Tero

Originally posted by Slapdragon: Yes, Digby Tatham-Waltham carried an umbrella because he felt his leadership was more important than any weapon he carried (he did carry a pistol) and used it to direct movement and fire. He also carried it because he had a very poor memory and did not want to get shot for forgetting the password of the day. Unlike what the movie said, Tatham-Waltham survived the battle, won about a gagillion initials after his name, then moved to Kenya and was instrumental in putting down the Mau Mau uprising. What was his rank during the battle in Arnhem ? And didn't the commander of the force defending the position at the other end of the Arnhem brigde carry a SMG ? [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

What about such things as: - deflection shooting using the open hatch to defelct the round downwards into the fighting compartment - the crew becoming deaf or suffering injuries (possibly even going insane) after being subjected to repeated hits in rapid succession - repeated hits in rapid succession resulting in a harmounious vibration that renders equipment inoperable

Originally posted by Peaveyyyyyyyy: It seemed to me that your first job was to lead the platoon, think and plan for them etc, so they can concentrate on firing their bullets in the right direction. You shouldn't be joining in too much. In the modern Finnish army the platoon and the squad leaders carry tracers so they can direct fire. Or that was the SOP in the mid 80's. IN WW2, I would have thought reliability was a factor, too. Maybe the carbines were better in this regard than SMGs Actually IIRC in the US doctrine the carbine was classed as a long range pistol rather than a lighter rifle. To my mind, the Officer is there for his brain, not his marksmanship. Agreed. But should he make himself stand out like a sore thumb by appearing distictly different from the troops surrounding him ? This includes dressing differently (white fur coat among trenchcoat troops), acting differently (waving hands etc) and not carrying the same weapons (and being handed the mike once in a while).

Originally posted by tss: Then again, there's the old saying that nothing is more dangerous than a lieutenant with a map and a compass... How is that modelled in CM ?

Originally posted by Monty's Double: Once the rest of his squad is out of action, he is then forced to ditch the rifle because there's nobody else left to carry the radio. Simple. Forgot: wouldn't you think the man carrying the radio would be next in line when picking up targets after the man waving his hands and carrying nothing but a baton is whacked ?

Originally posted by Monty's Double: The clues are all there if you put them together: the Rupert starts with a rifle, forcing the the poor stubblehoppers (to mix a metaphor) to carry pistols, and therefore present themselves as prime targets. Once the rest of his squad is out of action, he is then forced to ditch the rifle because there's nobody else left to carry the radio. Simple. What if there are no radios ? There is a random chance even in CMBO there are no radios. In CMBB it will be a rule rather than an exception. ADDENDUM: WWII era radios were for the most part large and heavy, often requiring 2 (or more) men to carry it. The only exception I can think of was the US walkie-talkie. To call the radios "portable" is not really accurate. The HQ unit can run (even with casualties), which should not be physically possible except for those HQ units without radios or with walki-talkies. With 2-4 casualties the HQ unit should become immobilized and/or its command radius should be cut down considerably. The same goes for FO units BTW. [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Soddball: Cubbies Phan sez: It wasn't a matter of caring, I just thought it might be interesting. Since we in the UK have to suffer the plaintive bleating of "Happy Thanksgiving" (which has no relevance to us) amongst the other myriad aspects of American culture, perhaps it might be interesting for you to learn something outside the Gude Ahld Ewe Ess of Aye. I apologise for attempting to broaden your horizons. Simply saying 'no offence' doesn't mean you aren't giving offence - it just attempts to excuse it.

Several TOE and doctrine examples have been presented. I feel compelled to challenge the Universal Officer premise however. Even Finnish officers carried pistols. But they carried also rifles or SMG's in combat conditions. And it has been established that even Allied and German officers, even if the TOE said something else, would carry weapons if not for an other reason then to divert fire from themselves. Also, MG crews and other assorted specialists would carry pistols. And AFV crews would have SMG's handy. If all facts posted here are true then the CM modelling would be in line with the facts. Except it would be the officers who would be targeted first in a unit (being the obvious targets as they are the only ones not humping a stick). The current CM modelling assumes it is the officer commanding who is the last one in the unit to make the real estate deal. In the light of these contradicting facts it should stand to reason he would be carrying some weapon other than a pistol. [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: I suspect the reasoning behind this is that the officer is always assumed to be the last man killed in a HQ unit. Agreed. But would it really be a pistol he would be carrying if he was the lone survivor ?

Anybody know any good AAR templates ? [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by JonS: Anyway, Teros point about the HQs presumably applies to all nationalities. As it happens the observation I made was on a German HQ unit. And yes, all nationalities are implied. Finnish officers carried either rifles or SMG's in combat units.

I just noticed a HQ unit will hold on to the pistols rather than retain the rifle when it sustains casualties. And come to think of it, I would have thought a HQ unit would carry SMG's and rifles rather than pistols in the frontlines. Anyway, IMO the remaining men would have picked up the rifle in favour of that puny pistol when operating in combat conditions. And if things get really bad they should retain the SMG to the last. Any word if that is going to be changed change in CMBB ?

