Homba

Abbot, I would request some reasoning or examples on why you disagree. Your reasons may be good, bad or indifferent- but the single word "Not" doesn't really contribute anything to the marketplace of ideas. I for one hold your opinions in some esteem, and I'd like to hear what you have to say. For my part, I can imagine a situation in which near simultaneous attacks could occur by two tanks on separate prongs of a pincer. A german tank is spotted in a field, with woods on either side- but there are numerous dirt roads through these woods. Assuming an allied tank is in the woods on either side of the field, and both have been notified of the german's position, then it is possible that they could coordinate with each other to emerge from the woods at nearly the same moment. Imagine their conversation. "How far are you from the field?" .. "About 60m and you?" ... "About 50- I can see the end of the path ahead." "Ok, then I'll tell you when I've gone 10m and you start forward as well- we can hit him two at once- see you in hell!" They two tank commanders above may not get it exactly right. They may under- or over- estimate. As players, we are faced with the same problem. We don't know the exact rate at which the distance will be covered, especially over different types of terrain (uphill, light trees, open, etc) and with different vehicle speeds. But at least we are making the real-life decisions those commanders did. What more can you ask from a game than this level of realistic emersion? Your racing pulse as the two tanks enter the field exactly as you planned it. Great stuff- and why we play wargames. Remember I said 'possible'- not 'every time.' The inherent variables of terrain, etc., are enough obstacle for me- without an *arbitrary* overlay of a 15 second pause increment that can only be implemented at the beginning of a turn. Homba

Maastrician said: Now you have to take a shot on the move- with much less chance of hitting anything than with a shot from stop during a 10 second pause. tss: if you think 5 seconds over-estimates coordination abilities, what is your opinion of the current 15 seconds? About the same, right? I would argue there's no practical difference, so why not adjust it down to 5 in order to give us more control. More importantly, you don't even address the main point, which is that we should be able to 'pause' in the middle of a turn, not just at the beginning of it- just like a real-life commander could. BTS, on its first try (CMBO), has gone 99% of the way to making the tank control in this game as realistic as possible. Having covered the mile, why not go the extra meter!? Plus- with this god's eye view, coordination is ungodly anyway! I am all for relative spotting. But until then, and even when we DO have relative spotting, I would still argue that BTS should increase the realism in this game by giving us the ability to pause tanks in the middle of a turn. And I would argue for something less unwieldy than a clumsy 15 second increment. 5 seconds sound like a good number to me. Homba

Vergeltungswaffe, that is an example of foggy thinking about the issue: If I give a hunt command, and I spot an enemy, my tank is NOT going to reverse (unless the AI takes over). My tank is going to shoot it out. The purpose of the 10 second hilltop appearance is to get an idea of what is out there and back off quick- not to get into a fight to the finish. So your solution is flawed, not to mention tedious to employ (if it DID work as you wrongly suggest it would). Homba

Dorosh, we seem to agree in principle. Maybe we are talking around each other on the details. In your FOO example ('Forward Observation Observer?') you have a guy sending the proposed shadow of the FOO into a building, then checking the LOS. Ok... Assuming no enemies had yet been identified in the woods, you obviously can't magically 'spot' them with the shadow image. But you do know whether or not you can see *the wood line* that might contain enemies. First, my concerns, and I believe the concerns of the others as expressed in this thread, have a 99% focus on vehicles, not infantry. Lets just change your FOO into a vehicle. Example: An enemy tank in the next valley has already been identified by scouts, and it's position relayed to my tank commander by radio. I want to get a hull-down position on the valley edge to shoot at this enemy tank. Under the current rules, I MAKE MY BEST GUESS (after an excrutiating examination of the terrain) of where the hull-down location for my tank is, use a hunt command on my tank, and hope that I dont either over-shoot (exposing my entire hull) or under-shoot (resulting in no shot on the enemy) my guestimated hull-down position. In real life, myself, as the tank commander, orders his driver toward the lip, slows down as he nears, and edges into the position, stopping exactly when he gets his gun barrel above the lip with LOS on the target. With the proposed 'prospective LOS'change, the real life situation is immitated. The only abstraction is the question of WHEN you have the info, the info being "where exactly you need to be" to be both hull-down and have LOS to your target (one of several issues identified above). Using prospective LOS, you get the info early, BUT this is the only way to replicate the correct fine-manuevering of the tank commmander once he gets near the spot. We are eliminating a lot of really really unrealistic results with this change. No more tanks driving over the lip of the rise that the player wanted it to be hull-down behind. I say that the ADDED realism of accurate tank-driving (or maybe I should say 'the added realism of NON-CATASTROPHIC tank-driving') in my opinion, heavily outweighs any concerns about 'knowing what you can see from there before you get there.' Theoretically, we can zoom the camera in to any hill or point on the map, regardless of whether we have units there- which just further undermines the agument that 'you shouldnt know what you can see til you get there' as a valid bone of contention in the 'prospective LOS' debate. It is always a choice between two evils, and again I argue that we should be advocating the choice that eliminates wildly unrealistic results. In this case, I think prospective LOS is not an evil, but a good! Tanks behaving irrationally is an evil. Homba

