Hunter

hunter@scientist.com 1427058

Yeah we still love those bayonets (Well we did until we replaced our lovely SLRs (FN FAL) with the Steyr Aug). I guess now that we will just have to shoot people (pretty hard to miss, actually!). I remember during night time defensive training that lovely feeling of getting the whispered order..."Fix..." Bruce

(Continuing the off-topic discussion) Well that's Wales down and out. Bring on South Africa or England. Fionn, I have to agree. Next to the Wallabies, I love to watch the All Blacks creaming through sides. They are an awesome side. As a fan at the last world cup faxed to the team - "Rugby is a team game...and it is the job of you 14 guys to get the ball to Jonah Lomu". Bruce "Choose to win - or choose not to play at all"

Actually it's Wales vs Australia tonight for the rights to a semi-final (probably against South Africa). If things go according to plan, The All Blacks won't even see South Africa, as they meet the Wallabies in the Final. In Australia there is an ad for a phone company on TV. The (American) CEO is watching the rugby with Mark Ella (Ex-Player). Ella: Have you seen Wales play? CEO: No Ella: Animals! CEO: Yeah I know...... CEO: Some people think they're fish Bruce ps: Go the Wallabies

I killed Wittman (and so did my wife) (and don't even get me started about the aussie AA gunners and the Red Baron). lol. Bruce

Actually about the maximum map size, I think I remember reading it was 3 kilometres square, not 3 square kilometres. Maybe people read it that way anyway? Bruce

3 Years Australian ARes, commissioned as Lt and posted briefly to 126 Signal (Special Forces). Quit because I wanted to ride in a Leopard not run everywhere :-Þ

Ben, I take the point that you would be playing a different game if you were only taking the POV of the overall Commander. Certainly somebody has to make the decisions for each of the individual sections etc. I guess I see an option where they are constrained to operate within a framework that is their current orders, and this doesn't change except through the higher-ups say so. I don't agree necessarily that a Platoon will make use of cover 'in the area' because it is there. Military plans and formations are pretty inflexible once set in motion. Steve, Note I did say "an Option" I think the creators of this game are interested in realism. What if the game turn was extended to say..5 minutes? There would not be any new orders from you (Battalion Commander) within that time, and the AI would run the show at the low level. That would be one way of avoiding the '10 turn huddle'. While I agree that the game MAY be less interesting by making it more realistic, I'd hate to see that being used as a line of reasoning too often :-( My feeling is that by making it realistic you will probably make it MORE interesting by simulating even more of the problems that a real battlefield commander would face. One of the impacts that it would have that would probably be unpopular is that it would take a lot more planning to launch an assault. You would need to be very clear about which troops were going where, when is the assault going in, when is the Arty landing etc (oops, not in that order I hope). The number of individual decisions needed may be reduced, and there would be a need for them to have great clarity. Phases in an assault would have more meaning. The easy (?) way to make it an option might simply be to provide an alternate table of delays, which I assume are already in there, for the movement of troops etc. 10 second delay becomes 10 minutes (or something?). I would like to see it tried sometime anyway. Maybe it is something I can take on (and tack on) later? Bruce

Guys, Reading the AARs is great fun. I can't wait to play the game. Now... The Command and Control seems to be a major step up from any other games on the market, and the scale of the battle depicted is perfect for illustrating some of the more complex command and control difficulties that can be encountered. However, the rapidity with which Commands can be implemented does appear to be ridiculously quick? In the battle (Fionn/Martin) they are able to order their troops about with only a few second delay, increasing to maybe a minute or two if Command Elements are way in the distance. Even when the situation changes, and new defensive positions are encountered, it takes no time at all to swing troops around into the required assault. In my (limited) experience, the planning and execution of a company level assault would take substantially longer than depicted in CM. The Warning Order needs to go out to the Platoons, a Company O Group held, the appreciation done and the plan laid out in detail, the Platoon Commanders then need to make a detailed plan, hold a Platoon O, brief their sections, move from assembly area to FUP, shake out and move to LD, Assault. I then have a metric somewhere that says it will probably take about 15mins per 100m to 'fight through' a defensive position. A prepared assault for a platoon might normally take about an hour before it even leaves the LD. Sure, a quick assault can be mounted, but even then it would take about 10 minutes minimum. So, CM appears to play a bit like one of those great WWII games we used to play using 1:72 scale models. Lots of fun, but you end up wondering why it took 6 years to finish the war?! Implementing a realistic C&C model might also give you the opportunity to show some of the major differences between the german and allies C&C structures. The germans directive control (Aufgraftactik? sp?) was one of the major reasons they caused a 10:1 cas. ratio overall. Is it possible that CM2 (because I don't want to delay the release of CM) could give an option for 'realistic' C&C timings? What do other people think? Was WWII faster than my 'modern' training suggests? Bruce

Fionn, Great article. The AT thing and the AARs are a real turn-on. I can't wait to play my "grog" friends with this baby Bruce