Bobbaro

Well what the heck I thought, the proof is in the pudding or what ever the hell. Anyway, I felt the necessity to place money or something as replacement for mouth. Did a large map, 5000 pt meeting engagement as a "quick" battle. HAH!!!!!!!!!!! Starting somewhere after 9p.m. I had thought to play a start up and finish later. One turn lead to another and I staggered off to a late breakfast this morning at 11:30 AM. Just a few hours down the track. It was a hell of a play. For PBEM, I am sure the results would have been different. I eked out a very strong tactical victory. Now if the engine would allow for resupply etc. It would have justified some more turns. With reinforcements surely. As it was I set the number at 50 and a few more would have helped the pace near the end. However, any advantage there would have been well balanced by my deteriorating physical condition. It ain't much better now. The dividing map axis was horizontal on a very wide front. I got a reinforced battalion. There was a pretty good road network with a longitudinal length running most of the way in the enemy deployment zone and a cross road system that divided the victory locations and map into a single flag on my right map one third and pair in the center and 3 more clustered a little further to the left. I attacked on the right with two companies and left the other hidden looking up at the center pair on a hill. Using AFV transport I moved about one half of a company up on the objective. I have done that a lot, making a rapid advance at the start when and where I feel that I can get a safe jump in occupying key terrain either by riding or by running. A lot of maps lack sufficient depth to make riding much faster than running, but the troops arrive rested and that helps. The rest can catch up and catch their breaths later. The way the battle went was that my two attacking companies encountered a counter attack somewhere starting somewhere about turn ten. I got some earlier armored probes which all bit the dust. I had a hell of a time with fighting off about two companies and was mighty glad for the concentration of the bulk of my forces. The remaining company got started off on their approach to the twin flags on either end of the central hill as things started winding down carefully working their way using only fair cover. They took the hill with no opposition. I risked their unsupported attack, well they had artillery available so not entirely unsupported. I used some of the 105 available for the first attack as my forces there were mainly too closely engaged. It was sprinkled ahead of the assault then diverted in a prelim unobserved barrage on the other VL area. By now the work on the first objective was winding up and when the last of the attackers were being cleaned up, I started boarding two platoons which had a decent amount of ammo left. Then I starting the whole caboodle toward the final objective, armor and riders running on the road. I had developed a sanguine belief that I had taken out the vast bulk of his armor. Initial contacts at the final objective cluster was reassuring I had it covered on two sides rather well, infantry on one and armor on the other. One scout unit even penetrated to the backside and got a friendly flag there, but that was a rather thin force and would have been ineffective otherwise as it was out of ammo. There was even one platoon coming up on the objective across open ground on the remaining side and they succeeded. A few infantry units turned up on the initial armored encounter. Not impressive. But by the end that little farm hamlet with adjacent woods and clearings tightly arranged well for hiding various units until they decided it was high time to put in an appearance proved to be damn near the Waterloo for my forces. The only suggestion of powerful armor on the map was the loss of a M18 mysteriously knocked out from some long range location. By the time I got through I had traded about 8 for 8 AFVs for he had a MKIV, a stug, a couple of halftracks and 3 Panthers. Discretion being the better part of valor, I kept two Shermans confined to supporting the infantry and they they survived. The Panthers kept pussyfooting back and forth through a little path way between woodlands that divided the area back and front. The woods were just full of infantry. The equalizer was artillery. As the last turn ended a barrage of 155 HE assisted with a generous sprinkling of 81MM mortar fire. That left his two remaining Panthers immobilized and greatly assisted my infantry attack. I was able to support my infantry with two tanks while he did not bring any of his to bear on mine to speak of. Otherwise he had a fresh company in a good defensive position against a fairly comparable force. I had maybe a couple of squads over what he had. Artillery and tank support. As it was he still held a flag or two. These marathons are justification for a little R&R off the battlefield. Son In Law is cooking up a little confrontation for about 100 guys to play Italian Campaign on my property in late Jan. They may be supported by the Nimitz Museum as gesture of appreciation for their volunteer reenactors who do living history for them. That should be fun.