JoePrivate, I disagree: BTS has given us the ability to micromanage down to giving 20 waypoints to a move order, interspersing various hunt/move/other orders, changing waypoint orders in mid-move, etc, etc. The battles are NOT fought in 2-5 minute segments, however much you'd like to imagine it that way. Neither is the player's perspective purely that of a company commander! BTS has given us the ability to 'take over' for each tank commander, squad, and team leader. I thank them for that, because without it, the game would be much less fun- and I think most people would agree with that statement. CM is a GAME, albeit a very realistic one. It is (obviously) not meant to be a simulation of the experience of a particular company commander- and your argument for that position fails because there is just too much fun micromanagement made available to the player. All we are asking for is a little more control. Control is fun. What are you afraid of? If you have no problem now, you won't have a problem in the future. If you like the realism now, you'll like it better when a tank CAN top a ridge, look around for 10 seconds, and back down in the same turn. This is just an extension of 'taking over' for the tank commander- an ability which is already undeniably present in the game. We just want it better represented. Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other. The ability to be the tank commander is already there- it just needs some fine tuning to increase the fun. Why throw a wet blanket over that? You're missing the mark when you say CM only attempts to replicate a company commander's experience. Homba

I have been having the same problem, and thinking about this issue. For me, the issue is one of your tank halting either a little too far, or a little too short of, my planned hull-down position (which is one important element of the issue raised in the above posts). I have spent FAR too much time eyeballing a rise in the terrain from a direct flat side view, and eyeballing my tank (at 'realistic' size)- trying to figure out where EXACTLY on the rise I need to place my Hunt (or Move) dot so that my tank will actually stop in a proper hull-down position. I have a solution- read on. My experience has been that it is quite easy to screw up your stop-point- if your tank moves a bit too far, you top the rise and lose the hull-down benefits. Deathly afraid of this evil miscue, I make sure not to place the stop-dot too high on the ridge- but the other side of the coin is, that if I dont make it far enough up the ridge, my gun will not get LOS over the hilltop, and I'll be stuck useless for a whole turn behind the hill. To answer a few anticipated objections: The Hunt command DOES NOT in my experience guarantee a hull-down stop if an enemy is spotted. And yes, my tank commander is unbuttoned and on the lookout. I have had the experience of my tank running just out of hull-down before the Hunt command kicks in (ie- I spot the enemy) stopping my tank to fire. This is NO GOOD. In real life, my commander could order the driver to EASE up the slope, a foot at a time if necessary, to get just enough of the turret out of defilade to achieve a shot. In CM, there is no mechanism/command in place to mirror this reality. And this mechanism, and the attendant benefits in many situations (not just hull-down issues) is exactly what is being argued for and requested in this thread. The question is, what is the best means to achieve this end? Also, let me dismiss the 'pre-target' objection- I don't think it helps matters to "pre-target" the enemy tank with a target line before you start your move up the hill. I might be wrong- it may help. However, this is irrelevant to the overall issue in many many situations. If I am just moving into hull-down, moving between buildings, around the edge of a wood or hill, etc, without a visible target- the 'pre-target' wont help me. The issue is much larger than 'achieving hull-down against a known enemy.' The greater issue is one of fine movement control- the exact control that the tank commander would have IRL, that is often the difference between life and death. How to work this into CM? Cybeq's idea of a 'prospective location' LOS command is a start. But we need to incorporate the unit into this equation, to be able to see what the tank commander WOULD SEE when he reaches that point on the map. Thus we mimic the fine control he has in the only way we can do it in a turn-based game. Here is how i'd implement 'prospective LOS': (1)I give a tank a hunt (for example) command. I move the 'hunt-line' up the hill, but instead of just the line on the ground, a 'shadow image' of the tank moves right along with the line (I can see the terminus of the line, any waypoints, etc., right through the shadow image of the tank). The shadow image IS EXACTLY WHERE THE TANK WOULD BE if I were to end the move/hunt/whatever at that point on the map. (2) I can check LOS from the shadow image location! I do this by fixing the shadow image in place (by right clicking, using the 'X' key, WHATEVER) and then I can draw LOS from that unit! I can thus assure the same result that my tank commander would achieve IRL: I can place the tank in the optimum hull-down (or other) location, because I KNOW (like the commander IRL) when I've got LOS over the hill (or to the point I want to cover with my gun). No more guessing about what I can see from where I stop! I can do EXACTLY what the tank commander would do in real life- carefully position his tank in crucial situations requiring care! I would love to see this 'prospective LOS' feature implemeneted in CM2 or 'reverse-patched' into every version of CM on the market at the time. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, and if this solution (or some version of it) would solve the various problems that are being complained of in this thread. Homba

