Bobbaro

Uh, Boris, 1-12 men is squad size. WWII American rifle platoons ran someting like 3 infantry squads with one heavy weapons squad plus the command team, the leader and his assistant as I recall. As CM is teaching me about the fundimental structures of other national units, I am trying to get all this straight for myself too.

Was not suggesting everybody, but I suspect one or two guys without help will burn out quickly, if they take on any significant part of the burden.

Well, yes "qualified" is sort of a sticky wicket. But, perhaps with a little help from some slightly less "qualified" folks the burden could be reduced. At least there may be some germ of seed here for some system. Yes, the number of scenarios would be a problem. That is the rationale behind some subcommitees for initial screening. Obviously the guys running the sites would be the ones to set up the thing and selecting from available people. They would not have to pretend to take up all available scenarios. This leaves to chance the opportunity to miss a jewel or two every now and then. I think the general public at large would probably be nominatin some and help dig out the sleepers. Perhaps via agreement among site masters the work could be distributed and there be a master location for the final cumulation of the filtering up process. As I said this only represents a seed. If it falls on stony ground so be it.

I wonder whether a scenario site will be developed where a committee will review the proposed postings for a stamp of approval or at least review? It would be useful I think. However, I can see the reviewer's job getting onerous as we probably will have a bunch raining in for posting. Still it would be good to have some respected reviewers on a site having their say. It would also help folks less familliar with things military to have some recognised expertise comment and advise. Perhaps some subcommitees could provide some initial screensing. The say of one person should not be the final word as there is a world of room for different views. Expertise can miss or disagree and is not absolute.

The designers feel that the battles are too short in duration for ammo resupply to be realistic. This is an issue that seems to me to be better left in the hands of the scenario designer. In the longer possible battles, up to 2 hours, I believe there is time for resupply. It is a poor commander who fails to make every effort to make additional ammo available whenever possible. His success on the battlefield can depend upon it. On defense a larger supply may be available in the static positions. A static rear supply point could also be used and mobile supplies as well. Icons could be devised and made available in the scenario design or withheld as the designer sees fit. Safeguards against design abuse could be built in. However, I feel that an overabundance of safeguards is not desirable. If a scenario designer designs badly there is nothing that can be done about it in anye event. Cutting off bad design features in little pieces still leaves the core of the sceanario available to be screwed up anyway. As with bad television, the player has the tools in hand to quit the session. I think where Steve and Charles worry is about an otherwise good design having worrysome small defects. In another thread,if I recall correctly, Steve suggested (ruled?)that it would take maybe 15 minutes for a tank at a resupply point to halt, communicate with the service personnel, pickup the ammo assuming it was in a "ready" state(uncrated), carry to the tank, pass it to the interior, stow it, and finally get started again headed for the action. There is very strong point to what Steve said there. Perhaps 15 minutes is generously short. Of course you don't necessarily need to take time for a full load when you are in a hurry. Another issue is the size of the battlefield which raises the question of whether a supply point would be available that close to the front. I think it would depend. Certainly not a dump's worth. But, a forward supply point within CMs framework is possible. On the otherhand a whole dump could be an objective in rear area penitration scenario. I would like to see at least a resupply system where a commander would be able to handcarry, or jeep to some forward location out of harm's way (hopefully) company supply points and certainly a battalion point. A jeep or even a tank could hustle up some ammo to a unit while a reserve platoon etc. holds the line. If there is room for reinforcing units, then there is room for supply units to hustle some ammo forward as well. If they fail, then it is part of the play and as legitimate as any other battle loss. A depleted unit falling back on a resupply could find a new life and a successfully executed attack could be sustained. With infantry at last for gamers being accurately modled, I believe there is every reason to consider resupply, otherwise why bother to have larger battlefields and longer scenarios possible. I hope after the Gold is given some play time these issues will become clearified so that further consideration will be given them. One solution to the question could be to cut back on the limits set on battle duration and battlefield size so that the restriction would be better supported. Yes, there were abundant situations where operations were suspended with both defender and attacker exhausted of both energy and ammunition. But, there were pleanty of others where reinforcements arrived either in the form of new bodies or resupply. Ammo resupply to physically exhausted bodies would mean a lot more to defenders holding in place than it would to attackers. I can see a small reinforcement setting up a delaying position while the tired reminants from the front lines, fall back to a second line of defense and pick up fresh ammo and await the delaying force and the attack with renewed capability. This game is better than even Steve and Charles know. The potiential for refinement is strong. Play will tell. So will the infusion of more capable hardware setups in the playing community, because hardware limitations are another issue that plays a role in all decisions as to what to include or add to the game. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 06-02-2000).]