With regard to battle length, I have punched a line of thought that was not well recieved and shall set it out again. But, first as to preferences. It is my opinion that our varying moods, circumstances etc, play a determining role in what length we prefer. Some of us find our lives in circumstances that make playing the longer scenario a difficulty, and that therefore might lead one to a bias against such scenarios. Then there are those personality traits involving patience, curiosity, agressiveness, inexperence, imaginativeness, and more that do play role in an individual's response to game length. Sheer physical factors also figure in here. I have played a long scenario for hours forgetting real time and living entirely in the virtual time of the computer battle. I finished to stagger away to bed bedraggled by sitting so long and concentrating so hard as to reflect that it was such a shame to feel so badly and not be hung over from drink. Straying into bed shortly before dawn, I could not sleep for the battle continuing to rage vividly in rememberance. My nervous system acted like it was operating on an overdose of caffine. This kind of experence is not for the fainthearted. So, to each, his own. The individual, who having the leasure, circumstantial freedom, and appropriate mood that still prefers a relatively short scenario in all cases has in my opinion an outlook that occupies a position with respect to playing longer games that a wargamer has, who will not download the CM demo and enjoy its incomparable merits. Or haveing done so, will not buy the full version. It is simply a thing sort of like walking up on a jug of wine, a loaf of bread, with thou laying back comfortably on her blanket with a come hither smile, and turning one's back and walking away. Damned, if I would not at least ask if she minded that I sit down, take a sip, nibble a bit, and whether, she liked to discuss politics - - - - or something else! Now, the other matter. I have a growing resentment towards designs that place a premium on completing the mission in under x minutes, where those x minutes are so playtested to be quite near the minumum of what a designer has playtested to be required. I say that in a sometimes doubted faith that adequate playtesting was done. Within the context of a scenario there is plenty of leeway for a failure to be at y spot in time to adequately punish a player. But when the turns run out, there is no reprieve. May I suggest that unless a scenario designer has a doggone good rationale for cutting the turn length close, that in most battles, a matter of 10 minutes or even most of the time a lot more, most battles that ended in success were taken as victories - even if the schedule of higher headquarters was not met to minute and often enough to the hour. When higher headquarters lay a plan on so tight a schedule as to make ten minutes critical, they are micromanaging, an overcomplicated battleplan, violating all principles of simplicity. While numerous citings of examples to the contrary may be possible, that does not consider that the vast majority majority of battles saw such a more liberal definition of success. In scenario play the challange of completing a mission on so tight a schedule does have a reward in satisfying the motivation of having met a challange successfully and can be enjoyed on that level. However, I find it generally irksome, when I add the motive of economizing on the lives of my virtual soldiers, preserving enough equipment to have a viable chance of standing against a counterattack with the forces available at the end, to consider that at the end of the last turn, I took the final objective, killed more of the enemy than they inflicted on my pyhrric forces, and got the AI pat on the back. I have a different sense of what success in battle really is. Yes a prebattle rationale can alter that. Even the Alamo claimed a role in the final analysis. Generally, I get far more satisfaction out of having enough turn leeway to be allowed more than the most simplistic tactics. Then when the turns end in which ever manner, I have an actual sense of haveing won or lost. To finish with the original question in mind, my last thought is that there is a lot of instant gratification in a short battle and sometimes the psyche demands that. But, there are also broader and deeper opportunities in CMBO's longer turn frames available; and, when we are able to avail ourselves of these we have a greater appreciation of more of what the game can bring us. It seems that most votes go the the shorter scenarios. Pity. Perhaps it is just part of the continueing accelleration of the pace of life with the attendent depreciation of the broader and deeper aspects.

The sharpshooter is stupid if he shoots at close ranges, so his reluctance is correct. However, his reluctance becomes overpoweringly stupid, when he can not defend himself from a one or two man unit. The sharp shooter's penchant for emptying his entireload out on low priority targets is overdone in my opinionl. He should show some of the same reluctance for doing that that he shows for shooting at a several man unit. As I can not intervene, substituting my brain for his lack thereof, I think some limit should be set on his rate of fire. There is one method that helps, which is to use ambush markers and only take him off the marker when you specify a target for him. But, after that it is Katy bar the door. The Energiser Bunney sharpshooter does not know when to stop or even slow. I think it would be wonderful if the dope would be limited by slowing jos shot rate, EXCEPT when a target is player designated and when an ambush is triped. Now, if the shot count represents some unit of fire, has anyone seen a kill without the shot count going down? If his shot count drops with his first shot, as subjectively it seems to us whiners, this is a difficulty. Test time?

Olle Petersson, suggested that provision be made for setting different time limits for each player. This to adjust for the greater simplicity of defense and for handicap purposes for games with players of differing experence etc. Perhaps the defense thing is already somewhat taken care of as one does not have to use all his time. But the handicaping angle seems to me to have some merit. Also his suggestion for adding time limits to other modes of play seems a possibly useful addition.

32! Old man are you so sure that your fatigue is not made already by the years and not by Frank?

