With the possible exception of break-out situations where relieving forces don't make it to the front before the opponent has broken through. Meeting engagements are pretty much the ideal "gameplay" format, but for units larger than roaming patrols they're kind'a on the gamey side.

[[hirr]Leto]

I've programmed enough 'meeting engagements' to know it can be done. What I hate doing is trying to concoct defensive battles that aren't static. I've resorted on more than one occassion to having a civilian taxi scoot onto the map just to provide a little Red movement!

The problem with 'meeting engagements', though, is unless its small unit actions its usually pretty hard to justify. One full Company doesn't often blunder into another full Company while driving down a quiet road. With the possible exception of break-out situations where relieving forces don't make it to the front before the opponent has broken through. Meeting engagements are pretty much the ideal "gameplay" format, but for units larger than roaming patrols they're kind'a on the gamey side.

I always find it oddly fascinating every time someone reverts to using the word "gamey" when one is talking about a game. Meeting engagments may not be very historical or realistic, but they are a lot of fun... because its a GAME.

The dogmatic philosophies that surface in the wargaming world in both their multiplicity and diversity still astound me.

Cheers!

Leto

[Sequoia]

Even a defensive campaign where your outnumbered Landsers try and hold off the Amis as long as possible. Is it just the German blood in me or wouldn't other Americans enjoy giving that a go? As others have posted above, and I don't think it's just the Nazi propoganda machine that started it, but there's a certain appeal to playing ultimate losers who kicked ass for a while. The Germans have it, the Napoleonic French have it, the Confederacy has it, some American Indian tribes have it too.

[MikeyD]

are a lot of fun... because its a GAME.

Yeh, definitely the preferable gameplay format. But CMSF also shoots for 'tactical simulation' which is a somewhat higher bar to clear. Otherwise they would've given the Syrian army flying monkey soldiers to fight with

but there's a certain appeal to playing ultimate losers who kicked ass for a while.

And lets not forget there's a Russians in Afghanistan title on the close horizon too. To American media-fed ears "Russians vs Mujihadeen" sounds like the Russian are the 'bad guys'. Refering to it as "Afghani army vs Taliban", on the other hand...

[Sgt Joch]

but there's a certain appeal to playing ultimate losers who kicked ass for a while

It has'nt helped the Syrians....

.......

I personally think the capability of the WW2 German army/equipment has been way overblown. In large part, the aura of the German army was based on their early successes in 1939-42, which had more to do with the weakness of their enemies, coupled with an era of un-critical histories which came out in the 1945-65 period.

When you look at the evidence critically, which a new generation of historians are doing, its hard to make a case that the German army in 1944 was "better" than the U.S., U.K. or Canadian Army.

Case in point, "Panzer Meyer" and other german officers had developped tactics of attacking Soviet villages at high speed with battlegroups composed of armour and halftracks, which worked well enough on the eastern front. The 12th SS and Panzer Lehr tried the same thing against the canadians on june 7-10th, 1944 and were stopped cold, suffering heavy losses in the process.

[Yair Iny]

Assyria....

Nice try, but Assyria was centred in what is modern Iraq and not Syria, despite the naming symilarities Not that it invalidates your point though, I doubt many would be drawn to playing the Iraqis (Babylon and Assyria) or the Iranians (Persia)....

[Sequoia]

Well yeah, you go far enough back in history and everyone's a loser.

[Pvt. Ryan]

The problem with 'meeting engagements', though, is unless its small unit actions its usually pretty hard to justify. One full Company doesn't often blunder into another full Company while driving down a quiet road. With the possible exception of break-out situations where relieving forces don't make it to the front before the opponent has broken through. Meeting engagements are pretty much the ideal "gameplay" format, but for units larger than roaming patrols they're kind'a on the gamey side.

What about the battles depicted in Braveheart?

[dan/california]

What about the battles depicted in Braveheart?

I seem to recall the historical version of one of them being based entirely around a bridge the English got caught on both sides of in marching, as opposed to battle order. Unfortunately the movie was unable to get, or make, a bridge, so they just fudged it.

[Michael Emrys]

I think far too many people get hung up with the sexy German uniforms and supposedly superior equipment and forget about how terrible they actually were at running a war economy or actually fighting a war. Which is good for us I suppose as if not the murdering bastards would have killed everyone by now!

Agreed on all points.

One idea that I came across that works about as well as such sweeping generalizations can offers that the Germans were very, very good at the tactical and operational level, meaning that they were adept at winning battles, but they never quite got in the groove with strategy.

Now, I personally believe that there were adequate to good strategists in the German officer corps before and during WW II, but they tended to get sidelined or to die suddenly. They weren't calling the shots on strategy. "You-know-who" was and that was a mixed bag that sometimes seemed to work but ultimately did not. The whole notion of Germany taking on pretty much the rest of the world was based on a profoundly flawed premise. They weren't easy to defeat though. The Allies had to work damned hard to earn their victory.

Michael

[Wengart]

Part of the reason people buy in to the German superiority bit is simply because of their experiences. Unless you are really interested in World War 2 strategy, and possibly a bit of economics you wont know how bad the Germans were, at the strategic and economic level.

But, what most people do know is at the tactical level, and even then it is usually hollywood's version. They don't realize the logistical problems that arise when you start using heavy tanks like Tigers, but they do realize the tactical impact of a Tiger coming out to play.

