Simon Fox

Who said it's a body, looks like a sunbaker to me If it's a Brit it's tea time. Really, it's an eliminated unit icon not a body (think of it that way Major Tom), it's a handy tool to help you manage your units and assess your performance as a commander not a sop to the red tide of carnage brigade.

I am sure that this feature will be a useful addition to the game and another example of BTS responding to the entreaties of the masses, though thankfully in a moderate way. It's not so much a realism issue but a gameplay issue as it will be especially useful for those 2man teams which can dissappear in the twinkle of an eye. As an aside there seems to be a persistent misconception among some that casualty=dead. A casualty represents a whole spectrum of different reasons why an individual can no longer contribute in that particular scenario, including the entirely psycological IIRC. It is quite conceivable that a unit could be wiped out in game terms (especially the smaller ones) and not have taken ANY killed. So a nice quiet bloody corpse strewn field, that aint reality either. ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

IIRC the M16 AA halftrack was supposed to be in that's the quad .50 aka 'meatgrinder' the M15 would also be nice (37mm + 2x .50) some relevant links (first is really good) http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36division/443con.htm http://members.aol.com/famjustin/Haasbio.html http://www.gallagher.com/ww2/index.html

I would think a more pertinent question would be whether the gunners would man the gun during the barrage? Also would they be more vulnerable to the arty if they were manning it? Anyone familiar with the 88 Flak would know that even dug in they have a high profile and the crew need to expose themselves more than a Pak type gun to fire them. You shouldn't expect to knock it out with arty, though I would hope that you could suppress the crew sufficiently that they wouldn't fire during the barrage, during which you could maybe advance your Shermans. Personally though I think you could use a lot less rounds of smoke to acheive the same effect. 10-15secs of smoke should screen the 88 for a while. Then use the rest of your arty to pulverise the town. ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Unfortunately the unesteemed MrPing (yes that's the sound of his single neuron firing) is suffering from a severe case of smily envy (that's the correct English spelling of the singular by the way for all you misbegotten philistines intent on mangling a perfectly adequate language with your 'phonetic' spelling, first used by Shakespeare "Alas, poor smily..." (Hamlet); "From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered; We few, we happy few, we band of smilies" (Henry V-the first appearance in English literature of Mr Happy); "How far that little smily throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world." (The Merchant of Venice); "Out, damned smily! out, I say!" (Macbeth); even so, I digress). Even with a veritable smorgasboard of said smily delicacies to choose from can MrPing find one to match the tone and content of his posts....no....alas no suitable smily exists which matches the mouth of MrMad replete with foaming drool, the bulging eyes of MrRolleyes not rolling but fixated and bloodshot, with the vacuous cranium of MrPing. So we have MrPing's dilemma: bereft of a suitable smily to express his intent he is reduced to an all to inadequate medium; the written word. So, we are left to wonder what possible nutrition can MrPing derive from a few phosphor molecules served in a sauce of photons, but we are hardly suprised. As for the sycophantic mutterings of the all to shallow rabble: the merest presence of some of them is a source of exquisite irony. ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!" [This message has been edited by Simon Fox but not so as to save anyones fragile ego (edited 04-27-2000).] [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-27-2000).]

Bogle

Sources on the Syrian campaign are hard to gather, still my massive treatise is gathering pace, but its will not be posted until after Easter. As I may include graphics I may have to put it on the Web and post a link. Anyway remember that at this time (1941) the distinction between Syria and Lebanon as distinct entities was not generally made and should not be used ti delineate the deployment of forces. I will post some statistics which might throw light on some earlier posts. The allied forces employed in Syria until the end of June 1941 totalled: 18,000 Australian 9,000 British 5,000 Free French 2,000 Indian The Vichy French forces comprised about 35,000 regular troops with a number of other lesser quality units probably about 10,000 of "doubtful value". The casualties for the campaign: British&Indian 1,800 (inc. approx 1,200 POW) Australian 1,600 (killed and wounded only) Free French 1,300 (inc. approx. 1,100 POW) Vichy French 3-3,500 killed, wounded & missing. (figures vary slightly) Source "Greece, Crete, and Syria" Gavin Long Therefore the 25% figure cited previously for FF casualties was essentially correct but the K&W figure was 200 (4%)

There he goes again. Old Boots in his Gums is at large ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