I agree- we need a change to shorter pause increments (5 secs or less) and the pause command should be able to be issued at any point during the turn, not just at the start. This adds a lot of realism. If the tank commander could do it IRL, then we should be able to replicate that in CM. Homba

I am tending to agree with the above negative impressions of "Frontsoldaten," by Stephen Fritz. I was really excited about this book, but it hasn't lived up. The author heavily quotes Guy Sajer, and as some have said, there seems to be a dilution effect. I have found much of the material to be highly "repeditive" in nature. It is taking me forever to finish this book, and I have contemplated abandoning it- but I am hoping "the Seasons of War" chapter has some good anecdotes on the winter weather fighting. The chapter on the German training methods was very interesting. I am still waiting for a chapter on actual combat experiences- I hope I'm not disappointed... My estimation of the material and the author dropped when I read a quotation about an infantry company in Stalingrad gathering around as one of their own played Beethoven on an abandoned grand piano amid some nearby shelling. This immediately pricked my attention, and I checked the source. It was "Last Letters from Staligrad," which has been authoritatively reported (if not confirmed- I am uncertain) to be a fabrication by german war correspondents- admittedly great for atmosphere and realistic fiction, but nonetheless a fabrication portrayed as reality. However, Fritz made no mention of this when he offered the quote! On the contrary he portrayed it as authentic. So I am left wondering- how much of this is real and how much fantasy, did the author leave this out intentionally, or is he just a poor researcher? I am about to dive into Beevor's "Staligrad," which comes highly recommended, and I can also recommend Clark's "Barbarossa: The German-Russian Conflict, 1941-45" as an excellent read, and great history of the Eastern Front with tons of very readable detail. I believe that 95% of this book (published in 1965) has stood the test of time. Anyone have definite knowledge on the authenticty (or not) of "Last Letters from Stalingrad" ? Homba

I agree with Holien- misrepresented CM machine-guns is one essential cause of the (WWI style) human wave attack. If machineguns actually killed people in CM (like they did in WWI) we wouldnt have this problem. Also, on paintball- if you want to come as close as you can to the feeling of a small, close-range infantry engagement, you MUST play paintball. It really makes you appreciate the concepts of suppression, coordination, manuever under fire, etc. Homba

I recently finsihed Clark's 'Barbarossa' and found it extremely good, in both content and style. I would highly recommend it. Homba

Thanks Sten, I am encouraged by your reply. At least the issue is being looked into. Homba

Rescuing this once-hot thread from the doldrums of page 5! I wish some of you veteran posters who spend endless brain power and screen time on this bb would share your opinions on this fundamental CM issue- how flags should be handled in the game (either CM1, or future editions!). The accumulated knowledge of this thread is summarized here on page 3, but a read of the entire thread is, as always, advisable. Homba

