John Rainey

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Would they have been "just as effective" if you spotted them as soon as you were in LOS? I doubt it. And that is my point when everyone keeps trying to tell me that hidden mines are no more effective than mines on the surface and that in essence is what you and several others have posted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scott please see the above good nature challenge. I DO BELEIVE THAT SURFACE LAID MINES ARE JUST AS EFFECTIVE. Sorry for the all caps. You are right you don't get points for changing the direction of the enemy, however when I work to change the direction of your movement it is for the higher purpose of killing you more effectively. Therefore I will get more points. I hope you will take up the challenge, I think it will make a fun and interesting game. Once again please take this as a friendly challenge not in a adverse way. John "Those Damned Engineers" J Piper Dec 1944 somewhere in the Ardennes.

>Quote Scott Clinton Really? Did you take up my challenge and play a nice defensive PBEM with anti-personnel mines and then tell your opponent where all your minefields were?? According to this logic, they would be (and I quote) "...just as effective as regular minefields." How can a daisy chain mine block be just as effective when nobody in their right mind would drive a vehicle over one and almost the only way to spot an anti-vehicle mine would be to lose a vehicle first?!?! Frankly, I just don't see how anyone could seriously argue this point. Anytime someone wants to take up this challenge, I will gladly be their opponent in the PBEM game. >Unquote Scott I would take up your challenge because where you place your minefields is more important then the losses they cause. That was my main point. I will play a PBEM game with fixed defense with minefields playing a key role. I will take a snapshot of the set up after minefields but before unit placement and send it to you. We can then finish setup and fight it out. Now you will prob beat my pants off but I bet it will have nothing to do with the minefields. Most likely do to a stupid mistake I make and you take advantage of. I will freely admit I am no tactical wizard. Thats why I stick to blowing sh** up and digging holes and carving roads in the jungle. John ESSAYON'S (Let Us Try!!!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Strictly relating to CM, and I would definitely call it a suggestion (grumble perhaps ). I recently started a game where I had a low quality German infantry force defending a random "Town" map against a combined arms US force. With various limitations imposed (that I will not go into here) I decided that the best way to defend the town was to use lots of infantry and anti-vehicle mines. This of course will not work because I was not allowed to either place the mines in the main roads leading into the town or anywhere in the town itself (paved road and pavement terrain). It appears to me that the way CM is currently modeled the assumption is being made that anti-vehicle mines were not laid on paved terrain. Yet everyone here agrees it would be possible (as far as I can tell). And frankly I don't accept that daisy chain mines are "just as effective" when used properly (not even close IMO). So, considering the value of paved roads: Why does CM make the assumption that anti-vehicle mines were NOT laid in paved terrain? I freely admit to a lack of 'hard data'. But in the absence of 'hard data' I would assume just the opposite because of the inherent value of paved roads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scott, The main reason roads were not and are not currently mined in the way you suggest is in fact their inherent value. The fast avenue's of approach are usually closed with a quick laying of surface mines. Why? The roads and other quick approaches are going to be used by the covering force or scouts that are holding off the enemy so that you can prepare your defense. These guys are going to break contack with the enemy and run like hell to get behind your new defensive line. They need the roads to do this. You then quickly close the route with a surface layed plug. It is quick and often the enemy is right behind the Covering Force. Poof! you are now ready to defend. Mine fields serve 3 main purposes ( I'll use current terminology but the same principles applied in WWII). 1. Turn - get the enemy to move down the route you want. He goes were your main force is and you kill him or he takes the time to breach your fields and you have time to shift forces and still kill him. 2. Fix - Make the ground sticky. The enemy must move around (giving flank shots for AT weapons) or through your obstacles( giving you lots of time to kill his engineers and the stuff that is backed up behind them) 3. Block - Very hard to do. Need alot of engineer effort and lots of combat units. Basically a DIP mission (either you win or you Die In Place). In CM use Daisy chains on roads or better yet leave the road has the only route through and set up the channel as a extensive AT kill zone. Set up your AT assets so you have flank shots at anything that is in the open route. As a Combat Engineer (15 years of exp) I could care less if even one of my mines kills a vehicle. That is not their purpose. I shape the battle field for the Combat Units. They do the killing. The same applies to WWII. Believe me Combat Engineering has not changed that much in 60 years. Heck most of my equipment is 30 to 40 years old as it is. We are always on the short list when it comes to new stuff. John Rainey ESSAYON'S (motto of the Combat Engineers) [This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 09-19-2000).]

Which Cable Network????????? Haven't seen anything about it John ESSAYON'S

When I was a Combat Engineer Plt Ldr and then a Company Commander I always replied to this question with the following. We can Fight anything the Infantry Can plus my squad leaders know how to use a calculator. Of course it had to be a four function calculator only. Seriously, wargames do a poor job in simulating (sp?) what combat engineers do on the battlefield. We are broken down from our combat bn's into companies and plt's and even squads and assigned out to other combat units. In WWII you typically had a Eng plt supporting a Inf BN. Now days we try to give a Inf BN a company. I was just glad when BTS gave the Cbt Eng squads the ability to clear mines in CM. Other wise gamers use us as nothing but Inf because that is the only apparent function in most wargames. In real world situations engineers are in such short supply the decision to use us has Inf is usually held by the Div or Corps commander. They will not let Bde or Bn commanders put the nab on us. Oh well enough rambling on. John Eassyon's (motto of the Combat Engineers - "Lets Us Try")

Commisioned after 2 years no pay in ROTC in Dec 1984 >2 years IRR. >1986 to 1995 Combat Engineer Officer in Line Bn (ahhhh company command best times in the Army). >1995 to present Ops Officer in Staff Engineer Section I Corps (NG)(we discribe being a Capt. in a Corps TOC as a SPC with Bars on your hat). ESSAYON'S John [This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 08-04-2000).]