Chup, you are immaculately correct about these deadlines, but are they applicable in the turn frame of a CM scenario? To me it is ridiculous for this rush situation to take place when 5 minutes more to say nothing of 20 would yield up the decision without the gamey ending. Twenty more turns (minutes)would not have been begrudged by the Corps commander or even Regiment. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-23-2000).]

Thirty minute, even two hour battles are not long enough to exhaust a realistic time frame for completing a mission. The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes longer. Well, two hours is really a short time on a battle field as far as obtaining substantial objectives set for a taskforce. Yes it is correct that a scenario designer may want to push the player, but I consider that gamey design. There were anal minded folks in higher command sitting in the safety of their rear echalon HQs that did push front line actions in that manner from time to time. But even then, if they grumbled about the lack of success for an hour or two, they would shut up if the goal was obtained eventually that day. Often real progress was enough, so that one day delays in which a key to success was obtained was acceptable to higher echelons of command. Rarely is a commander going to quibble over an hour or two as long as the goal was obtained and progress was demonstrated. Afterall, there are other objectives beyond the first and only survivors can get there. Operation scenarios will make this real clear. Now if the forces are already in close contact and the objective is the building across the road and well defended, one may expect a faster course of events; but even there setting time limits for the effort to succeed or fail in exactly 20 minutes is as gamey as the last minute rush at the flags. We have established here that the test of gameyness in this instance is whether one would perform the rush if the scenario be scheduled to end some number of moves later, 20 for example. For our short battle times, even doubling the expected alloted time over that which testing indicates approppriate seems not out of order to me. Regiment can go to hell. Batallion is going to exercise the care necessary to attack successfully, meaning haveing enough strength to hold the position after taking it. Otherwise you have thrown away the efforts and the lives getting there. If a designer wants the scenario to include speedy execution as an element, then let that be imposed inherently within the scenario using map size, force balance (or imbalance), starting position, terrain, and reinforcement schedule to obtain the push for timely action rather than the artificiality of the turn clock. So prevent gamey play in this case by avoiding gamey design. =========================== Col. Deadmarsh, You are correct in your observation that variation in play can always result in some player ending up with the VL just within grasp in the last turn or two. So just designing in enough turns will not totally eliminate the problem. As you noted that is inherent in the present engine. Now here comes my big but. But, this will only take place in extraordinary circumstances and be a much more rare occurance than it is now if turn limit design anticipates a wider frame of time for battle than that testing shows to be just adequate. Adequate allowance will usually require an unholy case of the slows and excessive caution in a player for the scenario end rush to occur. As such play is so boring it should be quite rare. Enough time should be provided to allow for a good healthy amount of careful approach. Until such time as a different engine exists, this seems to me to be the best, scenario inherent preventive. The present engine DOES take a lot into account in determining whether scenario play has reached a decision and is rather more sophisticated, it appears to me, than most at that. Last minute rushes at a VL may not be as rewarding as many fear. Often at best it will only neutralize the VL value. Ok, so ladder folks choke over fractions of points. Is it not better to design in less of this possibility if only for their sake? If we cast out all remedys that retain a failure potential, then the remedy that CM is for so many older wargame problems will be set aside because of - - - look at any number of threads discussing percieved problems with CM in the case of which the glass is as full as it has ever been. Yeah, the remedy can fail, but it adds a lot more water to the glass, and the fact that more room remains in the glass does not preclude the value of the effort. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-23-2000).]

Kiwi, I gotta say you got a point, the 20 turn test is right. However, shouldn't the designer not be so tight on the turns allowed? Now, how about it when you have an very large force available? Say you have a platoon in halftracks some supporting armor and artillery and have pretty well cleared his support out of the way. I see no reason not to now push in quickly. The only real solution with the current game engine is to provide enough turns. This raises the question about what the designer intended with the x number of turns. Did he just throw out the number because it seemed about right, customary, or did testing reveal that one could win at least sometimes within that time frame. I suggest designers could find this latter number by testing and then add some just to make sure. The player can do so too with the editor or in the Quick Battle menu. It is not the worst solution to the delimma posed by the "end of time" as imposed here. It aint that way on the battlefield. I suppose that a mission could be tasked within a time frame in order to support action somewhere else on the battlefield and require it be done with in some given time. Generally when genarals plan such battles they have overcomplicated the plan. Something seems to happen so often to leave one or of the other task forces out on a limb as delays set in.