I agree with Colonel, that the effectiveness of "the big cats" decreases in direct proportion to the addition of trees, hills, and buildings to a map- and that this is all you really need to pay attention to if you don't want them dominating a game. As far as some of the cost disparities, it seems that every game has them, CM is no different, and it would be good if BTS adjusted the values a bit based on the general consensus regarding the more badly skewed units (ie- volksgrenadier SMGs). The other point I wanted to make is that in my experience as a T-House admin and a lurker on this board, the general perception among our members (and CM players) is that, for a variety of reasons, the Germans are the stronger side, period. This bears out others' comments above, that "winning with Germans is like holding serve," etc. At T-House we are toying with the idea of using a very simple Bidding system in our next tourney, which, if implemented, would work as follows: The first player in each pairing has a choice, either to play Germans himself with -10% force strength, OR let his opponent play Germans at no penalty (in either case, the allied player would be at full strength). It is this simple because that's what we're limited to by the QB features. It would be nice if we could actually bid back and forth with points. ("I'll take the Germans at -10." "Oh, yeh? I'll take them at -20." "Then I'll go as high as -50, beat that!" etc etc...) I wish BTS would implement this as a patch for the QB generator. But for now we will use what we have, which is the -10% option. This system will face the bidding player with a tough choice- but he won't be able to whine afterwards that the German side was too strong. The -10% will essentially cost the German player (if he chooses Germans), about one platoon of men, give or take- depending on battle size. I'd like to hear some comments on the above idea for equalizing the sides. (We are also going to have some very structured QBs in the next tourney, which will limit player's forces to more historical mixes... and quash this creeping rumor that T-House is somehow hostile to "historic" CM.) Homba

Yeh, I've noticed it. Seems like a bug to me. Very irritating. Homba

Hehe... I set up a fight last night, 3 KTs vs 30 sherman 75s on a flat, open, 1 km length map. I set my KTs spaced, one right, one center, one left. The shermans fired on me of course to no effect, they also smoked my tanks like crazy. Two KTs were immobilized and one had the gun disabled, but that was after about 5 rounds, and 10-15 of them were burning by then. (All these tanks were Regulars). Every now and then my KTs would get a shot through the smoke, or the smoke would thin- and another sherman would burn. After about 20 sherms were knocked out without making any move forward (two were huddled behind a small house), I quit the exercise. Next I played the Sherms, which I of course rushed at the KTs. The computer made my job easier by grouping the KTs close together- tho I dont belive this altered the ultimate result. As my sherms rolled across the open at full speed, a few were picked off, but they helped themselves by hiding the KTs in a cloud of smoke. Once I had closed the range, the KTs were finished off with point blank side shots. I had lost about 5 tanks. I found this all an interesting illustration of the AI's strengths (auto-smoke) and weaknesses (lack of active/offensive tactical intelligence) admittedly in one limited situation. Homba

Tanks with hit-points!? Sudden Strike is horrible (if it is anything like the demo- which is as far as I got.) All it is is warcraft/starcraft meets WWII. But their success in Europe emphasizes the need for BTS to market in Europe- if this isnt being done already. Homba

please delete [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-19-2001).]

If "flag fixes needed" fails to get their attention, I doubt a broader title will... Of course they may have been reading this thread all along (but I doubt it). Maybe an email referencing this thread is the best way? I'd like to hear what some of the experienced "Members" think about this. (edit- hopefully your post will draw some more attention to the issue, tho im skeptical about the wisdom of dividing up the threads. I hope your link to this thread is sufficient. I can just see a lot of half-baked opinions (uninformed by this discussion) coming in.) H [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 03-19-2001).]

