Soliloquy

It looks like Fionn may be putting the scenario together, but I took a stab at it a little while ago and have a bit of the work done. The terrain is completed, based on the screen caps from the AAR, but the elevation data isn't readily interpreted from the images. The force compositions are a little dodgy as well, particularly the Americans. Unfortunately, real life (what's that?) has intruded rather rudely and I will not be able to wrap it up. If anyone wishes to finish it off, contact me and I will email the scenario file as it stands to you.

Welcome! Good to see you dipping your toes in the web-forum waters! I've enjoyed your AAR's on csipgs-h. It'd be great if you'd post a couple over on the "scenario-talk" board, along with the usual "spoiler" note.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred: Computer Ambush <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I loved that game! I recall sitting for hours plotting my troops moves with a grease pencil.

little rocks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne: Anyway, we'll never know for sure whether it was improved accuracy or higher rates of fire that was the death of line tactics, because they were both developed at the same time. It was most likely both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would tend to agree with the "both" idea. Rifles were around during the Nappy era, but had a much lower rate of fire than the smoothbore muskets. The bullet for the early rifles fit VERY tightly into the barrel, and it took quite a pounding to get it seated properly, slowly the firing rate to an unacceptable degree (for Regular troops). The Minie ball, developed sometime (I'm not quite sure when) after the American Revolution, circumvented this difficulty by having a flared rear section which would expand upon firing and grip the rifling of the barrel. So the Minie ball itself could be small enough to slide quickly down the barrel and the firing rate was identical to smoothbore muskets. It was this combination of increased accuracy and sufficient firing rate which initiated the shift from late 18th Century formal line tactics. That's my take, anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne: P.S. look for Sid Meiers "GettysBurg" from Firaxis for a more entertaining look at how 18-19 century maneuvers work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I second that recommendation. Great gameplay in that title. Not perfect, but alot of fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Wow, that speech is OLD I remember hearing that when I was a kid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is probably why Airbus, et al. were conspicuously absent. Does anyone happen to know when this was originally published?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Even during the Civil War, the Confederacy was able to produce the Virginia and nearly the Lousiana and Alabama, all very well built warships. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Virginia was constructed from the hull of the Merrimac (built by the US). Alabama was built in England, and the Louisiana was never completed and only deployed as a floating battery. The CSA suffered from mechanical parts shortages throughout the conflict. Nevertheless, I think such a mod would be an interesting diversion. Have you been reading Turtledove's alternate history novels?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vcents: What price is the TNT2 going for these days?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd like to know this as well, seeing as I'm stuck with a V2 in my machine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no .... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germans? Quiet, he's on a roll...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GreasyPig: Can we have in the QBs a seperate point max for each side?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read the manual. This is already in the game. Select the side you wish to have the larger point max as the attacker. Depending on whether you choose an assult or an advance mission, the attacker will receive up to twice as many points as the defender (an assualt receives 2x, advance something like 1.5x)

Let me chime in with yet another 'Thanks, Bill!'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi: Essentially, these two theaters, for whatever other reasons you can come up with for or against modelling them, are just not Steve's or Charles' area of expertise or interest. I wish I could find some good links...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try this: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000980.html Steve explicits states what you have reiterated above (good memory!). Soliloquoy, Argonaut-in-training

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: Buying is the easy part. Finding time to read them is the hard part. Finding time to play the game is the hardest part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Goodness, yes. I'll need several months of vacation just to catch up on my stocked supply of military history. And every time there is a recommended reading list posted here, someone always mentions a book that I don't have but must read. Sigh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover: Or Chosin reservoir or Henderson airfield in CM5...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you know something I don't know or are you simply torturing me? CM5 will be Pacific/Korea? I'm drooling!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Pattison: I'm currently working on designing an Elsenborn Ridge Operation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gotta love the Bulge! Great!

The attacker gets more points to spend, and the ratio between attacker and defender is determined by whether the DYO is an assault or advance mission. I do not recall the exact ratios, however. It's up to 2.0, I think. So if you've been defending with 800, he's been smacking you around with 1600 or so. I think the unbalanced comment by Fionn simply referred to that that Assaults get twice the points to spend, making the defenders job just a >little< difficult.

I have noticed that the foxholes do not disappear from one battle to the next (which seems reasonable to me). It may be that you are seeing foxholes from a previous battle.

It seems that the front line algorithm may need to be made a tad more sophisticated. It'd be nice if salients and 'bulges' would be possible. All I have seen so far are straight lines and enveloped boxes. Even so, I really enjoy the operations, and I hope scenario creators don't ignore 'em in favor of one-shot scenarios.

Pillar, I think that might have been the problem, then. Are you sure that the opfor didn't have a bucketload of troops in the other corner of your line? like this: ----/G ---/GG AA/--- <-new center line A/---- /----- <-new front line (due to no-man's land) Make any sense?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Rainey: For the next 2 or 3 years the Engineer School at Ft. Lenard Wood had a group of people working on Remote Vehicle control packages that would help breach obstacles in such situations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From an old thread on the Goliath: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazooka10165: I remember as a kid buying a model kit of a German weapon which I think was called Goliath. It looked like a miniature wire controlled tank packed with explosives. Supposedly, engineers would use it to destroy bunkers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmmm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soliloquy: the neighborhood of 600,000. Casualties, not deaths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My bad. A quick web search indicated that the number (~600,000) was good, but it does indeed represent the death toll total for the war. Roughly 350,000 Union and 250,000 Confederate. And so the 2% figure is accurate as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood: ~646,000 Union ~134,000 Confederate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That can't be right. I believe that TOTAL casualties for BOTH the USA and CSA combined are in the neighborhood of 600,000. Casualties, not deaths. Heck, the CSA had nearly 30,000 casualties at Gettysburg alone. A less fuzzy answer from me will have to wait until I get home to my 'library'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: If you look at the map as a square, the enemy came from the diagonal (and was expected to do so).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was your new front line still diagonal?