A short history.
The famous Kampfgruppe that led the Ardennes Offensive.This tells the tale of the young commander as he spear-headed the offensive. Time was of the essence and he sacrificed tanks, his own men, and when it came time to take prisoners...he shot them instead. In what is now known as the Malmedy massacre, Peiper’s reputation would forever be linked to his slaughter of prisoners rather than his battlefield prowess.
Cut off from the rest of the German Army, Battle Group Peiper continued to move the offensive forward. Nearly unbeatable in direct combat, the Americans relied on cutting off all supply lines, destroy all fuel depots that were accessible to Peiper, and restricting and movement to aid Peiper. Finally, with no food, water, fuel, ammunition, and his men without rest for days, Peiper was attacked on all sides and suffered a devastating defeat.
Enjoy!:D
M4 Jess~Trouble Maker
Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign down load here!
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign down load here!
Im making war, not trouble~
-
David boutwell
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Haymarket, Virginia, USA
M4,
I think your history is debatable. First, I'm not a fan of Peiper, but I am a fan of accurate representation of historical events. First, correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm not sure that Peiper ever personally killed any Alied soldiers during the ardennes Campaign. I'm not even aware that he ever said "shoot that man". Interpreting the work of John Bauserman, author of "The Malmady Massacre", and husband of one of my former department chairs, I would say that his commands could have been easily interpreted that way, but Peiper had left the scene of the Malmady massacre about ten minutes before. But, on the other hand, when KG Peiper abandoned La Gleize, they left 150 unharmed US prisoners behind. I think I even remember the accounts of certain US prisoners personally having a meal with Peiper. So my question is who did Peiper slaughter? "To this date, Peiper's involvement and potential guilt for the war crime at Malmady is still a controversial subject". So, your history is flawed on that point. Before you brand me an "apologist" for Peiper, you can forget about that.
Second, what makes you think that Peiper was unbeatable in direct combat? A very quick glance at my resources lead me to the opinion that he was never really engaged in any direct combat against equal forces of any kind until he had his *** handed to him on a platter by US airborne troops and other units at the end of his "road". Previous to that, on many occasions, forces much smaller than his forced his Kampfgruppe to change direction or slowed them down dramatically. He was beaten at Stavelot, stopped/cut off at Stoumont, slowed at the Amblève river, to name a few.
And only a small portion of the Stavelot petrol dump was destroyed to keep it from Peiper. It took only about three minutes of research to find that out.
Why am I being a hard-***? I guess its because if I had to ask myself whether I am a history buff first and a gamer second, I would have to say yes. And though there are a few guys in this forum that have been here longer than me, the majority have not. That means that this is my home just as much as it is anyone else's. And that gives me the "right" to voice my opinion, if anything does. And I think that this forum needs to be "re-centered" a little more toward that of a forum based on the pursuit of a better undertanding of the events that the game is portraying, as opposed to just another gamers' site, where anybody's interpretation is ok, and people are knocking out scenarios right and left, with little regard for detail, accuracy or map quality. Or, "let's make a scenario where the Norwegians invented Tigers!" Aren't there enough sites around like that? They are mostly populated by teenagers. I sometimes think D&D fans have taken over this place. What the heck is that all about????
Maybe I don't belong here anymore. Maybe my time has passed, and I should spend more time in history-based forums such as the "Battle of Arnhem Archive", "the Battle of Arnhem Research Group", the "Battle of Arnhem Online Message Forum", just to name a few from just one campaign. But, before I resign myself to being a distant observer feeding on the tidbits of good stuff that come to my attention, I'll be damned if I don't go down kicking and screaming.
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God Save the King."
I think your history is debatable. First, I'm not a fan of Peiper, but I am a fan of accurate representation of historical events. First, correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm not sure that Peiper ever personally killed any Alied soldiers during the ardennes Campaign. I'm not even aware that he ever said "shoot that man". Interpreting the work of John Bauserman, author of "The Malmady Massacre", and husband of one of my former department chairs, I would say that his commands could have been easily interpreted that way, but Peiper had left the scene of the Malmady massacre about ten minutes before. But, on the other hand, when KG Peiper abandoned La Gleize, they left 150 unharmed US prisoners behind. I think I even remember the accounts of certain US prisoners personally having a meal with Peiper. So my question is who did Peiper slaughter? "To this date, Peiper's involvement and potential guilt for the war crime at Malmady is still a controversial subject". So, your history is flawed on that point. Before you brand me an "apologist" for Peiper, you can forget about that.