"extreme" Well given the circumstances of your force as you describe them I would certainly consider them 'in extremis'. Especially given the relatively healthy nature of the opposition as related by Ron. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just wanted an OPTIONAL feature so that before a match two players cold agree to fight til the end<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may feel misunderstood but I am sure most people were aware that this was one of your points, they just didn't agree with it and didn't want to see two different sets of rules operating simultaneously for ladder games. Your protestations that you had a chance are another point you make frequently and given the circumstances of your force were so extremely bad that it is difficult to conceive of any alternative outcome. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know people dont really consider withdrawing in CM an option as a battle is a single battle, but if you really are going for points, there is a time when retreat will be more valuable than, well, surrender or near to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A great point KwazyDog. Some creative scoring would make things more interesting. Certainly it would be interesting to see if one could get stand alone scenarios to play more like operations by appropriate design of the scoring system. Of course you need players the be aware of how the scoring system operates . SS, As for your other responses to my post it may be that having read other threads where you have demonstrated a capacity to deal with some jesting at your expense, myself, Elvis and OBG may have thought you could take it. My point was that irrespective of your intent it was entirely possible to misconceive your posts as whinging, not that I actually thought you were. Yes I was 'taking a crack' at you and the was not there to 'make it look better' but to indicate it was meant in fun. That's what all those smileys are there for after all: to give a clear indication of the intent of a statement that might otherwise be misunderstood because the written word cannot convey the subtlety which comes with the spoken word. 'Taking the piss' is a national trait here, especially when people get all puffed up and serious about the relatively inconsequential. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist the complete absence of self-depreciation and tried to jolt you out of it. Obviously I failed miserably [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-19-2000).] oops [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have never seen a global morale around the 13% mark... but if I had a game where is got down that low Id be treating my troops like eggs, they are ready to shatter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, when mine goes below 50% I start treating them like eggs. Anyone with a modicum of familiarity with history will tell you that that kind of casualty rate is large let alone 87%. Most commanders will call off any action long before that occurred. Perhaps "Auto-surrender" is the wrong description I prefer to view it as conceding the field of battle to the enemy, not that it has happened to me, yet What makes CM such a great wargame is that the realism makes it more like a military simulation and the history buffs among us can see our reading coming to life instead of shouting: "No! goddamn that could not possibly happen at the monitor" like in some other games If you want that realism then you have to accept the whole package because a mixture of realism and ridiculous abstractions is just plain....ridiculous. Now SS I understand your perspective but your suggestion that people who are participating in a competitive pursuit are not competitive unless they are in a ladder made me ROFL. Given the extreme nature of the example you are using, where you were clearly thrashed, it is hardly suprising that some people are characterising you as a sore loser. Lighten up a bit, no offense meant to you SS(sookysooky)_Panzerleader ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Is that the real bocage or the CM bocage? 'cos you know if it was the real bocage it would...... sound of administering several sharp slaps to oneself....

pritzl, practice

Steve, I really think you should lay off Lewis a bit. Yes he is very 'snipey' but generally they are so lame that I am sure no one is really offended. Right, Bastables?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the GI's encountered the enemy a lot of times the first thing was to call in artillery or air<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This opinion crops up so many times that I am sure there is an element of truth in it but I feel it is grossly overexaggerated. Sure, towards the end of the war this became standard practice for many US units when confronted with opposition in Germany. I would suggest that it may have been more prevalent in less experienced units. Even so they did have the firepower so why not use it, the main problem occurs when it becomes a reliance upon it which is danegrous as it isn't always going to work. Funnily enough I always contrast this European theatre opinion of the US army with how they were viewed by the Aussies in the Pacific. They felt the were too gung-ho and aggressive - "always charging in and getting themselves into situations they couldn't get out of". ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Joel, You seem to have wasted your time with your detailed discussion of my "imaginary explanations" since you have misconstrued their rationale which was to outline in general possible reasons for such a performance in contrast to your own rather bizarre suggestion. Rumour may be a better rationale than your first however you contradict yourself by saying the 5th Indian Brigade (inc. the FF) group was supported by an Aust battallion, in fact several Aust units (including part of the 2/11 Bn) operated in support so they were not "100km" away. Even so I am biding my time on the rest of your post, don't want to go off 'half-cocked' ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Hey where's my apology? I do READ what you say!!!! As difficult as it might be sometimes to decipher your convoluted method of expression ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!" [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 04-14-2000).]