We might consider that the game already has a limitedly variable end point. That is the engine will stop the game before the turn limit when certain conditions prevail. Reiterating what I earlier opined, responsibility for a scenario ending in gamey play of this sort is at least partly due to the designer not providing enough turns. Actually if one sets up a scenario with more than enough turns, then virtually invariably the engine will end the game based on the factors it uses in such determinations. The same engine capabilities could be used to determine whether the players have resources and position to justify continuation. I do not particularly like the idea of a blindly random number of turns being added to the end of a scenario. Perhaps better than the arbitrary end. Nothing in reality that I can think of out of hand is being abstracted into the present way of ending. Yes, there is a necessity for some kind of a turn limit; but perhaps not. Maybe it is just a figment of habitual thinking about gaming like rectangles or hexes used to be. (winking smiley) Hummmmmm. We still have terrain tiles. I wonder when - - - - - In a force, position, objective, ammo, oriented ending turn system we might see such questions of gameness totally disappear. But, right now take any scenario and add a bunch of turns to it, then we may find this is already in place to a degree. We already see play ending prior to the turn limit. Just give this process enough time to take effect. It would certainly make better sense of the lack of resupply, fight until exhausted - that will define the end of the scenario -then time to resupply regroup etc. If an attacker of necessity having a stronger force than the defender is fought out and so it the defender with proportional casualties, then the attacker will be in worse shape point wise from loses, On the other hand he should also have more units left. Control of VLs would then have significance. If the defender and the attacker both have units in the area, then that still leaves the defender having the upperhand overall. So for an attacker to prevail in the definition of victory, he is forced to do better than exact proportional losses and neutralize VLs. Simply running a unit up to the objective would not do. If on the otherhand the attacker can run up a unit in the last move onto the VL, why should that not be worth something? The worse thing that could prevail is for the opponent to have the resources to counterattack a weak unit doing this and not not be allowed to do so, having the time. And a player could deliberately work to this end, hiding his winning point a dash away, then feint and otherwise draw the enemies strength elsewhere. Such a play plan would be rewarded, but would it be enough to win? I have played a number of games, taking all or a majority of the VLs and still come out no better than a draw. Perhaps in some instances. I suspect in most play, a single unit run up onto a VL is not decisive. They just don't carry the total moxie that they do in some games. It makes no sense to consider a player as a winner simply because he managed to move a depleted or single unit on to a VL. The opponents capability to throw him right back off regardless of simply being there should figure in. As far as I can see, that at least is partly the case now.

Bimp.

My opinion falls on the side of leanancy in such rushes. The gameousness of the situation comes out of the inherent gameousness of having an unrealistic time limit in the first place. In reality it was a rare attack order that limited the attacking commander only 30 or 60 or some other arbitrary, relatively short time span for completing his mission, after which he faces relief or courtmarshal. It is in the game itself that the gameousness lies. Furthering this aspect are the points allocated to victory locations. CM goes a long way toward curing this problem by its manner of evaluating the control of the site over other games in which one must place a unit within a particular hex unocupied by the opponent. But it appears to me that still there may be some need in tweaking this CM feature further. I can't say now from what I understand about it. Running a single unit or two onto a victory REIGON defended by a large margin over any arriving attacking unit or units should not even neutralize the victory point evaluation. If the designer of the scenario has selected a time limit which has the nice effect of pushing the player into his agressive design plan, then he has undertaken a most difficult tack in scenario design. To do such pushing without imposing unrealistic time limits on the player is a dificult thing to achieve. Testing does not always reveal all the possibilities of player strategy of a reasonable sort. Therefore, one may set a limit that preempts the player's ingenouity. And the game itself imposes such variablility in developing circumstance that a player may execute an excellent plan well and still find himself behind the designer's arbitrarily imposed schedule. With CM I think the best solution is for a designer to add a generous additional time allocation to that which testing finds necessary to complete the scenario. I find it ridiculous to carefully bring my troops into position to take objectives, then find that their 30 minutes have run out. Steel Panthers has a nice feature to its finish time to sweeten their pot. If such a feature allocating additional time to a scenario is dependent on the attacker's progress, reading it for proximity to objectives and for relative remaining strength to the opponent, then a game could continue. Of course CM does something that appears to approach this in ending a game early when it evaluates a game as finished. But it is most distressing when forces on both sides are sufficent to continue the battle and the game ends. If the opponent has not a force to prevent the possession or occupation of an objective location for even one minute, then the player successfully placing a last minute rushing unit has demonstrated that weakness and deserves the credit for establishing that fact for his commander. The information of enemy weakness or unprepairdness or misspositioning is worth at least neutralizing the value of the place to the enemy. At anyrate that is how I see the situation. It is not an absolutely clear one, but one that in my opinion precludes getting uptight against an opponent for grabbing the arbitary moment.