Second, what makes you think that Peiper was unbeatable in direct combat? A very quick glance at my resources lead me to the opinion that he was never really engaged in any direct combat against equal forces of any kind until he had his *** handed to him on a platter by US airborne troops and other units at the end of his "road". Previous to that, on many occasions, forces much smaller than his forced his Kampfgruppe to change direction or slowed them down dramatically. He was beaten at Stavelot, stopped/cut off at Stoumont, slowed at the Amblève river, to name a few.
And only a small portion of the Stavelot petrol dump was destroyed to keep it from Peiper. It took only about three minutes of research to find that out.
Why am I being a hard-***? I guess its because if I had to ask myself whether I am a history buff first and a gamer second, I would have to say yes. And though there are a few guys in this forum that have been here longer than me, the majority have not. That means that this is my home just as much as it is anyone else's. And that gives me the "right" to voice my opinion, if anything does. And I think that this forum needs to be "re-centered" a little more toward that of a forum based on the pursuit of a better undertanding of the events that the game is portraying, as opposed to just another gamers' site, where anybody's interpretation is ok, and people are knocking out scenarios right and left, with little regard for detail, accuracy or map quality. Or, "let's make a scenario where the Norwegians invented Tigers!" Aren't there enough sites around like that? They are mostly populated by teenagers. I sometimes think D&D fans have taken over this place. What the heck is that all about????
Maybe I don't belong here anymore. Maybe my time has passed, and I should spend more time in history-based forums such as the "Battle of Arnhem Archive", "the Battle of Arnhem Research Group", the "Battle of Arnhem Online Message Forum", just to name a few from just one campaign. But, before I resign myself to being a distant observer feeding on the tidbits of good stuff that come to my attention, I'll be damned if I don't go down kicking and screaming.
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God Save the King."
David,
While I am one of your biggest fans (your work on Market Garden is second to none) we must remember that SPWAW is a game. While many of the scenarios and campaigns are historical most are only based on history, most of the really great scenarios by the best designers are inaccurate in one way or the other. Most of the maps are inaccurate. Every campaign and MC I have played (and I have played most) has un-historical battles and OOBs/Maps. Just take a look at MCNA, how many "what ifs" scenarios are in that MC? And ask yourself how many people play it and love it! If we as designers follow exact history all the time wont most scenarios be one-sided? I think most of us are gamer's first.
Yes you belong here! and so do I! I have over 1500 down loads to my credit over the last few years and I work very hard at making accurate and enjoyable scenarios as possible. Do I try to be a history buff? yes! do I sometimes trade history for playibilty? yes!
I think there is room for both the History Buff's and Gamers here.
Yours,
M4 Jess
While I am one of your biggest fans (your work on Market Garden is second to none) we must remember that SPWAW is a game. While many of the scenarios and campaigns are historical most are only based on history, most of the really great scenarios by the best designers are inaccurate in one way or the other. Most of the maps are inaccurate. Every campaign and MC I have played (and I have played most) has un-historical battles and OOBs/Maps. Just take a look at MCNA, how many "what ifs" scenarios are in that MC? And ask yourself how many people play it and love it! If we as designers follow exact history all the time wont most scenarios be one-sided? I think most of us are gamer's first.
Yes you belong here! and so do I! I have over 1500 down loads to my credit over the last few years and I work very hard at making accurate and enjoyable scenarios as possible. Do I try to be a history buff? yes! do I sometimes trade history for playibilty? yes!
I think there is room for both the History Buff's and Gamers here.
Yours,
M4 Jess
Im making war, not trouble~
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
David just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you don't belong. That is what is so great about these forums, people don't get critisium for any mistakes or comments made within. If there is a major flaw just pointing it out is usually enough to prompt a correction if possible. If you still enjoying playing SPWAW then you belong and any insight on specific matters is openly accepted. I'm not going to say people don't get into discussions about history, this is part of life as everything has 2 sides. Depending on the research involved always points opinions in that direction whether it true or not. So please feel free to voice your opinion without reservation.
David and Jess:
I also have been around this game and forum for a while and while not trying to steal Gmenfans' thunder, I must add my too bits. David going back to your recent post in this forum, I play this game as a hobby, if the author utilizes all historical, some historical, no historical, I will play the scenario.If I enjoy same I will usually tell the author. There's plenty of room for both you guys and I enjoy reading your comments. You both have brought this old man enjoyment. Believe me this beats the tube. Talk about your fantasies, watch the local news or the afternoon trash shows......well I digress....Both your styles are diverse and both are enjoyable. Thanks guys and stay around huh.
