David Aitken

And what about the Sturmtiger??

MrPeng wrote: > the current one stolen from despair.com has outlived its usefulness and makes me vomit when i see it. I have to say, don't Yanks seem to spend a lot of their time vomiting? I mean, I might dislike something, or it might annoy or depress me, but I can't say I often just spontaneously throw up over some trivial matter.

Do a search!!! Interface needs work. I want a roster, a roster !! Vote ! Roster War, ceasefire

Leeo wrote: > David Aitken is now starting to complain about having chosen a rainy night scenario. He complains with good reason, for after I sprung a reverse slope ambush which destroyed a Churchill and a few squads, mortars, MGs, and other accoutrements of war, his Brits are now shooting up trees, bushes, rocks, and each other. Good to see Leeo is keeping up on the PR. Indeed I trampled over a few of his Sturmgruppe squads on the way to the VL. Indeed I commented "nice ambush", words which appear to have gone to his head in a big way. In truth, it was such a poor ambush that his large and heavily armed platoon, supported by machineguns, panzerschrecks and miscellaneous others, couldn't even stop a platoon of British soldiers out walking the battalion Scottie dog, Hamish. It has, however, been a uniform characteristic of this battle that my men have suffered far more casualties from each other than from Leeo's bumbling Sturmkompanie thugs. By all rights he should have walked straight over me, but has thus far been responsible for precious few of my losses. I shall proceed with my imaginative tactics, and possibly end up somewhere near the VL in the process.

What the hell?? Maximus, you've been on this forum long enough, have you actually noticed any of what goes on? Did you miss the huge Enemy At The Gates thread a month or two ago that was locked? Do we really need another one? And what makes you think BTS would use a work of fiction and fantasy a source for their serious research? Are you pretending to be a newbie, or what??

Wreck wrote: > If anything I would give vets a greater chance to go to ground almost instantly upon receiving MG fire; in fact the program should reduce their exposure% for doing so. But this is already modelled. A Veteran squad will not stop in the face of machinegun fire – this is what they are trained not to do. But the individual squad members are dashing from cover to cover, you just don't see it happening. A Green squad, on the other hand, will stop completely, and this is when it visually "goes to ground" in the game. > "Your target ducks"... this is what I think should be modelled. Slow down highly exposed troops under heavy fire. You simply cannot run full tilt while ducking. Again, this is modelled. The only issue is the overall speed of squads doing this. > Look, if it were so hard to hit anything firing a veritable stream of bullets flying all over the place, then how would you expect anyone ever hit anything (or pinning down troops) with mere rifles? And yet, they did. Surely this should be clear from the many examples others have submitted. Firstly, machineguns are innaccurate. They are a suppressive weapon, not intended to kill the enemy, but to pin them down to be killed by other means. A modest spread of fire is expected of a machinegun. Secondly, when you fire a machinegun, only the first couple of rounds will be near your target. Even if the gun is firmly enough fixed not to jump around, the barrel will rise and subsequent shots will be way off target. As such, the gun is most accurately used as a rifle – firing short bursts – but even then, it is far less accurate than a rifle. A rifle may be "mere" in terms of volume of fire, but a machinegun is "mere" in terms of accuracy. > I was positing, and trying to explain, two different meanings for "pinned", only one of which is really implemented in CM. > The first meaning is a loss of command control over a squad, which has decided for whatever reason that self-preservation is now more important than the mission. This is the effect CM models. [...] > The second meaning for pinning is not about morale vs command control per se, but rather, smart responsiveness on the part of the squad. Sorry, this is modelled. Look at a unit's information panel. At the extreme bottom right, the morale state. This starts at OK, then goes to Alerted, Cautious, and then I think Pinned and so downwards. But the box above it indicates the unit's attitude – whether it is Taking Cover or Hiding. In other words, whether it's hugging the ground because it's taking a lot of fire, or because you ordered it to. This is separate from morale.

Stephen Smith wrote: > I hope to inspire some talk and planning for new features that we would like to see in CM2. [...] I suspect if we have any suggestions, now is the time to be making them-a few months before publication will be too late. OHMYGOD!!! Where have you been since CMBO was released??

Sorry Mr Elvish, the breathalyser indicates that you were in control of a copy of Combat Mission while several hundred times over the legal alcohol limit. Either that or Peng was in control of your copy of Combat Mission while you were several hundred times over the legal alcohol limit. That said, I must plead guilty on charges of gamily utilising sound tactics, using accurate mortar fire where the opposition could only fling shells randomly, knock out enemy AFVs with said artillery where the opposition could only button them, and press home the attack even after losing most of my armour where the opposition could only flounder, run around and take every opportunity to get killed in imaginative ways (the defence submits Exhibit A, the Humber shooting gallery).