Right now ALL units in CM have radios. Just send 'em a message and off they go. Now if a commander is not close enough, then it takes a few seconds more to put out the butts and field strip them before continuing. Otherwise they only say "Huh" and go, as their PC leaders don't allow smoking within their sight. However, certain units are reluctant to fire their morters, on the say so of their radio connect to the player. They will move as directed, but when it comes to firing they need a commander to give the go ahead. They just don't trust the competence of player to give the correct target data over the radio.

The key to surviving a war is staying out of it, so you that succomb to to other causes. Perhaps that is the real Prozac reality. Staying up for life let alone war or even wargames is a probamatical matter. Just check the institutions devoted to refilling the cups that dried up rather than ran over. But, for the humdrum among us for whom these exercises may represent all manner of psychological functions other than supporting one's potential longivity or well being, we should not be too surprised to see reflected in our approaches, the various feelings we bring to the rest of our lives. We are surprised that the sting of conflict does not uniformly grab us by the adrnaline and fill us with anticipations of victory. It is perhaps because we have a deeper knowledge than the intellectual, that it is in the end only a game regardless of what a fine one it is. I have a sneaking suspicion that the professionals have a little less of that trouble than the civie types. The relatedness and utility of the game to their bread and butter and that of those close to them, along with the fact that their reputation, their career, their lives, those of their buddies, and the nation are involved in their grabbing up every shred of understanding of things military, should help keep the doldrums at bay. At least until the over-saturation, to which we all succumb to some degree at times, dictates relief. One source of relief is to use the editor to make scenario designs. Even the play necessary to testing the designs takes on an altogether different aspect. Then there are those off topic exercises - - - some of them even not on this forum or even the handy, nearby computer.

If you don't look at what the little "envelope" looks like, then I won't tell- - - -

Relayed to me by my daughter and edited for presentation here for your interest. From: Lone_Star_Reb Subject: Re: [sCV Dispatch] C.S.S. Hunley viewing Compatriots, This morning at 8 am I was privileged to enjoy a private viewing of the C.S.S. Hunley. I cannot mention names but would like to personally thank Gregory Poole and Caterpillar for donating two pieces of equipment to the "Friends of the Hunley" foundation for affording me this wonderful opportunity. Besides myself and my friend, we were let into the building by the diver who first touched the C.S.S. Hunley and he was in fact, our host. My emotions of being in the presence of Southern Confederate history are indescribable, I have no words! I would like to share with you some of the things which I certainly did not know before and I hope you will enjoy. The C.S.S. Hunley is only 4 feet tall, excluding the conning towers. There is definitely a hole in the forward porthole of the conning tower which Commander Dixon had to be looking through to guide the direction of the sub. This is the only hole in the entire sub; therefore, we know this is where the water came in that flooded the sub. A microscopic telescope [fiber optics?] has been inserted in the sub but it has divulged nothing as the sub is filled with sand and the eye of the telescope is so fragile that it breaks upon contact with this sand, so nothing was learned from this exploration. The diver believes that crabs entered the shot out porthole and fed on the hero's bodies. There may be bones from which deoxyribonucleic acid can be extracted in the sealed up bone marrow. Then the crabs could not get out; so more crabs came in to feed on the dead crabs and this went on and on until who knows when. So, what they are expecting to find is a layer of sand, and a huge layer of crab shells on top. There may be enough flesh (perhaps caught up in a belt buckle or something) to run DNA test on. [for what purpose?] They expect to find some cloth remnants and any metal objects that were inside the sub (including Dixon's coin if the legend is correct). They will enter the sub through one side panel, which will be carefully removed by drilling out the rivets. Once the remains are removed, the panel will be replaced and they believe the sub will be completely restored to its original condition! There is a tentative plan to glass in the opposite wall from the viewing platform and thus allow visitors to observe the excavation as it takes place! As I am still overcome with emotion, this is the best I can remember as to what I saw and heard today. I trust I have passed on information you did not yet know. I am still overwhelmed! The tours begin this weekend. They expect to begin the recovery of the heros at the end of November. I am your humble obedient servant,and In the bonds of the Old South, I remain, Tim Fetner [><] Gen. Wade Hamptom Camp #273 [Ahh, nothing like the viewpoint of a dyed in the wool reenactor, {referencing his closing and lost cause patriotism (which I admit to sharing in a small measure-- If one can't live a little bit though other's eyes, then in truth we only have one life to live, and too often a rather humdrum one at that. Better that though, than one too damned exciting! And likely short.)}]

http://www.fredoneverything.com/War.html http://www.sftt.org/ Two independent sources saying the same thing.