With respect....Chief:)
I also have been around this game and forum for a while and while not trying to steal Gmenfans' thunder, I must add my too bits. David going back to your recent post in this forum, I play this game as a hobby, if the author utilizes all historical, some historical, no historical, I will play the scenario.If I enjoy same I will usually tell the author. There's plenty of room for both you guys and I enjoy reading your comments. You both have brought this old man enjoyment. Believe me this beats the tube. Talk about your fantasies, watch the local news or the afternoon trash shows......well I digress....Both your styles are diverse and both are enjoyable. Thanks guys and stay around huh.
With respect....Chief:)
"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief
Chief, I agree with you about the tube. The only way I found to have it co-exist is to tune in to the history channel. IMHO that's one of the few things out there that are worth my time.
I play because I enjoy it and it's my hobby. I enjoy historical and non historical also. You learn something every time you boot ti up, or at least I do. If I didn't, I'd go somewhere else and do something different.
I play because I enjoy it and it's my hobby. I enjoy historical and non historical also. You learn something every time you boot ti up, or at least I do. If I didn't, I'd go somewhere else and do something different.
Jim1954
KMC/T
-
David boutwell
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Haymarket, Virginia, USA
You guys do know how to take the wind out of one's sails!
The problem is that, from my perspective, (and perspectives may very well be incorrect) there are not enough gamers in this commnunity (or I just haven't seen their work) that are committed to historical accuracy on all levels of a scenario. I can't, for example, say, "well, no sense in doing another Gold Beach-Jig Sector scenario. Joe pretty much nailed that one dead-on. The map looks perfect. The units are correct (within limits allowed by resource material available, etc). I'd be messing with perfection!", that darned often. And we've been around quite a while! As long as this community has been around, we should have been able to produce a few of those, don't you think?? I can tell you that I've done my best to produce some of those. Why is that the case? Why are people satisfied to "assembly line" scenarios as fast as possible? No one (I take it back. Those guys who have been working on that mysterious Berlin map for the last "few years" are my kind of guys!) really speaks up and says, "you know, I dare someone to examine my Dunkirk scenario and tell me that it is not as good as anyone else could possibly put together! Map? check! Units? check. Everything else? check!"
What really confuses me is that those of us who started gaming on board games would have raised holy hell if the Gettysburg map was as inaccurate as what is status quo in here. If the 20th Maine had just had "Union Regiment" on it, or Robert E. Lee's counter just said "Confederate general", we'd take the game back to the hobby shop! Yet noone seems to have a problem pumping out generic scenario after scenario, that is in no way unique from all of the other. Heck, in some cases where a scenario depicts a historical battle, the map in no way resembles the actual location! Why do we have higher expectations of stuff made for us?
I know the answer. People don't want to take the time required to make that "Monte Cassino to end all Monte Cassinos". They don't want to spend the time online or the money on a book that has all the maps they need, or they don't want to pay the price and shipping costs for topo maps from overseas. They don't want to take the time to learn how to use the utilities that would allow them to make better scenarios. They might not know how to do these things, and are satisfied to approach the game form a different level. Or, they might not care. But I refuse to believe that everyone in this community that goes after the assembly line scenarios makes a conscious choice not to maximize the potential of this game and the tools that we have been given.
You are all right about the fact that this community is for everyone. I just want to know where those gamers are that think like I do.
Some might view this game as just a game. I don't think anybody who thinks this game is "just a game" would stay with it this long. But, I can tell you that before this game came out, I wasn't a fraction as interested in WWII as I have been since it came out. Because of my fanatical devotion to this game and the interest in WWII that it has spawned, I have met or spoken to an Omaha Beach veteran, an El Alemain veteran from New Zealand, a German 16th PzGrenadier Division vet, a Tarawa veteran, several book authors, WWII fans or researchers from all over the world and more. So if I take it all a little bit too seriously, I apologize.
Oh, and just to emphasize my commitment to what I believe in, I am posting a new scenario, Seize the Waal River Bridges!" Yes it is a big battle. Yes, the units have historical designations. If you don't like these things, this isn't for you. Keep in mind, this is a beta scenario, and it is designed using version 6.1, so I have provided the 6.1 oob's as well. Critique is welcomed.
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."