The big publishers will NOT notice because CM does not fit with their way of thinking. It must there fore be a one time fluke. 'Now back to releasing crap with our current production methods.' The people I hope and pray notice are other talented and creative people like Steve and Charles. I hope they notice and start making plans for new companies and new products that use the same 'high quality at release time' stantards and customer friendly attitude that BTS and the other Battlefront companies use. This is how all of us in the buying public will win. Good job on CMBO and more in the future guys. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! John Essayon's

The Somalia episode (sp) set off a firestorm in the Combat Engineer world. The difficulty the Rangers had in moving and the problems the ground relief forces faced trying to get to them were quite challenging. No one had played around with how simple it is to make a street barricades with old cars and a few land mines in a third world city. The barriers went from building to building right across the street. Add a dozen AP land mines and you have an obstacle that 3 or 4 men can defend for a long time. Plus the Light Infantry had almost no breaching systems with them. For the next 2 or 3 years the Engineer School at Ft. Lenard Wood had a group of people working on Remote Vehicle control packages that would help breach obstacles in such situations. My Guard CbtEng company would put in obstacles for them on the weekend so they could test them. Fun work. Project never went anywhere, Combat engineering is not high on the funding list to say the least. John ESSAYON'S

I believe the biggest change that has happened is the "Op Tempo". Every thing happens at an accelerated pace. Unlike WWII the pace of combat picks up at night, at least on the US side. With thermal imaging on Attack Avaition assets, Armor vehicles and quite common among the Infantryman night combat is the PERFERED time of combat not the exception.

St. Louis area, and once a month or so Ft. Wood. ------------------ ESSAYONS

In support of LOS point on what modern warfare is like, a quote from a exit interview of a Infantry (company grade) Officer on why he was leaving the service. "If I here one more comment on 'Information Warfare' or the 'Digital Battlefield' I'll F*****G Puke". Its not all bells and wistle's and high tech gizmo's. It's still about Grunts and Tread Heads on the ground. Look for info on the final AAR on the Air Power effect on Military Targets (ie Units) in Kosovo. Didn't really kill that much hardware. John Sappers Forward !!!!

How many out there are planning any Veterns Day activities. I know that I am guilty of not going to St. Louis's downtown Parade. I to make it worse I am the Service (part time now at least). I read in the local newspaper that the parade is so poorly attended that it might be canceled. It is time to think about what has been given by those who haved served and especially those who have servered and paid the ultimate dues. If your communitee has a parade or service on Nov. 11th or on the Saturday closes to that date make sure you attend. I will this time. John Sappers Forward !!!

OH NO !!!!! I just downloaded the demo at work thinking it wouldn't run on my desktop (not much of a video card etc.), but it runs quite well actually. This could threaten my families financial security if my boss finds out. John Sappers Forward !!!!

I like the HQ info idea, how about make the accuracy of the info dependent on the command link from HQ to subordinate units. The longer the unit has been out of command the less accurate or less quantity of info. I half way through playing a game of Last defense in this style and it adds some atmosphere when playing against the AI. Starting a PBEM game this Sunday, we'll post how it goes against a Human opponent. Johh Sappers Forward!!!

All this debate on FOW and how the game is not called WWII commander has got me thinking. Has anyone tried to play the game only from the view of the HQ's on the map. During the pregame setup you can take the view of any unit on the map, after that try using the first person view of only the HQ units on the map. You can use the zoom levels, simulating Bino's, but you can't take the view point of any of your squads. You can still give orders to move and fire but only use the Over head view, this simulates looking at a map and giving move orders, you can tell units to target units you can see, otherwise depend of the Unit Tac AI. I only tried this for two turns of the Last Defense scenario and it is different to say the least. Makes you move your HQ's to get a better view of the action. In this scenario I am only going to use the Maj and the Company CO as my view points. I am interested to see how this goes once the action get real busy. This also will add new life to the demo scenarios as I await the real thing. Out from here. John Sappers Forward!!! [This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 11-02-99).] [This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 11-02-99).]

Fred & Kraut, First of all have you ever been under fire?? Even Simulated fire during a real world military exercise??? The commands you are giving are at company and battalion level, at least this is how I view it, how they are carried out at the squad and platoon level are effected by the AI. Crawling around on the ground and trying to direct my Squads (when I was a LT) and crawling or using my Comm equip. while I was a Company CO to direct my Plts I tell you Its not fun or easy. Individual sections and soldiers should be programmed to take action based on how they see it not on how the upper ecelon see's it. In this game the units will react to how they perceive the situtaion to be, so when you order it to fire it is like a HIGH level order. If it doesn't fit reality by the time it reaches them it will be discarded by the troops on the line. When you have work with real troops and if you have worked with them in " The Land Of The Two Way Rifle Range" you would know what point I am trying to get accross. I am sorry if this comes across as rather blunt. John Sappers Forward!!!!

john_rainey@bpna.com Sappers Forward!!

john_rainey@bpna.com Sappers Forward!!!!

Been lurking for about 4 months now. I preordered after about 2 months. Couldn't resist after the first AAR's went up Sappers Forward!!!

Your playing out of the Alpha on the Gamers Net just sold one game. I have been playing Wargames for 20 + years, I don't consider myself a Grog just a real fan of wargames. Reading the accounts of the game on the web site made me jump the fence and pre-order. I'm sure that other hardcore wargamers will also jump once they read and see what this game can do. Can't wait for the BETA and the Final release. Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this John (Sappers Forward!!!) [This message has been edited by John Rainey (edited 08-25-99).]