Yes, the pressure in CC games is strong. In fact it is, decision wise, too strong. In the game you are acting as a multiheaded commander as you are in CM. Not only do you have the overload of directing all the movements and orders, but you are required to act in this capacity simultaneously with only serial capabilities hence the unrealistic clickfest. There is not time to do all that is necessary. Well this is often the case in real combat, but there you are at least not all the squad and team leaders but just playing one leader role. In CM you do have the same many leaders roles in one person as CC; BUT, in the turn based system you do have the time to execute it. The pressure on the player is there; but, it is shifted emphasise the right decision for ALL the units not just the ones you have time to click on, to remember what to do to make your units function optimaly, to scout the terrain rather than merely read a map, and finally and formost to sit back and ENJOY the unrolling of the combat executed each turn. That last task is the formost of them all made possible by the turn WEGO approach and the kind of pressure that comes natural to the system and is endured effortlessly. The only way I see the CC system begining to work competitively is by limiting the players task to near if not the lowest level of command. Then the pressure of time becomes realistic. Neither CC nor CM are realistic. No one leads all units in combat with the micromanagement possible to each game. That is shamefully obvious. Given that realism is compromised from the start for both in this (and other ways) it remains for the game designer to make the player forget that fact in the enjoyment of playing. If that means enjoyment for people who appreciate and have knowledge of the reality and the history AND have a three dimensional expectation of reality, then CM obviously is hands down the more fulfilling of the two. IMHO (H= hubracic or humbug, or hallucinogenic, or---? ) [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 05-31-2000).]

Hey, you displaced Heinies living stateside ought to visit Fredercksburg, Tex. You should feel right a home. Its even got American tourists as well as a generous smattering of Europeans in the summer. There is still an oldtimer or two living out in the country, who have to have an offspring along to translate for them. Even those locals, who don't speak German often carry a bit of an accent. Too bad the old population is getting swamped by newcomers (I am one). A big immigration of outsiders is flooding in. This dry country is not constituted to support an unlimited population. Anyway, the Germans came here in 1846 and stuck in spite of the place being a very tough living and way out in Indian country. They cut a treaty with the Commanches which is celebrated as the only Indian treaty in the U.S. which was never broken by either side.

Would'nt it be wonderful if someone could find an ordanance record of some supply dumps or of shipping to France etc that specify the relative amounts of the ammo available. I have followed the noise on this topic and even querried the US Army Military History folks about the issue and come up with nothing helpful. Surely someone with connections could come up with something. I am rooting for WP's inclusion, but really can't come up with one darn shread of statistical evidence. Hardly even would know where to start. What about the other ammo? Is the evidence there of equal quality? At least it is common sense to put in bunches of HE and AT stuff. WP had an antipersonell effect that smoke did not. It would stick to surfaces so that a retreating AFV doused with the stuff would carry the blinding cloud with it. I can't imagine anyone sticking around long in the choking, poisonous fumes from it ruled. Say, was there any question about the fumes and the prohibition against poison?

Mark, does this produce something like a phonetic result, or a metaphorical one? Phonetic seems like quite a streach, but then I am totally ignorant about what is going on here.

Uh, what kind of tree, Rob?

Gila, I'm aware of a couple of CMers here in their early 60's. You have it on us. Being of the age to have possibly tasted the military life in WWII, did you get in on it in any way? My brother was in the Air Corps and found himself being being jerked around by a series reassignments near the end of the war, so that he never left Stateside. He would have probably ended up a B29 gunner in the Pacific had that business gone on.

To succeed economically a game has to be pitched to the hardware base out there in the real world, where the numbers are. The latest technology takes a while to filter into the consumer base in large enough numbers to actually be economically effective in sales. A game pushing the latest capabilities, for example the 1 gig hertz chips now coming out, would take time to develop, so that when the game shipped it would be facing a newer more powerful technology with people saying did not the developers do better. That is just what is happening now with CM. When development started PIII 500 meg computers were on the horizon and still are not the most numerous of the machines in the hands of gamers. I had to buy up to be able to play CM where it would work well. I chose a PIII 500 meg setup. I was lucky to be able to upgrade at this time. Had I upgraded 6 months ago to something less, I just would not have felt it justifided to go to what I have now, and would have been most grateful that CM would play on a lesser machine. You just can not make money by sellilng games that will only work well on the latest technology

Dang, old Bobb lost his credentuals and would not think of putting Steve to the trouble of digging em back up. My ego doesn't require it. Nor does it deserve it. Anyway, is there a better way of age regressing? Oh well, I'll grow old soon enough. Hi junior.

I would agree that this seems out of line. An audience watching one of those things being demonstrated some 30 or so meters away can feel the heat from them and get a little nervous without even being even near the recieving end. No shelter with openings to the effects could be adequate. It was sometimes enough just to see a burst of flame from one directed elsewhere to inspire surrender in Germans as the flamethrower team approached. If the machine gun was in use, why was it not applied to that most disasterous threat, the flamethrower? And being in use indicates the crew was preminantly exposed, so that foxhole or not, it was time to cut bait or run. The flamethrower did not have to cook its quarry. It could remove sufficient oxygen from the vacinity to put its victums out. Air heated to cooking temperatures could not exactly be healthy to breathe either. One factor remains in question; what is the range of the thing? The fuel unleavened with napalm leaves it effective at rather short ranges. Napalm gives it the necessary cohesion to form a rod of fire with the necessary range to reach out and touch someone. Without it ranges are measured in a short set of tens of feet, maybe 25 or 30 at the most. If napalm double that, then at even 60 feet we are in the neighborhood of less than 20 meters. Someone with more exact figures could brighten this part of the question. In training we fired it without napalm. It was still a hell of a beast. A dragon whose targets were likely to have second thoughts even when the first squirt was a little short, leaving them to seriously consider the consequences of remaining for a closer dose. Speaking of courageous foolhardiness, I am reminded of the story of the Japanese soldier armed with a fire extinguisher, who charged a flamethrower team. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 05-30-2000).]