The problem is that, from my perspective, (and perspectives may very well be incorrect) there are not enough gamers in this commnunity (or I just haven't seen their work) that are committed to historical accuracy on all levels of a scenario. I can't, for example, say, "well, no sense in doing another Gold Beach-Jig Sector scenario. Joe pretty much nailed that one dead-on. The map looks perfect. The units are correct (within limits allowed by resource material available, etc). I'd be messing with perfection!", that darned often. And we've been around quite a while! As long as this community has been around, we should have been able to produce a few of those, don't you think?? I can tell you that I've done my best to produce some of those. Why is that the case? Why are people satisfied to "assembly line" scenarios as fast as possible? No one (I take it back. Those guys who have been working on that mysterious Berlin map for the last "few years" are my kind of guys!) really speaks up and says, "you know, I dare someone to examine my Dunkirk scenario and tell me that it is not as good as anyone else could possibly put together! Map? check! Units? check. Everything else? check!"
What really confuses me is that those of us who started gaming on board games would have raised holy hell if the Gettysburg map was as inaccurate as what is status quo in here. If the 20th Maine had just had "Union Regiment" on it, or Robert E. Lee's counter just said "Confederate general", we'd take the game back to the hobby shop! Yet noone seems to have a problem pumping out generic scenario after scenario, that is in no way unique from all of the other. Heck, in some cases where a scenario depicts a historical battle, the map in no way resembles the actual location! Why do we have higher expectations of stuff made for us?
I know the answer. People don't want to take the time required to make that "Monte Cassino to end all Monte Cassinos". They don't want to spend the time online or the money on a book that has all the maps they need, or they don't want to pay the price and shipping costs for topo maps from overseas. They don't want to take the time to learn how to use the utilities that would allow them to make better scenarios. They might not know how to do these things, and are satisfied to approach the game form a different level. Or, they might not care. But I refuse to believe that everyone in this community that goes after the assembly line scenarios makes a conscious choice not to maximize the potential of this game and the tools that we have been given.
You are all right about the fact that this community is for everyone. I just want to know where those gamers are that think like I do.
Some might view this game as just a game. I don't think anybody who thinks this game is "just a game" would stay with it this long. But, I can tell you that before this game came out, I wasn't a fraction as interested in WWII as I have been since it came out. Because of my fanatical devotion to this game and the interest in WWII that it has spawned, I have met or spoken to an Omaha Beach veteran, an El Alemain veteran from New Zealand, a German 16th PzGrenadier Division vet, a Tarawa veteran, several book authors, WWII fans or researchers from all over the world and more. So if I take it all a little bit too seriously, I apologize.
Oh, and just to emphasize my commitment to what I believe in, I am posting a new scenario, Seize the Waal River Bridges!" Yes it is a big battle. Yes, the units have historical designations. If you don't like these things, this isn't for you. Keep in mind, this is a beta scenario, and it is designed using version 6.1, so I have provided the 6.1 oob's as well. Critique is welcomed.
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."
David:
Please keep on correcting statements of historical error that you see on the Forum. I trust what I read here because you are all way more knowledgeable than I am about WWII and military history in general. If you knowingly let a factual error slip by uncontested, we all miss out on an interesting debate and those of us that want to learn and speak the truth will merrily go on spouting incorrect historical details outside of the Forum.
In the "real world" most people will let an incorrect assertion go by just to avoid embarrassing the one who so adamantly made the incorrect statement. I, myself, did this yesterday when a coworker adamantly said, "The US is a democracy! So how could Bush not get a majority of the votes and yet still be President?" I didn't have the heart to embarrass him and say, "The US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic, that's how." And, thus everyone around him was left with the mistaken notion that the US is a Democracy. I should have corrected him, just as you should correct M4 Jess and anyone else who says something you know to be wrong. We need you in the Forum.
I would, however, suggest that you start your corrections with the assumption that the errors were an honest mistake, not intentional disinformation. I read your initial post here with interest about the facts but I felt badly for Jess because you seemed to jump down his throat without provocation.
Bob
Please keep on correcting statements of historical error that you see on the Forum. I trust what I read here because you are all way more knowledgeable than I am about WWII and military history in general. If you knowingly let a factual error slip by uncontested, we all miss out on an interesting debate and those of us that want to learn and speak the truth will merrily go on spouting incorrect historical details outside of the Forum.
In the "real world" most people will let an incorrect assertion go by just to avoid embarrassing the one who so adamantly made the incorrect statement. I, myself, did this yesterday when a coworker adamantly said, "The US is a democracy! So how could Bush not get a majority of the votes and yet still be President?" I didn't have the heart to embarrass him and say, "The US is not a Democracy, it's a Republic, that's how." And, thus everyone around him was left with the mistaken notion that the US is a Democracy. I should have corrected him, just as you should correct M4 Jess and anyone else who says something you know to be wrong. We need you in the Forum.