Brummbär, I think Pillar is talking about crossing a fixed line of fire. If there is a stream of bullets in front of you a couple of feet off the ground, you're going to have to crawl to get past it.

I had the old forum page bookmarked, and it still says it's down for maintenance. I didn't think to access it via the main site's frameset until I heard from someone else that the new forum could be accessed this way. It might be a good idea to redirect people jumping straight into the old forum, no?

Last guy I heard of visiting Loch Lomond ended up with his arms and legs underwater, his torso on a rubbish tip and his head on a beach near Ayr. Have fun with the sheep.

News from the Front The "Front" being, of course, the latest MG Effectiveness thread. • Pillar thinks that experience has nothing to do with troops' ability to move in the face of machinegun fire. • I saw someone claim that machinegun crews should be able to move as fast as riflemen. PBEM Report Come to think of it, I haven't heard from Meeks lately. Looks like another resend job. Elvis is denying responsibility for his actions. Leeo and I have disentangled in the dark for the time being, and I am attempting to prevent my men from killing each other long enough to kick the remnants of his Sturmkompanie off the VL. I can't find Græmlin in the dictionary. Methinks the folks at UBB have nothing better to do than enhance the functionality of their smilies (ie. change the appearance and give them a new name, like... Windows XP).

The prevailing argument now seems to be that machineguns should cause more suppression. However, I am still seeing a good number of flawed ideas. The most glaring issue is Pillar's attitude towards the value of experience. Pillar wrote: > I don't think it should have to be Green's for a suppressive/stopping effect. I don't buy the argument that veterans can jump and zig better than greens. We are not judging a zig-zagging competition. I think experienced troops would be able to physically zig-zag more effectively than newbies, but that is not the issue. The point is, veterans will do it, and newbies will not. Veterans will understand that machineguns are not as lethal as they seem, and will keep moving using squad-level tactics. Newbies will hug the ground and stay there. Does this make sense? It's not about how you evade machinegun fire, it's about whether you have the confidence to keep moving. Next, the idea that machineguns are a Hose O' Death at close range. Pillar wrote: > If by some miracle, (and it would be a miracle), the squad managed to charge the full 200m head on, the final 30m should be very lethal. kmead provides a nice example of why this is rubbish: kmead wrote: > soldier A moves from one bit of cover to the next. Soldier B now moves forward in the same fashion but he is twenty yards away to the side, soldier C lays on suppressing covering fire. The further they are apart (laterally) the more difficult it is to keep track of which one is moving and having to resite the weapon on the constantly switching targets. This also applies to the simple issue of men crossing open ground in the face of machinegun fire, as exemplified by Wreck. Wreck wrote: > I think that Pillar's test is perfectly sufficient for showing the (lack of) suppressive effect that MGs had. [...] At issue is the simple question: can infantry run across open ground against MG fire? The answer in CM appears to be yes. The answer in history (some of us think) was no. It takes a couple of seconds to line up the gun before you pull the trigger. You pick your target and line it up. Your target ducks, whether in reaction to your fire or through sound tactics. Elsewhere another target gets up and dashes. You line up the new target and fire. All along, you are struggling to get in any kind of effective fire while your target is exposed. All along, there are other targets moving while you try to hit the current one. This is a constant process which repeats in the space of seconds, and your targets are rapidly closing on your position. As we should all be aware by now, this is what CM is simulating. "Running" troops are not out for a jog. The only issue, as Steve has admitted, is that the rate of movement may be a bit too high. Experienced troops know the problems faced by a machinegunner, and will exploit them. This is at the very root of squad-level tactics. Fire, get up, dash, hit the ground, fire, get up, dash. Ten men doing this simultaneously is a machinegunner's nightmare. This is why the only targets which can be cut down Hollywood-style are newbies. When they're moving they're vulnerable, and when they stop moving they stop for good. They don't know how to exploit the machinegunner's problems. Lastly, I can't understand the most recent few posts... Wreck wrote: > For infantry out of cover, there is a problem: there is no way to model the effect of a squad feeling forced to seek cover but otherwise fine in terms of morale. Wreck goes on at length about the lack of the ability to "take cover" as opposed to being "pinned". Sorry, but am I imagining the "Taking Cover" status in CM? Am I also imagining it when troops ordered to run across open ground, take fire, hit the ground and try to crawl to their destination? I could swear all that you're asking for is already modelled.

Wreck wrote: > The reason why not everyone got one is casualties. And nothing to do with handiness or mobility? > there is no reason why CM could *not* be used to sim WWI. This is not the point. Indeed machineguns would work as people like Homba expect they should in this scenario. But you are not going to find this scenario in a Second World War battle. This is why the comparison is irrelevant.

