What are you playing right now?

[KG_Norad]

I am regularly play several scenarios in several different games and was wondering what are you playing? Right now I am playing the followning:

Panzer Campaigns El Alamein 1 small scenario.

Uncommon Valor playing the large campaign scenario May of 44-Dec of 45 (I think) utilizing 2 day turns. We are in September 44 I think.

CMBB 2 Short Games
CMAK 1 short game

HPS Napoleons Russian Campaign 1 small game

HPS ACW Campaign Gettysburg 1 small game.

Unfortunately I never seem to have time to play large campaign games. Only shorter ones. If you have never tried the HPS Napoleonic or American Civil War games you may want to. I am not particularly interested in the subject matter but the games a quite addicting strategy Games!

[KG_Cloghaun]

1. CMAK "Steel Triad" multiplayer tournament @ SZO

2. Top 16 Invitational tournament @ SZO

3. CMBB "Lost Victories" multiplayer campaign by KG_Thorshammer

4. B & T "Forgotten Front" vs Norad

5. "Battle of Kapitanovka" historical operation by me vs KG_Swampfox

6. KG Fantasy Football League

7. KG Fantasy Hockey League



-all this with CMBB "Campaigns" just around the corner!! The humanity!

[KG_Cloghaun]

@ Norad

If you're really interested in the Civil War, feel free to talk to our resident CW junkies-

KG_SSpoom
KG_Soldier
KG_Jag
KG_Panzerschreck
KG_Panther
KG_Kharkov

my apologies if I'm leaving someone out. Those are the guys to talk to.:fight:

[KG_AGCent]

1. CMBB Top 16 Tourney with Tripps
2. CMAK with Norad
3. CMAK with Full Monty
4. CMAK with KG_Scout
5. 1936 German Campaign Hearts of Iron 2
6. Shadows of Amn Chapter 4
7. 1939 Campaign Panzer General
8. Brothers is Arms Campaign, Chapter 6
9. Close Combat 5: Stalingrad Mod GC vs. AI

Looking for more CM PBEM games.

[Full Monty]

CMAK Multiplayer tourney - 'The Steel Triad'
CMAK tourney - 'The Cost of Glory'
CMAK KO tourney
CMBO tourney - 'Three Months in France'

Plus

8 CMAK games
3 CMBB games
1 'Combat Command 2: Desert Rats' game

Then there's more single-player (mostly non wargame) games than I care to think about:laugh:

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

1. CMBB (Quick Battle with Soldier) I have never played with mechanized before so this is a learning experience for me.
2. Act of War
3. Day of Defeat:Source
4. C&C Generals Zero Hour
5. Brothers In Arms Chapter 7 (I 've finished game on all levels and I am currently playing the hardest level to unlock all the "goodies".
6. Jedi Academy - Final level
7.Far Cry - on the hardest setting, I am almost done...A lot tougher than I thought it would be. ( Second time through )
8. Yahoo Fantasy Football ( I am in 10 leagues )
9. Yahoo Fantasy Hockey
10. Yahoo Fantasy Basketball

[KG_Jag]

I have almost all of John Tiller's HPS (and most if not all of his Talonsoft) games. I wish that I had more time to get into them. My brother and his law firm represent Tiller, and I have a standing lunch invitation with the two of them, when I can get to northern Alabama.

TOAW-COW is another great game. But time is again the problem in getting into it, other than a few times a year.

I would love to get into Uncommon Valor. But the only tutorial game, something that an old counter pusher like me badly needs, pertained to version 1.0 and wasn't very helpful. Maybe NORAD can teach this old dog some new tricks about the game.

Of course I play CMBB & AK on an ongoing basis, both here and at Warfare HQ...er...SZO. The CM series is the only set of games in which I have played other humans, and it is by far the best way to play. In addition my six year old nephew loves blowing up stuff, especially with King Tigers. So I am also helping him play a CMBB game that was set up to accommodate his tastes. The game has been teaching him that Panthers are much more fun then Tigers or King Tigers.

[KG_Norad]

UV is a very interesting game to play pbem. Unlike our more traditional land battle games, you never know when you will stumble into an enemy taskforce. It is very much a game of cat and mouse!

Also HPS games are great PBEM. If you would like to try one sometime let me know. When my schedule frees up we can try a small scenario from one of the above. Tiller games are very easy to pick up and get into. UV's learning curve is a lot steeper but there is no better teach then playing. I only dabble in the game really so I am sure I only have the basics down myself but I still enjoy it immensley.