Manuever Warefare seems an unfortunant phrasing as it lends to confusion with simple fire and manuever- or even (God forbid) complex fire and manuever. The indirect approach seems to better embody the concept, although it lacks the ring of an adequate catch phrase satisfying to the ear. Human nature being what it is, I doubt that the indirect approach can be institutionalized. Put it in the book and the book shall become a weapon in the hands the practitioner of the art. From my observations of human nature there are more mentalities that have to lean on a formula than those who can write or rewrite the formulas. Military promotion is not always based on war making capabilities. In a mass military we gotta have a book in order to know what to expect from the formula followers. We gotta use 'em, because we just can't count on enough of the other kind. Besides, how else would you keep such a massive organization coordinated and moving at all? Make it a thourough, well thought out book and a such a formula dependent fellow can probably do pretty well with proper training and decipline. Attrition warfare carried out by such a person properly led, equipped, and supplied is likely to go fairly well. Formulas do serve. You can not make a person brillient. You can put such brillience as he has to work. He might even get inspired or have the sense to listen to inspiration on occasion and do or at least try something spectacular. Hopefully successfully. In warfare sometimes once is enough. Competence and fine intellegence does not of itself intail brillance. Brillance in warfare is not always recognised off the battlefield. Sometimes the best that can be done is to look for tamer forms and hope that it carries across the line of departure. It does not always do so. The human is a complex thing. Even failure does not always predict the loser. Some have said that being lucky is better. Blackhorse has described his efforts to encouage those who could profit from applying the indirect approach. Such mentoring and leadership is probably the best that will be done in that direction. Personal example and encouragement are the best teachers. Whether the pupils will benifit depends upon their nature. After hearing a certain amount indicating negative factors growing in our military, it is a bit reassuring to hear from such as Blackhawk, that there are still warrior minded officers around. I suspect if the institutional boys get a hold of the concept (or any concept)at the direction of a farseeing leadership, they will petrify it. Too often the competant warrior is pinned between lesser examples of the military art. Especially in peacetime. Enough survive war in the safety of the rear to server as future infection. But a real warrior can put a book to use regardless. Even the institional minded book writers can count on getting some things right as long as there enough warriors arround and heard to salt to soup.

Tommi, put that way it sounds much like Heisenburg did about particles and waves. Kinda makes it difficult to put ones finger on anything, verbal or physical, and be sure of what is going on, at least in minute detail. I am afraid that as far as K. Godel and my circle goes, the thing has a radius of unity; until now, wherein it is unity + 1. That is disregarding books. And not many of them. When I first encountered the thing, I was astonished and gratified. Astonished that such a thing could be calculated and validated, and gratified that something that seemed so intutively apparant was objectively verifiable. That the thing had wider implications than in what many seem to regard as magically imbued with mysterious and singular properties, mathematics, seemed a strong possibility, as that dicipline appears to me to be as commonplace an artifact of human craft as old shoes, its high placement in the human firmament of accomplishments being due to the fact that most of us are just not cobblers. Me included. Anyway math has grammar, parts of speech and all the other properties appropriate to a language, only called by other classifacations, and seems to be as subject to being rearranged to suit what ever convienence comes along, just so the arrangement has some kind of consistancy. Such rearrangements can be likened to making languages appropriate to a culture or a task, so topology, and the geometries and God knows what all with their individual lingos. Therefore, why should not the theorem apply to those symbolic forms we call French, Italian, etc.? Militariese? You had your own justification for extension, and one coming from a different direction than I had thought of. Interesting. Very good. Valid? I ain't qualified, but I'll take it so, as it fits my biases.

I think we can count on Chaos Modeling to be chaotic modeling. It will yield resemblences without providing exactness. We may be blinded by the resemblence into thinking it a likeness. But, of course a likeness is not the same as an isness either. Unless one is speaking presidentually, where one may is or not is as one sees in a fit. What that fit is is also up for relative fitting in that case. And obviously such a case justifies encasing a thing in any old convienent case regardless of the shape of the office, ovality or circularity being beside the point. Any shape will serve as long there are not too many splinters along the edges. Put that cigar in and see if it smokes. Gee it has been wonderful being an American. (appologies to the nationals of the rest of the hemisphere, which should be more properly called Columbia; no, that would be confusing also. Hell, as long as there is speech, there is confusion. Speech and confusion are the same regardless of what we say or how we claim otherwise, especially when you, rather than I say it.)