This man speaks the truth.

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > where is the tile that represents an open field with no cover that can maximize an mg's effectiveness? Where would you expect to find this kind of terrain? An "open field" would not maximise a machinegun's effectiveness anyway. Refer to my comments about the First World War above.

I fink the MG modelling in CM is crap!! I hid an M1917 behind a cardboard box, and he was assaulted by several companies of German infantry, and he only killed half of them!! WTF?? If 1 MG isn't all I need to win, how am I going to get to the top of my ladder?? I don't understand any other tactics than "Take MG... point MG at bad guys... pull trigger"!!! Oh and how come they cant run?? When I was 6 I had a BB gun and I could run with that!!! WTF is going on BTS!!! Fix this or I might post ANOTHER thread on the same subject!!!

But... but... in Saving Private Ryan a half-squad charged an MG42 over open ground and only took one casualty!! Two points: • A fast-moving squad is not just out for a jog. What you see is an abstraction. • Vehicles cannot go at top speed over open ground. They move much faster on roads. And again, the straight-line-constant-speed you see is an abstraction. • Machineguns in the First World War were massed, and troops were not moving over open ground, it was muddy, churned up, shell-holed ground strewn with some very nasty barbed wire. This is why they were so effective. Anyway, it's all been said before. I assume you've read this thread, but for others' reference: Questioning MG effectiveness? ------------------ "Compared to the European armies, Americans had a permissive view toward the authority of doctrine and considered blind obedience to doctrine a vice, not a virtue." – Michael Doubler's "Closing With The Enemy" in brief

> they almost always pick dry and overcast, which is an unlikely combination at best. Presumably you haven't spent much time in Europe. The "overcast" sky in CM would be more convincing if it were just plain white, not threatening grey. ------------------ "Compared to the European armies, Americans had a permissive view toward the authority of doctrine and considered blind obedience to doctrine a vice, not a virtue." – Michael Doubler's "Closing With The Enemy" in brief

PBEM Report My battle with Leeo has plummeted into chaos, with men panicking and dying in the darkness and the rain. And that's even before the enemy joins in. Meeks started our latest engagement with a terrain disadvantage. Despite my men displaying their finest aptitude to sitting around and taking pot shots from a safe distance, he is now in control of one VL. That said, he has dropped approximately 36,041 shells on my positions, exacting the horrendous toll of 2 casualties. Germanboy has apparently been detained by the police or some such, and is not currently able to send turns. I don't know what's happened to Elvis, maybe I should resend his turn, but That Would Be Too Clever™.

lcm1947 wrote: > not to mention the times I've been knocked out because it took so long to rotate the whole tank that the other tank or whatever shot first and got me. Tanks have been tweaked to rotate both their hull and turret when engaging threats. This brings the gun to bear faster. Originally one had to wait for the turret to come to bear, which was a serious disadvantage with German tanks. Can't please everybody... ------------------ "Compared to the European armies, Americans had a permissive view toward the authority of doctrine and considered blind obedience to doctrine a vice, not a virtue." – Michael Doubler's "Closing With The Enemy" in brief

armornut wrote: > Since when was R.E.M. any good at all? Did anyone say they were? Or were you just looking for an excuse to offer a witless put-down? Stuka wrote: > Go to bed David, your Winnie the Pooh pajamas are calling you........ > Not to mention your Thomas the tank engine night cap and the Telly Tubby hot water bottle....... How do you know about those? You've been watching me undress, haven't you? armornut wrote: > And the gay porn........you ever see a happy porn? Or is what the Telly Tubby hot water bottle for? I think that belongs to Stuka... ------------------ "Compared to the European armies, Americans had a permissive view toward the authority of doctrine and considered blind obedience to doctrine a vice, not a virtue." – Michael Doubler's "Closing With The Enemy" in brief

Since when was R.E.M. a power pop band?

Stuka wrote: > Lets see....embossed floral wallpaper, heavy rose petal curtains and gaudy dark red (again floral patterned) carpets. Reminds me of my gran's house. I have just spent several hours convincing myself that the world would be a better place without computers. As such, normal operations are on hold until I have spent several more hours unconscious. PBEM Semi-Update Leeo is unfortunately still exhibiting vital signs. I shall examine the damage more closely tomorrow. Now I really am going to bed. Have fun!

I think you'll find, Leeo my little princess, that Joe is less of a lawyer and more of a mortgage banker or something of similar interest (ie. nil). Not to suggest that lawyers are interesting, of course. Amusing, yes, in a macabre sort of way. Joe and colleagues can be observed mingling in groups known as 'wunches'.