Jump to content

should we be able to see so much?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have to say this is one of the dumber threads I have ever come across if the intent of implementing shrouded terrain is to increase realism. There are several theoretical problems with this whole notion as applied to CM.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>A great deal of the time, troops had maps that were sufficiently accurate and comprehensive that unknown terrain features really weren't that much of a consideration.<LI>The purpose of reconnaisance (in the ETO at least) was not so much to survey terrain (looking for demolitions of things like bridges being an exception), as to find out where the enemy was, with what arms and in what numbers.<LI>Finally, you need to keep in mind that your troops as they advance into battle have much, much more on their minds than keeping a running commentary going with headquarters on the geographical wonders they are passing through. In the American and British armies, which were lavishly supplied with radios relative to other armies, the lowest echelon of infantry that was normally supplied with them was the platoon. In the German army I expect they had fewer than that. My point being that even if a squad had nothing better to do than survey terrain and report back to headquarters, they lacked the means to do so in a timely manner.

So what I am saying is that this whole attempt to include shrouded terrain in CM is nothing more than trying to graft a feature into a game where it does not belong. Frankly, I hope this thread will die again and stay dead this time so that we can turn to ideas and improvements that actually contribute something positive to CM.

Michael

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...