Going back to the topic's author, ScoutPL, I don's see me saying much of anything different, only differently. On patriotism: For me generally, when I see a noun made into an -ism I start looking for the salt, feeling in need of a grain. That is because those isms become as easily blinders as items of utility. I think back on the historical accounting of our revolt against what was then our country, England. Except for that third who did not give a damn, there were patriots all around. But, they did not agree upon where to hang the allegience. The difference was enough for them to go about killing each other. That Canadians did not fall in with this pattern has not seemed to mar the outcome for them as individuals. And for the U.S and Great Briton, the citizens of each respective nation seem to be reasonably satisfied with their situations as nations, and with each other finding amusement and insruction in simularities and differences alike. Among these three the debate is not over some great gulf of separate national conceptualization, but rather in the differing ways we share in the same ideals roughly simular forms. Indeed, at times debates are stronger within country than among them. Yet we shed blood together in those days and called ourselves patriots. Patriotism seems to me to be exemplified by the home town or team spirit. Give two of us a thread of commonality and it is sufficient to form a team. That such a thread is sufficient cement to glue a strong and binding tie, often enough on flimsy grounds, a tie upon which one can hang an emotion regardless of justification is simetimes seen in bloody and deadly sports riots. Regardless of the jingling thinking via slogan passed down through the pages telling of those Revolutionary times, it is difficult for me to see in them much that reflects any reality that would have lead to the result. That a reality existed and did lead to that result can not be questioned, but what was it? What would lead a Patrick Henry to shout "Liberty or Death and mean it, while Canadians right beside the other colonies did not much agree is a tantalizing fact. It reflects upon the arguements about the arguement that revolution was an absolute necessity. Personally, it seems to me to be the result of the usual human pigheadness all around; one of those circumstances that come about to plague indidual relationships as well as nations out of plain human cussedness. But, getting back to Patriotism, it is kind of like opinion (or the anal structure), we all are in possession. We are the children of our birth place, whether in our physical beings or our current sense of mental belonging in some rebirth. We will make where we live our home. Indeed it seems we must. When such allegience exists, whether voluntary or not, common interest is served when individuals commit their support to the causes of that allegience, and therefore in the main, individual interest as well. But, something stronger lives in us to make such relationships biologically effective, a herd instinct, a pack instinct that comes alive in ferocious and bloody action entangled in more momentous personal survival instincts once the battle is joined. We see the same as a cat defends its territory, committed to the action, yet harboring caution and fear as well as agression. Ambivousless is a shared mammalian trait and exists in all to some degree. It provides some of that variety in behavor in the race that helps to insure survival regardless of circumstance and the fate of individuals. Patriotism has its uses as long as we remain in possession of it and ourselves rather than it owning us. Otherwise, it is possible that we find ourselves herding our fellow human beings together for a death chamber because our team happens to be lead in that direction at sometime. Oh, it could never happen here. Sure. We are above that, we are above human nature. Just like everyone else. Then it might not need be a death chamber, just a little killing here and there for convience and sport. Never underestimate the motive of team boredom. Or self- rightousnes. And oh God, it is not always clear. Forgive us our trespasses as we forget who and what we are. Pigheaded and libelous of swine. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-13-2000).]

A most intriging discussion; don't see old K. Godel mentioned that often. We understand the elements of our existance in many ways, language being the most noisy one of them. Old K.G rigorously proved that every symbolic system contains a contridiction, if I am putting it rightly, hopefully at least approximately. This is a right inconvienent matter for those who look to being able to someday coming up with a consistant discription of what it is all about. It is not something unanticipated with all the declarations about "Words can never describe - - - ". Anyway, I can't follow old Kurt, having little of that kind of skill, unfortunantly; but, the way it looks to me is that we keep weaving symbolic nets with which to catch an understanding of what is reality to us; yet, no matter how tightly we manage to make the weave, it is still a net and leaks. On the otherhand we do manage to slow the flow and that is useful; if we don't forget to occasionally look down and see the dripping. It is well that we don't have to understand a damned thing to exist, however much a little understanding helps to exist in more comfort and with better satisfaction. To see that this is true, you only have to look to this forum to see individual case examples - - - ----unless one recognises the limitless satisfaction in perverse and often pointless arguement. Observing the currents of human thought as performed through the medium of language, I see a pattern as complex or more so than global weather provides. The eddies swirling about with all directions of flow existing in a contrary, simultaneous continunity, and sweeping along continually changing providing a such a variety of pattern, that the professionals can model it with an infinity of possible mathmatical representations some of which have been constructed. One only needs to read the daily guesses as to what they mean in terms of rain, wind, temperature etc, to know the model's utility, beauty, wonder, and ultimately its futility in final precision. We may draw the net ever tighter, it will always leak. Should we expect that a war should be any different, especially our favorite one? So what is the point? --- to draw the net ever tighter catching smaller and smaller particles regardless of the hopelessness of obtaining final precision. Given the complexity and extent of what WWII was, it seems to me that just about any thesis can be set and proven, if sufficient limit be put on what is considered, whether it be about the details or the outcome. The human mind works that way, just look at this forum. Of course one man's proof is another's poision mild or otherwise. But, we needn't fear the hemlock; but, should embrase it; for, we took the first sip at our conception and sip it each day whether we will or not. We do not die any faster for giving the contrary arguement its due, especially if we pick it for its fiber weaving it with our own into a larger and tighter net. If we should encounter a weaver so in love with his little handkerchief regardless of the holes which he can't see, will not see, just remember he is no different in kind from us; we may have made a whole bolt of weave, but it still has its edges and it still leaks. It might even have a hole in it. We are all brothers in this foolishness. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-13-2000).]