I would, however, suggest that you start your corrections with the assumption that the errors were an honest mistake, not intentional disinformation. I read your initial post here with interest about the facts but I felt badly for Jess because you seemed to jump down his throat without provocation.
Bob
Everyone is a potential [PBEM] enemy, every place a potential [PBEM] battlefield. --Zensunni Wisdom
I must agree with this.Originally posted by rbrunsman
David:
I would, however, suggest that you start your corrections with the assumption that the errors were an honest mistake, not intentional disinformation. I read your initial post here with interest about the facts but I felt badly for Jess because you seemed to jump down his throat without provocation.
Bob
David, when I read your post yesterday, there was no reply yet, and I didn’t want to be the first starting a …flame war but I, too, had the felling that your assertions, tough MAY have a point, were proposed in an unpleasant manner, especially cause unprovoked.
Federico "Resisti" Doveri
-
David boutwell
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Haymarket, Virginia, USA
Gentlemen,
It really wasn't an attack on M4's historical error. Rather, it was a "long-brewing?" reaction to what I feel (not that how I feel holds any weight at all) is, in general, a shift in the direction that this community is heading. On the other hand, maybe it isn't heading in any different direction than it ever was. Maybe I'd ideally like it to be something that it is not, and was never intended to be, and I'm totally out of line. That is why I often feel that I am a square peg in a round hole around here. But, I have no desire to move on to other games, and it would be rather pointless to spend hours and hours working on maps and scenarios just for myself. Heck, after I finish a scenario, I really lose all interest in it, anyway! So what else is there to do but stay right here and advocate for what I believe in?
The "flavor" that this community has taken on is, in my perception (and I am painfully aware that my perception is just that), more of a clearing house for generic scenarios designed for competitive play, as well as an arena for verbal jousting over the prowess of the equipment of one's favorite nation, not a place where a scenario is the medium for learning about a particular historical event, and knowledge gained from research is passed on to other gamers. Again, maybe it was never meant to be that.
So, it was not M4's errors, it was the perception that Jess, because of his constant presence in this community, represents a new wave of gamers in this community that has different goals than I do, that caused me to react. It wasn't a reaction against him, personally. I don't know the guy personally. It was a statement of ideological differences.
No disrespect intended, Jess. So we don't play the game the same way. In the big picture, big deal, right? I think M4 and I both just weathered three weeks of running zig-zag across the Safeway parking lot to keep from being targeted by the snipers. When you've dealt with that, whether you play a game the same way or not is pretty insignificant!
I could post frequent, less harsh "belief statements", but I don't reckon that would make me any more popular than periodic "rantings and ravings."
Anyway, at least I did offer up my Nijmegen scenario to the sacrificial alter. There's your chance to either seek an eye for an eye, or enjoy the hell out of it.... Your move...
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."
It really wasn't an attack on M4's historical error. Rather, it was a "long-brewing?" reaction to what I feel (not that how I feel holds any weight at all) is, in general, a shift in the direction that this community is heading. On the other hand, maybe it isn't heading in any different direction than it ever was. Maybe I'd ideally like it to be something that it is not, and was never intended to be, and I'm totally out of line. That is why I often feel that I am a square peg in a round hole around here. But, I have no desire to move on to other games, and it would be rather pointless to spend hours and hours working on maps and scenarios just for myself. Heck, after I finish a scenario, I really lose all interest in it, anyway! So what else is there to do but stay right here and advocate for what I believe in?
The "flavor" that this community has taken on is, in my perception (and I am painfully aware that my perception is just that), more of a clearing house for generic scenarios designed for competitive play, as well as an arena for verbal jousting over the prowess of the equipment of one's favorite nation, not a place where a scenario is the medium for learning about a particular historical event, and knowledge gained from research is passed on to other gamers. Again, maybe it was never meant to be that.
So, it was not M4's errors, it was the perception that Jess, because of his constant presence in this community, represents a new wave of gamers in this community that has different goals than I do, that caused me to react. It wasn't a reaction against him, personally. I don't know the guy personally. It was a statement of ideological differences.
No disrespect intended, Jess. So we don't play the game the same way. In the big picture, big deal, right? I think M4 and I both just weathered three weeks of running zig-zag across the Safeway parking lot to keep from being targeted by the snipers. When you've dealt with that, whether you play a game the same way or not is pretty insignificant!
I could post frequent, less harsh "belief statements", but I don't reckon that would make me any more popular than periodic "rantings and ravings."
Anyway, at least I did offer up my Nijmegen scenario to the sacrificial alter. There's your chance to either seek an eye for an eye, or enjoy the hell out of it.... Your move...
Regards,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."