[KG_Kharkov]

1. Kapitnovka campaign (CMBB) with KG_Sspoom vs. KG_Panther and KG_Thorshammer (where's our turn guys?).

2. CMAK Multiplayer tourney at SZO.

3. KG Trial by Fire moderator for KGRcr_Scipio's Trial by Fire (set in Berlin 45 -- CMBB -- designed by yours truly).

4. World of Warcraft: 48th level Warlock, currently trying to finish the quests in the Zul'Farrak dungeon

5. Fantasy hockey (2 leagues)

6. Fantasy football (4 leagues)

7. Fantasy football pick'em

8. Fantasy basketball

9. CMBB playtest for KG_Thorshammer (will start this week).

[KG_Soldier]

CMAK 3000 point meeting engagement with KG_Panther (Nov 44 Italy).

CMAK meeting engagement with "Monty" in the freaking desert in July for goodness sake; my boys are already thirsty. I see an M3, so hopefully Bogart will put a round into our dry well (And no Monty, the right hook by the Americans in Normandy was not your idea!). :)

CMBB meeting engagement with KG_CrimsonTrooper <-- NOOB! Oh, I forgot he beat me the first game... well, AGC did help him, but... maybe I shouldn't call him a NOOB.

Of course, Thor's multiplayer CMBB rape... errr campaign. Just kidding Dave, my Romanians love Papa Joe.

Day of Defeat to satisfy my bloodlust.

I hit the old Gary Grigsby's "War in Russia" Stalingrad campaign every once in a while because I love taking the city (Starfury lies when he says he once took Moscow in '41--not possible)!

Desperately waiting on Les Grognards!

Still saddened by CMx2's setting.

[Full Monty]

CMAK meeting engagement with "Monty" in the freaking desert in July for goodness sake; my boys are already thirsty. I see an M3, so hopefully Bogart will put a round into our dry well (And no Monty, the right hook by the Americans in Normandy was not your idea!). :)


Let's not even go there:fight: :laugh:

[KG_Soldier]

Oh PLEASE, let's.

[KG_Soldier]

Now, let me preface this by saying Monty (the real one) certainly played a part in the success of Cobra and at Falaise. However, his assertion (after the war) that it was his plan all along (before the invasion) to pin the Germans at Caen while the Americans flanked and pinned them, as is what happened, is downright silly. He certainly didn't intend to run into the tenacious 12th SS. He did adapt to the situation on hand as well as anyone could, which is the sign of a good commander. I think his comments after the war are a result of bitter feelings between the Americans and British over Normandy because of the causualties both suffered, quite understandable each would blame the other a bit. And Monty got more than his fair share of criticism about his handling of a monumental task.

[KG_Soldier]

Test.........

[Full Monty]

Now, let me preface this by saying Monty (the real one) certainly played a part in the success of Cobra and at Falaise. However, his assertion (after the war) that it was his plan all along (before the invasion) to pin the Germans at Caen while the Americans flanked and pinned them, as is what happened, is downright silly. He certainly didn't intend to run into the tenacious 12th SS. He did adapt to the situation on hand as well as anyone could, which is the sign of a good commander. I think his comments after the war are a result of bitter feelings between the Americans and British over Normandy because of the causualties both suffered, quite understandable each would blame the other a bit. And Monty got more than his fair share of criticism about his handling of a monumental task.

Hmmmm. According to Miles Dempsey (Cdr 2nd Army) and the planning documents it was always Montgomery's intention to draw the Germans onto the Eastern part of the front whilst the breakout would come in the West. This I draw from 'Brute Force' by John Ellis and the author has little time for Montgomery as a commander so if the case was otherwise I'm sure he would draw attention to it. Of course Monty's method of achieving this is open to question as is his pronouncements of success after operations such as Goodwood and Epsom. Nevertheless, he would have been well aware of what heavy units the Germans had in France and where they were stationed. So he would have expected to run into all the SS panzer units at some stage, preferably in front of the British/Canadian armies. Now what would be silly would have been if Monty had claimed 'Cobra' was his plan:biggrin:

[KG_Soldier]

I agree that Monty intended to tie down German forces and breakout to the East. However, his original plan was to use British Armor for the breakout -- as then Wing Commander Scarman (Tedders personel assistant) said,

"It is true that there was a plan which showed the Americans coming up on the right towards the Seine while they [the British] swung at Caen. But that is far different from the decision to strike out on the right and pull quickly around. Monty undoubtedly intended to start the breakout on his front, and then let the Americans come around as they could. He intended at first for Patton to spend his time cleaning up the few Germans left in Brittany."

From Carlo D'este's Decision in Normandy

So while I agree he intended to tie the Germans down and breakout on the right, I think he intended to do it with the British Army. The defensive position of the German Army for the first several weeks of Normandy was very strong, and the British armored and infantry divisions (through no fault of their own) just were'nt strong enough to break them.