Originally posted by Adam Lloyd: As someone with a very due respect for David Glantz, I have to agree with your points here. With Glantz you have to read into the data and interpret for yourself. What must be remembered is the fact that at least When Titans Clashed was filled with unedited data from Soviet era sources. Complete with the propaganda rethorics of the era.

Originally posted by Treeburst155: Not necessarily. Hehehe.... Well, Nabla did say "you will experience feelings of joy and frustration." Your idea about variable flag value would be very difficult to deal with on my end. The tourney is far too big for me to deal with all the screenshots sent at various times, manual figuring of scores, etc. Can't say I am surprised. The variable values would add an extra dimenision to the game at tourney level if the scens were mission oriented. It would be easier to determine if the mission was a failure or a success. If the mission was to take an objective and take as few casualties as possible and the mission was accomplished within the timeframe set but with heavy casualties the victory level would not be as good as it would be with lighter casualties.

Originally posted by Nabla: Come on, relax I am relaxed. As you may have guessed I have a thing or two against ready made scens. Has to do with atypical tactics and doctrine designed for a non-CM army I use. Luck and initial conditions have a role in CM, but the best players should stand out. The least that will happen is that you will experience feelings of joy and frustration "Oh, goody. As I suspected there was a killer assets in that location and t creamed my assets the way I feared." ? We guarantee that gameplaying will not be reduced to mechanics. Quite the opposite, we design situations which require most painful decisions to be made. Hakkaa päälle !!!

Originally posted by Treeburst155: I think the side-specific briefings are very important when setups are locked or highly restricted. The restrictions need to be justified and explained to the player. The stage must be set for the battle. What has been going on during the last day or two with your specific troops? Why are they positioned like they are? Why are the setup zones so restrictive? Why are they locked? If the scenario designer can satisfy the player concerning these questions then the player won't mind the fixed setup. Also, there are some limitations as to what types of situations can be simulated with CM. Nabla is working on a scenario idea now that is very difficult to implement with CM. Locked units will probably be a necessity although he is trying to come up with a way to avoid it. If he cannot then he must lock the units in good positions for the situation. These positions will be based on his best judgment, which may not be someone else's idea of what is best. In effect, the player will take over command of Nabla's forces on turn one. The deployment of your new command having been directed by your predecessor, Nabla. I think this is a good way to look at a locked setup. Look at it as a new command assignment you have just arrived at. In the setup phase you are taking a tour of your troops deployment and familiarizing yourself with your new situation. That sounds reasonable. And realistic. How's this for an idea (unless it has not been floated around before): Separate scoring for mission and separate scoring for actual combat. That would be effected by mission dependable variable pt value VL's. The scen is built with VL's at 0pt. Both sides get variable points according to the turn they hold/capture them. Say, the attacker gets 100pts for a VL if he captures by start +20 turns. After that the VL is worth 0pts. For the defender a VL is worth 50pts until start +20 turns, after that they will be worth 300 (or 0) pts. Verification by a screen shot taken from the appropriate turn. These VL values would be totally mission dependable and if the attacker has orders that places greater value to the VP's than the defenders mission it might come to pass that the defender would get points for not holding on to the flags at all while the attacker would go for the flags and ignore the defenders forces. The only problem would be the integration of these points to the CM score. At 0pts the VL's would not factor in when the game engine calculates the points so all points would pertain to kills and losses. That would mean that a victory in the CM level would turn into a defeat if the mission score would be 0pts for one player while it could be Xpts for the other player. So the player would not know if he won or lost until the actual score gets posted. Would this impose too much extra work on the tourney master ? [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Nabla: Think about a chess game. Now there are configurations which are trivial (patent solutions apply) and there are configurations which are highly challenging even for the best. Yes. But you can predict and project the opponents intentions and moves by the gambit he chooses. 1. unit placement is an important part of CM 2. it is possible to have fixed initial positions which alienate the player from the game ("I would never have placed the units this way") Where would the fun be in playing out Thermopylae or Cannae if you we restricted to the historical deployment and course of action ? I'll think about this. Nothing is carved on the stone yet. Would this correspond to a definite perhaps? For now.

Originally posted by Treeburst155: Locking and/or restricting setup is a good way to force players to deal with specific tactical problems. Units should be locked and setup zones defined with a purpose in mind. Agreed. The tactical problem should not be created with the restricting of the setup alone. If the objective is to secure a bridge for a crossing then there is not many options to go about it. If the objective is to secure a specific location othen than a clear choke point(like a crossroads) and there are more than one routes to take then that should be reflected in the deployment. I don't think you have to worry about that in the case of Wild Bill and Nabla. From SP days I remember Wild Bills scenarios were the among the better ones. The scenario I am testing was restricting to a certain extent, but I still have plenty of options. I'll have to take your word for it.