Joel, Your account of the Syrian campaign is at odds with what I have read of it. Certainly the 5th Indian Brigade bore a considerable burden IIRC. The coastal route was undoubtedly the best defended and the most defensible terrain. I will have to read up a bit more to discuss your post in detail, I will also provide a bibliography. Undoubtedly some components of the 1st FF may have fought well but the impressions I have from my reading are that their allies soon learned not to rely on them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it seems that the Free French "bloody pathetic" performance in this campaign was matched and beaten by others, who had interest to cover their tracks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A laughable concept. It hardly seems likely that private soldiers, NCOs and junior officers would express their opinions for such Machiavellian reasons. Especially since they were justifiably proud of their own performance. Here's a better explanation for "bloody pathetic": an understandable reluctance to fight ones own countrymen, many colonial troops of limited quality, poor leadership, inadequate training, quality of the opposition vis a vis themselves.... etc etc IMO the casualty level is far to non-specific to be a proper indicator of performance.

Not wishing to whinge about CMHQ again, OK I admit that's BS any excuse will do But...I can't seem to find the text bit (ie mini AAR) though everything else works fine? Good to see your picking some real heroes instead of some bloody 88 crew who are really only just doing their job- knocking out 3-4 Shermans should be a standard days work ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Well I for one made no generalisations about the French. I referred to a specific example where someone said they put up a token defence (wrong!) ie Syria and I did not relate my own opinion but rather that of those who fought in that campaign (well-documented). As for the statement <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They fought EXTREMELY hard in Syria, both Vichy and the Free French 1st Division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The former is quite correct but as for the latter (FF 1st) you are completely wrong: their performance was bloody pathetic. The Aussies despised them and respected the Vichy forces (who they were fighting), you can draw your own conclusions from that surely. I am not deriding the overall FF performance just in that campaign.

Just to set you on the right track... They put up a heck of a lot more than token resistance in Syria much to the disgust of the Australians who moved in there expecting to be met with 'wine and flowers'. Mind you the Aussies respected their opponents fighting capabilities much more than their erstwhile allies the Free French (aka Gaullists) for whom they had nothing but contempt. By the way if you wish to use the term 'Commonwealth' to describe the combined forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ, India etc that's OK. If you insist on the inaccurate and annoying collective term 'British' for anything other than the British Army be prepared for a roasting

Though I will definitely buy the game I have not preordered because since I first considered it my card has expired twice! I'll order when it's done, you know..."it's done when it's done" I have a CD burner and plan to make lots of copies.....of the gold demo ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

Well it seems logical to me, historically a good way to wreck an infantry/armour attack if you had poor anti-armour capability was to eliminate the infantry. Inevitably the armour would bug out or fall prey sneaky infantry attacks. Though the spotting of infantry by buttoned up armour is far too easy for my liking in the beta demo, can't remember if this has been tweaked subsequently.

Upon my word! The British Empire brought civilisation (cricket) to countless ignorant savages giving them the benefit of some good British cooking too, not like that damnable muck they were used to eating! How dare you suggest good old Queen Vicky was a raving meglomaniac! I think you could probably class the Boers as European, they certainly weren't indigenous. Anyway, apart from a few hiccups the British Empire was a relatively benign enterprise compared to Adolf's Reich (rum chap that!) or even other European colonial powers. Unfortunately it showed that the British army was principally a colonial one by organisation and training when it came up against a European army rather than one armed with spears and antiquated firearms. Though it would be incorrect to apply that generalisation entirely in the timeframe of CM (ie '44on). Tally ho!

Yeah, well I like to play the allies because all that whining about duty and honour while embarking without a shred of conscience on a war of aggression and riding roughshod over most continental Europe while imposing untold misery upon countless innocents being led by the nose by a raving meglomaniac makes me want to kick their dumb German butts all the way back to Germany. If it wasn't for Hitler.... well a big rasberry to that concept! BLERGHHHH! ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"

When I jesusified the CM Vision thread.... "I don't know about thee, but I'm goddamn this simian or a distant relative of one." ROFL! A great link, thanks brother simian ------------------ "Heaven sent and hell bent Over the mountain tops we go Just like all the other GI Joes EE-AY-EE-AY adios!"