My only problem with Monty (besides his overstated gains in obvious setbacks as you mentioned) is his claim after the war he always intended to use the Americans as the MAIN flanking force.

I think Monty was in an incredibly difficult position trying to assault the German line and did the best he could, but that's still a position easily criticised (no matter which general was in charge).

[Full Monty]

Well, those gentlemen can have their opinions. But this comes from the planning document drawn up on 7th May 1944

[The] aim [is] to contain the maximum enemy forces facing the Eastern flank of the bridgehead, and to thrust rapidly towards Rennes.

Seems to be pretty categorical.

And from Dempsey, recalling a planning conference, at which ...

Monty stressed the fact that after the immediate reserves had been drawn in all German reserves would arrive at the battle from the East and Southeast, thus to get across to the American sector of the bridgehead, they would have to pass across the British front around Caen. It was my job to make sure they didn't move across, that they were kept fully occupied fighting us in the Caen sector.

Both from Ellis pp. 373-4

Now I have no doubt that Monty would have loved to have broken through with the British forces under his command rather than the American. I also have no doubt that he had a plan for this too (Any good commander would have something to cover all contingencies) but it would have been secondary to the main plan.

Looking through John Terraine's 'The Right of the Line' he talks about Montgomery 'switching the main affort over to Bradley's sector' after 'Charnwood' but he gives no indication of Monty's original orders. It speculates on whether Brooke and Churchill would have accepted British troops being involved in a battle of attrition when the army was getting into a manpower crisis. Then again the original plan probably wouldn't have envisaged a battle lasting over two months so I'm not sure of the validity of Terraine's comments.

What I would accept (and Ellis points this out) is that like any other high-level commander Monty would outline his intentions in a manner that would allow him to consider several options without appearing to change his mind. Ellis certainly contradicts Scarman and d'Este just seems to be speculating. I re-read d'Este's article over at ACG hoping he'd offer some more insights into Monty's plans for Normandy but regrettably he chose not to cover that particular battle in any detail.

[KG_Jag]

Guys this is an interesting discussion, but hasn't it gone a bit off point?

[KG_AGCent]

What's life without the occaisional thread hijacking.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

1. Thor's Lost Victories Campaign, and yes Mark we are raping you.
2. The Steel Triad, SZO Tourney
3. CMBB game vrs Swampy. playing the same battle as the top 16 tourney players are playing, the slugfest over the factories and the old fortress.
4. a '43 tank match vrs Scipio thats on hold for the time being.
5. Trying to teach my 14 yr. old nephew how to play Avalon Hill's "Up Front - The Squad Leader Card Game"

[KG_Soldier]

Well Bill... not for us!

[KG_Soldier]

Well, those gentlemen can have their opinions. But this comes from the planning document drawn up on 7th May 1944


Quote:
[The] aim [is] to contain the maximum enemy forces facing the Eastern flank of the bridgehead, and to thrust rapidly towards Rennes.

If your assertion is that these forces mentioned "to thrust rapidly towards Rennes" are American, then that enhances the position that the Americans' "task" was originally to take Brittany and not flank the Germans being "pinned" at Caen by the Brits. Now, that the Americans actually did end up being the flanking force shows Monty had something most deny he did have, and that was the ability to be flexible, which Normandy -- although a struggle -- shows he did in fact have.

Couldn't help but throw in the Villers-Bocage map. ;)

[Full Monty]

Well Bill... not for us!

Blame Soldier, it was all his idea:laugh:


If your assertion is that these forces mentioned "to thrust rapidly towards Rennes" are American, then that enhances the position that the Americans' "task" was originally to take Brittany and not flank the Germans being "pinned" at Caen by the Brits. Now, that the Americans actually did end up being the flanking force shows Monty had something most deny he did have, and that was the ability to be flexible, which Normandy -- although a struggle -- shows he did in fact have.

But to push on to Brittany would leave US flanks and supply lines dangerously exposed. They would have to swing left ('pivot on the British position like a windlass in the direction of Paris') to shore up their own position at a bare minimum. With the Americans broken through the Allies have the initiative - whatever the Germans try to do will be countered - and historically the Battle for Normandy ended at Falaise. However, had the Germans countered the American breakthrough then they would have been exposed to 21st AG striking into their flanks.


Couldn't help but throw in the Villers-Bocage map. ;)

Gamed that out quite recently using CMBO (see how I bring this back on topic:driver: :laugh:) playing as the British. KO'd Wittmann in the opening turns and the operation became a battle of attrition which ended inconclusively.

[KG_AGCent]

lol, speaking of Wittmann, Tigers, CMBO and Soldier, ask him how he enjoyed our Totalize op. Great fun, you ought to give it a whirl.

I'd also love to get a Highway to the Reich game against a human played one of these days.