Lewis, it seems to me that the smaller target taken 15 percent of the time is the better choice. On your 4 square meter target that would get you and equivalent of 15 percent on each square meter x 4. The other deal would get you flat 25 percent. While I doubt the math would exactly match the intuitive 60 percent of hits on the larger target with the 15 percnet accuracy I think that would likely represent the direction of the trend. Obviously a number of the misses at the smaller target would get on to the larger one to increase the hits over 15 percent. A lot could depend upon the causes of the misses though. Assuming all factors equal, though, I still think I would take the 15 percenter. Now I have bitten, so what do you say? [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-06-2000).]

I have had the same experence and worse. The engineer squad targets the mine field and down goes its ammo turn after turn. Strange way for engineers to lift mines. This is well behind the front lines when it is happening. I would much prefer them to use their detectors and bayonets or what ever and save their ammo. What are they doing, shooting the trip mechanisms away to prevent setting them off?

In a design I placed assault boats on the "Wrong" side of the river with some engineers as a reinforcement. I had a hell of a time because they were dropped in so far from the river and because of minipulation difficulties. They are not the easiest unit to get what you want out of them. You think that this or that move is set and a turn later it hasn't happened. Trying to embark and disembark troops can be tricky, especially if you try to program the moves across turn time bounderies. And I lost a number when morters started falling, at least they seem to die when on water.

Only a general impression, but recalling all the reading on artillery falling on armor in accounts of combat, my impression is that the usual effect was that the armor would withdraw. That suggests to me that the tankers had some very good reasons to do that. Whether they are or are not impervious to being knocked out seems besides the point, if that is an accurate impression of typical tanker behavior. For CM purposes, it would be appropriate to get that response simular to backaing away from a frontal threat. It also seems that we may be developing a fair consensus that we get a tad too many knockouts due to direct hits than we should. I gather that a shell landing on the engine area is going to likely cause some serious disruption, and a large HE on the remaining top armor could split a tank open at least sometimes. A large caliber hit anywhere can casue some trouble if only to the crew's outlook moral and literal. So, I now have a picture of a barrage landing near armor, 1. they get the hell out of the impact zone as quickly as possible, 2. a few get disrupting effects, (muddy periscopes, broken antenna, tracks start a worrysome squeeling, things that make the vehicle head for the rear for repairs.) 3. a smaller few get serious but non killing damage which may or may not immobilize the unit, 4, a rare few find that shell that lands on the engine compartment or open hatch. The chance numbers involved, I will not speculate. As far as getting of out the impact zone, one can advance out it as well as withdraw, but I bet, that withdrawing would be favored. I know that I would like to check out my tank under cover, cleaning off such junk that had been blown on periscopes and making sure that antenna was not hanging by a thread before I risked becoming totally blind with smallarms and shrapnel advising against an unbuttoned view. Could a vehicle cleanup, checkout be handled like a jam, but require no LOS of enemy and no nearby indirect fire? I just got through close assaulting a piece of armor using two squads advancing and one in a upper floor. First immobilization, then knockout. Nice. Oh, and one other succombed to a combo of 105 and 81mm indirect fire. Again, first immobilization, then this time abandonment. I was totally surprised by the overall result, a total victory. I had lost 15 vehicles. What I did not appreciate and could not know was that the AI had had its infantry decimated and redecimated as compared to mine suffering relatively little. His loss to indirect fire was 6 percent, a not unbeliveable result in this case.