On the subject of tournament prize: I do not want to be a wet blanket but are there any issues concerning the shipment that should be taken into account ? The Nordic countries are more than a bit anal when it comes to these things. Especially when there is alcohol involved. IIRC the Finnish customs are not very flexible when it comes to taxation of goods if the shipment is labeled the wrong way. I heard some guy had to pay heavy taxes on a woollen sweater he received by post from Norway, only because there was some technicality issue in the labeling of the shipment. [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

Originally posted by Treeburst155: Very interesting, Tero. I would think that even if EVERY unit was locked, there would still be choices for players to make once the game starts. A completely locked setup wouldn't automatically dictate a single correct way to proceed. Not necessarily. But the options would be severily limited. If the deployment zones were restricted or all units locked the start up would compel the player to take certain course of action, especially if the time frame was limited. An attacker might face X turns of lateral movement to reach a jump off point he would want to start advancing from. A defender would be denied dug in position in a location he might deem more appropriate for the mission. If you give 1000 monkeys type writers and all of the typewriters had the same buttons disabled would these 1000 monkeys be more likely to make the same typos, even if they would hit them randomly ? Lots would depend on how your opponent proceeds. Agreed. What if the was two pairs, one of equal proficiency and one of unequal proficiency. Both pairs play the same scenario with the same missions. There is a clear kill zone near an objective and there are several avenues of advance to bypass it. Due to restricted deployment and timeframe the attackers are compelled to advance through the kill zone. Otherwise they face failing the mission. And they get duely decimated as the defender was blessed with a fortuitious deployment. So the attackers are preordained to suffer heavily and there only random qualifier would be Lady Luck and how the attackers units would evade being hit. In that scenario you are "free" within the setup zones. Nothing is locked in place. That usually works with historical scenarios. If the scenario has a purpose of measuring tactical proficiency and there is no or very little historical in the scenario then IMO more lattitude should be given in the deployment of troops. Is this to be an algebra test or a philosophy paper ?

Originally posted by Nabla: Although I'm not sure how it is related to the scoring system... In bridge the player is not restricted in his use of the cards he is dealt. But the placement is the same for all players playing on the same side. Remember, your result is compared against those guys. That would be paramount to having the exact the same cards with the rest of the guys in your side and you would have to start the sequence of play with the same card as the rest of the guys with your side. Did this answer your question (I'm afraid to even ask )? It got a bit metaphysical. The terrain and the forces are the same for all in the side. The deployment zones are the same for all. What is the "random factor" that allows people to use other than patent solutions to the tactical problems facing that one side if the placement of units is fixed ? I would like a clear yes or no on the free placement. Or at least a definitive maybe.

Originally posted by Germanboy: anything by Glantz. With a little caveat: at least When Titans Clashed is a dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill ordinary Eastern Front history. The only distinction is it uses solely Soviet sources where as the older histories used solely German sources. There is no comparative study in the book, only the same-o same-o myopia, this time from the Soviet perspective. Which was what I would not have expected, Glantz being hallowed as the new Messiah of the Eastern Front history writing.

A question about the scenario set ups: I take it that since the scoring will be modelled after bridge the scenarios we will play will allow free placement of troops anywhere (within the players side of the map of course) without any restrictive deployment zones.

Originally posted by Splinty: One other note on the stability of the mount. We used the same mounts as they used back then and you'd be surprised how stable and smooth they were. I am sure the infantry ground tripod mount is stable. What kind of bursts did you fire: short or sustained ? The majority of the 50cals in CM are vehicle mounted and of these vehicle mounts a vast majority are single point pintle mounts. Given the recoil keeping the aim true when firing at point targets with the purpose of taking it out I'd say the short, 3-5 round, burst would work better than sustained (8-10 rounds) bursts. The 20mm FLAK mounts were more stable in this respect so a full clip of 8 rounds could be fired without the recoil foiling the aim too much.

Originally posted by Juardis: Absolute spotting!!! Unfortunately, it won't be fixed in CMBB, but damn is it frustrating. A tank on the other side of a map should not all of a sudden see a hidden unit just because an infantry squad of his happened to stumble upon that hidden unit. Hear hear ! The TAC AI preferentially targetting AT teams even when the AT team is identified as "infantry?". Next preferential target is HQ units. Did several tests on this with buttoned up hetzers rotated 90 degrees. Then ran a plt of guys, including a zook, across open ground right at a spot behind the hetzer. 4 out of 5 times the hetzer spotted the running guys and all 4 times it targetted the zook team. I think that this is an issue. The player should get more spotting info even when playing with full FOW, at least the same amount the AI is using when determining what to target. If the AI can spot men carrying conspicuously large tube shape objects the player should get a heads up before you hear that WHOOHS sound when the first round leaves the tube. Especially since the AI seems to be able to make the difference.