Simon Fox
-
Posts
1,091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Simon Fox
-
-
Some things are better left unsaid. There are plenty of others who struggle with the obvious and even with the bleedin' variety so I try not to dwell on it, gives 'em something to do. I think it's rather cruel of you to deny them.
[ October 20, 2005, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]
-
I can't say I'm excited by the concept but I don't begrudge BTS the right to make their own business decisions. I must express my admiration for what a fine business decision this is. By all accounts by far their major market is North America and it doesn't take market research to work out there's plenty of the population chomping at the bit to get to grips with the next Middle Eastern bogeyman. This should be a certain winner. Sure there'll be some spineless windbags banging on about such a politically charged game advocating imperialistic aggression. But I'm sure that from the tenuous line of reasoning that's been advanced as the premise behind the game there'll be no problem convincing the target market at least. I've always been glad to see the success that BTS has had and I'm sure that this one will be a winner, just don't put the UN flag on the box.
One thing I do have reservations about is the name. I'm sure it's been sweated over for hours and admittedly it is well directed to the market but I think it's excerable. Unredeemably tacky dismalness. Lamentably woeful and rotten (how I love the thesaurus). I can't see Dan or Martin coming up with that. It may have been some marketing 'genius' but it seems like the kind or title which would appeal to a menacing enforcer personality, a goon who lurks around doorways and belts people, all in the name of keeping the peace of course!. I can't help but feel that a very large angry (if not before, definitely now) bald man had a big part to play. Thankfully it's been quickly condensed to an acronym. As an aside I was perusing some thread where people were banging on and on about CMSF not being SF, very perplexing. Anyway, in the occasional idle moment I have got some simple enjoyment from CMSF. I'm not really interested in CM:Syrian Fantasy it seems too much to me like CM:Shooting Fish, CM:Smacking Fleas or CM:Slight Fracas. Still I'm sure that CM:Smiting Fanatics will appeal to many and good luck to them.
Anyway, back to the real world, carry on.
-
I consider this viewpoint to be rather naive, almost as naive as Tom's hankering after harmonyOriginally posted by Michael Dorosh:Anyway, I think the distinction is important; the theme of "I feel uncomfortable playing "Nazis" in Combat Mission" comes up here semi-regularly. The Nazi Party was the only party permitted in Germany, and Hitler was indeed the head of both the state and the party. But the Party was never as invasive as popular understanding would have us believe, nor was the state nearly as unified as efficiency demanded. Hitler kept it that way on purpose to prevent any one group from gaining too much power.
. For a start, an equally if not more prevalent theme on this forum is "I feel comfortable playing the Germans because their army were honourable soldiers just doing their duty and the same goes for the Waffen SS who were distinct from the "bad" SS." Furthermore, irrespective of how invasive the Party itself was, its' ideology was pervasive and it made special efforts to indoctrinate the armed forces particularly once it attacked the USSR. Hitler's method of dividing power up to keep things under control was a political technique, I don't really see what relevance it has to the extent to which Nazi racial-ideology had permeated German institutions.
-
Here's a question: is the calibre 290mm or the barrel length?
Also, I have a picture of one loaded and the front of the dustbin definitely does not have any kind of standoff although the centre is slightly recessed.
I understand that the proper designation is "mortar, recoiling, spigot, MkI and Mk II".
-
Odd, then, that the designation stood for "Assault Vehicle, Royal Engineers" before it was changed to the more namby-pamby "Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers".Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox:
The AVRE is an engineering vehicle rather than an assault vehicle.
</font>
-
Since I've previously posted the answer (Andreas too and possibly others) then I'll cite the search function. Good luck.
-
The attack on post 11 was a debacle which is an illustration of how not to do things on numerous levels, including perhaps completely detaching your support weapons.Originally posted by jrcar:When attacking Post 11 at Bardia D Coy 2/6th Bn detached the Bren teams from the sections (squads)and attached them to an MG Platoon of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers to provide the fire support for the company attack.
This was the first action the 2/6th Bn fought, and it was noted that detaching the Bren teams was not a good idea. They were found to be more useful integral to the section.
That's an entirely different to internally reorganising a platoon for a tactical purpose. Especially if it was a common and effective practice
-
The AVRE is an engineering vehicle rather than an assault vehicle. The petard mortar is for demolishing obstacles under fire thus minimising the exposure of the poor bastards that might normally be required to get out and place charges by hand. It may also be useful for taking out pillboxes or other reinforced structures which are defended but I don't think that was it's primary use. In fact in such assaults it was the flail tanks which were tasked with taking out pillboxes etc.
-
So can I take the Bren 'teams' from my platoon sections and my 2in mortar and form a Bren group commanded by the Plt Sgt and the have the platoon commander take the rest of the Riflemen/Grenadiers and conduct the assault?
No, I didn't think so.
-
Pretty much a 2-inch mortar sticking through the roof, in fact.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Simon Fox:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:
Most of the game's U.S./Brit armor mounts a 'smoke mortar' in the turret. Pretty much just a flare pistol sticking out of a hole in the roof.
</font>
-
That's entirely unnecessary, with Salt it's either the PRO or some bloke at the pub.
-
Pretty much a 2-inch mortar sticking through the roof, in fact.Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:
Most of the game's U.S./Brit armor mounts a 'smoke mortar' in the turret. Pretty much just a flare pistol sticking out of a hole in the roof.