This is what people visualize when they think WW2 era German Army.

http://www.oliversart.co.uk/acatalog/images/jpgs-lrg/Nicolas_Trudgian_aviation_art/0136_Tigers_in_Normandy.jpg Notice the Tigers triumphantly rolling past several destroyed, and burning, Shermans.

[Michael Emrys]

http://www.oliversart.co.uk/acatalog/images/jpgs-lrg/Nicolas_Trudgian_aviation_art/0136_Tigers_in_Normandy.jpg Notice the Tigers triumphantly rolling past several destroyed, and burning, Shermans.

They might well be in retreat. Having barely managed to fight their way through the advanced platoon of a spearhead that threatened them with encirclement, they are now scurrying back to a more secure position. Notice the flight of Typhoons overhead? Those could be dead kitties if they aren't careful where they stick their paws.

See? It's all in how you look at it.

Michael

[Lee]

Sgt Joch: Interesting map. Bear in mind that the only reason the Assyrians got the parts in Israel was because God was punishing our ancestors for disobeying him. But he still saw to it that we ended up far better off than them. hehe

[Cambronne]

Good points there.

I think far too many people get hung up with the sexy German uniforms and supposedly superior equipment and forget about how terrible they actually were at running a war economy or actually fighting a war. Which is good for us I suppose as if not the murdering bastards would have killed everyone by now!

humm...it seems the propaganda nowadays is much more powerful than the nazi one.No kidding...many people in our times think about the ww2 germans as about evil murderers determined to kill everibody.Strangely,from the tales of my grandparents and of all other older people that I been talking to,it seems the germans had an impeccable behavior in all respects.Well now..who should I trust...?my grandpa or the official propaganda??

[bodkin]

Cambronne, where were your grandparents during the war? While there were certainly quite a few decent individuals amongst the German forces it dosen't change the historical records of murderous behaviour. Labelling any mention of Nazi attrocities as the product of propaganda is surely a joke right?

[Knaust1]

Cambronne, where were your grandparents during the war? While there were certainly quite a few decent individuals amongst the German forces it dosen't change the historical records of murderous behaviour. Labelling any mention of Nazi attrocities as the product of propaganda is surely a joke right?

maybe in Poland...the Nazis were very respectful of Polish people

[Mikko H.]

maybe in Poland...the Nazis were very respectful of Polish people

Hopefully that was sarcasm.

[Gromit]

How 'bout we get back on topic here guys? Otherwise my crystal ball forecasts a threadlock dead ahead- and none of us want that, right?

So... how about those pesky fallschirmjagers, eh?

[Knaust1]

Hopefully that was sarcasm.

ditto for sure

[GSX]

Yeh, definitely the preferable gameplay format. But CMSF also shoots for 'tactical simulation' which is a somewhat higher bar to clear. Otherwise they would've given the Syrian army flying monkey soldiers to fight with

But that 'simulation' also comes with a price. Thats price is the constant dropping of a sound tactical plan to accomodate something that allows the Syrians a wee chance to win.

How often do Western forces try and fight a battle with inferior force at the point of attack compared to how often we have to do the same in an SF game.

The game has been tweaked to provide some sort of fun experiance as well as a tactical experience. Its not a true tactical simulation as we all know it lacks certain essential tactical elements to play it.

Although not a QB fan, for all the reasons you stated, I think the QB is an essential part of the CM experience and a QB ME probably the best example of how 2 opponents can choose a force and fight over some terrain, a bit like Chess really only more complicated.

[Taki]

humm...it seems the propaganda nowadays is much more powerful than the nazi one.No kidding...many people in our times think about the ww2 germans as about evil murderers determined to kill everibody.Strangely,from the tales of my grandparents and of all other older people that I been talking to,it seems the germans had an impeccable behavior in all respects.Well now..who should I trust...?my grandpa or the official propaganda??

Agree, what i see on the Last Pages is some US-Boys talking the Germans to crap. Look at your own Tanks like M1. Any Strategical Problems with it modelled in the Game (tactical Level)?

NO!

The Reason why Germany lost the War is that they never ever could win on a Strategic Level. What should they do? Occupy the whole world? Supress whole Europe for lets say 60 Years? For all the Great Mass Production and Ressources grabbing by USA and Russia but the better optimised Warmachine in Terms of effectivness was the German once.

But dont whine. You`ll get your weak Tiger and Panther for sure Just take a look at that Russian Stuff in Shock Force and you can relaxe and take a Deep Breath!

[Sgt Joch]

One common theme that keeps coming back is that the German Army was very good on a tactical/operational level, but poor on a strategic level.

Again, I beg to differ:

case in point: German defensive doctrine.

The german army had a standard defensive tactic which they used almost all the time, namely:

1) hold the front line with a small number of troops, backed up by MG nests and strongpoints; and

2) keep the main forces in reserve for an immediate counter-attack, before the attackers could consolidate.

The German response was so predictable that the British/Canadian Armies in Normandy built their entire offensive doctrine around it, namely:

1) Artillery bombardement to suppress the defenders;

2) Infantry attack supported by armour to take out the MG nests and strongpoints;

3) Once on the objective, dig in, bring up AT guns and pre-register artillery on likely counter-attack routes.

When everything clicked, it was almost impossible for the Germans to recapture the objective. Yet, the Germans stuck to this tactic even after it was clear that it was not working and was causing heavy losses to the counter-attacking force.

Again, this does not show the tactical flexibility/expertise which the German Army was supposed to possess. This is more the type of inflexible brain-dead response that you would expect from...the Syrians.