</font>
-
For grandiose German air claims at Kursk you can't go past the Bruno Meyer story discussed in the thread Dorosh linked to above. I've been racking my brains trying to recall where I read that original discussion and forgot it was at dpi. Anyway the claims are clearly debunked by the evidence and this incident along with others presented in this thread indicate that actual tank kills are a miniscule proportion of claims.
-
So despite your first paragraph it seems that your actual underlying motivation is the one I alluded to earlier in the thread? Unfortunately there is two sides to every coin and having performed brilliantly in your execution of the axis side of things the allied side is a dog's breakfast.Originally posted by Andreas:As a designer who mostly does 2-player/German vs. AI stuff in CMBB, my reason for that is that I feel a bit more confident about getting the briefings to sound right for the German side, I normally have better information for this, and I just feel a little bit more confident about getting the situation right.
That certainly does not have anything to do with German worship, even though I would not mind being worshipped a bit, myself.
-
Personally I prefer not to play the Axis side principally because I'm not comfortable with the homoerotic undertones of much of the German kit. The Soviet gear is a lot more "straight".
Of course I don't intend to be judgemental about those who lean the other way. In this enlightened day and age we try to be accepting of all sorts.
-
Well they couldn't really be expected too, they were very short of food in 1941, the Germans. You couldn't expect your average fraulein on the street to give up a nice bit of cake just because some dirty Russki got himself captured. I mean the bleedin' Slavs were barely human, the prison camps were probably luxury compared to the 'orrible peasant huts they were used too. As for summary execution, well they were used to that with the NKVD and all, made 'em feel right at home I'm sure. It might have been more appropriate to keep 'em in zoos I suppose but I imagine there would have been a bit of trouble with the RSPCA on account of the conditions.Originally posted by Drift3r:As far as the Germans and pens go at least it had to do with not wanting to waste scarce resources on captured prisoners. The Germans didn't really feel the need to setup large well stocked detention centers because they didn't think the war would last as long as it did.
Of course you're right. Absolutely swarms of Russian prisoners elected to help the Germans out. Purely on ideological grounds of course, the choice between digging fortifications in sunny France or participating in experiments to test the limits of human endurance had nuffink to do with it. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, stands to reason doesn't it, and don't bother posting any load of bollocks like that Nuremberg proceedings tripe. That were a fit up if ever there were one.
-
"It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure and also solving the problem of the Baltic states. Food supplies can only be obtained from thinly populated areas. Over and above fertility, thorough German cultivation will tremendously increase the produce. No other openings can be seen in Europe."
and
"There is, therefore, no. question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision: to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity"
- Hitler, Conference at the Reich Chancellory, Berlin, May 23, 1939 from minutes of his adjutant Rudolf Schmundt.
-
I don't think we should get all vitriolic. Well not without a bit of reflection first
then apply the blowtorch. It's good to have these things crop up from time to time. A sobering reminder that millions of apparently rational individuals can be so easily duped into embarking upon a path of madness and evil. -
This is not going to manifest itself as some cyberstalking episode is it? The last slime dwelling pengite who got a hold of my real email was a particularly tedious little leech that required some vigorous removal. Mind you, on second thoughts, as you only live down the road (metaphorically speaking) the antidote if you turned to lunacy would be straightforward.Please e-mail me.Noba. [/QB]
-
"The fear of light is a path to the valley of the dork side"
-
-
No.77 = Smoke (phosphorus) grenadeOriginally posted by JonS:FWIW:
No.36 = Mills Bomb, defensive grenade
No.69 = Offensive grenade (kinda similar to a flash-bang)
No.77 = Smoke grenade
No.74 = 'Sticky' bomb (a.k.a. 'Arrgh! Get it away from me! Get it away! Get it away!')
No.75 = Hawkins A-Tk grenade/mine
very popular with Tommy
very unpopular with Jerry
If you've read Jary there's a very chilling anecdote about this grenade.
3" mortar smoke was phosphorus as well apparently and a mixed smoke/HE barrage was found to be quite efficacious.
-
Unfortunately I am going to have to decline your kind invitation as I have more pressing engagements and am unable to do justice to the topic.Originally posted by Andreas:Could you then outline the key points of the rationale please?
I would like to add that everything I have read indicates that a Brit infantry battalion would have 1-2 MG platoons attached on a semi-permanent basis in most divisions. This might be upped significantly for particular purposes.
In addition I have seen it stated that the War Establishment for the Brit Bn was more like a "suggestion" than a rigid structure. Practice seems to indicate this was the case.
-
All this rabbiting on is pointless. There's plenty of relevant evidence available. The British battalion underwent a wholesale reorganisation in 1938 which was accompanied by removal of some weapons (Lewis, Vickers etc) and addition of others (Bren, etc). The rationale and tactical expectations for the new organisation is well documented although relatively inaccessible. One of the questions that arises is whether this this reorganisation paid any attention to the looming prospect of war or was merely an implementation of an ongoing programme. In the context of the British armies principle task of colonial warfare the infantry organisation makes perfect sense. In the context of continental warfare possibly less so.
then apply the blowtorch. It's good to have these things crop up from time to time. A sobering reminder that millions of apparently rational individuals can be so easily duped into embarking upon a path of madness and evil.
Poll: New name
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Dan </font>