Yeh Skorpion- it is a great idea! I'm thinking the flag coding is sort of an independent, isolated section of the code? I'm hoping it could be fixed in all editions of CM at the same time, essentially with one patch. I wish some others would offer their opinion on the idea of two types of flags as part of the "two points" of the unified flag theory set out in my last post, above. And I'd like to hear what Steve and Charles have to say about the discussion and proposal represented in this thread. What is the best way to draw their attention? Homba

Admittedly, we made no effort to make this a historical tourney. In some rounds we did use different force-constitution settings, such as infantry, mechanized, armor, etc. We also used Fionn's 75 rule on two occasions. This tourney was never billed as anything other than an IP free-for-all. The rules never mentioned it being a historical tourney, or using random picks. Trying to do that would mean dealing with all the problems and controversy those kind of subjective limitations entail. Sorry you were disappointed, but... where you got your misconceptions I'm not sure. Spring tourney sign-up coming soon. www.tournamenthouse.com/CM/ Homba

That is a fine idea and innovative thinking. It could be as simple as a triangular-shaped pendant flag for "take-only" (or "overrun") VFs, and a rectangular flag (exactly as used now) for "required-garrison" flags that must be garrisoned to be held. We could still have 300 (big) and 100 (small) point versions of both. and be able to set how many of each we wanted on a random QB (or let computer decide), and place them as appropriate when designing scenarios. Now that would be very very cool, because it cuts through the "flag abstraction," and identifies which "type" of objective each is- one that needs only be overrun, or one that needs to be "held at all costs." As for backwards compatibility, I wholly agree. If, however, BTS can't give us the above-described flag options, I still strenuously maintain that you dont need to be ON a VF to maintain it against an enemy, and in many situations, it may be more advantageous to defend it from nearby terrain that offers much better defensive benefits- a choice the commander of the capturing force would be faced with in real life. This holds just as true for the attacker as the defender- when he has taken the objective, he may want to move to more favorable defensive terrain to protect the objective from an impending enemy counter-attack. So I disagree with you, Skorpion, when you say that just by standing on the bridge for 10 seconds, the attackers could not prevent the enemy from destroying it/ bringing up reserves. Exactly the opposite is true. The attackers take 10 seconds running across the bridge, and take up defensive positions on the other side. If the flag is ON the bridge, they are FORCED under the current rules, to sit out on the bridge with no cover in order to keep the flag. If I were designing a scenario, I would put a flag at each end of the bridge, instead of on it, and this wouldnt be such a problem, but that is irrelevant to the argument about the principles at work. Saying that, I would leap at having the option of the two types of VFs described by Colonel. Admittedly this would add additional realism, both in meetings, and defenses. And that just might be the simple, elegant answer we're looking for: 1. The "new flag rule": Any flag that starts in your side's deployment zone starts as your color, and stays that way until taken. Any flag that starts in neutral ground begins the game "neutral" until either side takes it. 2. The "garrison vs. overrun sub-rule": There are two possible types of flags, as described above. In meetings, more "required-garrison" flags (rectangular) could be present. In defenses, most of the flags could be "overrun" (triangluar) flags. These would be the default settings for QBs. If the players agreed, they could change the number of each. Scenario designers would have new options. Everyone would be happy, and the game would take a leap forward in realism. What does everyone think about that? Have we stumbled upon a flower in the thorn bush!? Homba

Colonel, I appreciate your post. You say three things. 1. You are somewhat in agreement with me on giving the defender all flags in his zone until taken by the enemy, and you wouldn’t mind a change of the rule. (But you have qualms with details- your #3, below.) 2. You suggest that BTS could give us a way to find the distance-to-flag with a click of the mouse, instead of measuring LOS ourselves. 3. You elaborate on your qualm with the proposed flag rule change, and I quote: “The one problem I have has to do with the attacker. I don't believe that they should gain control of a vl in the defender's zone if they take it and then leave it. It seems to me that this logic runs contradictary to your basic belief in why this should be changed. If the flag starts out in the defender's zone, it should only be given to the attacker if they take it and hold it. After all, they are in enemy territory. No, I am in favor of the attacker having to garrison a vl, whether they are taking a neutral vl or a vl owned by the opponent on defense. If anything, this would probably equal out the points a little as it seems to me that the attacker enjoys a slight advantage with all the points they are granted compared to the defender.” --- My responses: 1. Thanks for the “in principle” support. 2. I like your idea. However, I don’t want this fix to be any harder than necessary for BTS. The chief characteristic of the fix needs to be an elegant simplicity. Sure, if they had time, they could code the flag to act like a leader for the purpose of determining whether a squad was in “flag-control-confirmation distance.” They could assign an arbitrary distance, 40m or whatever, and you just click the flag. A red or black line emenates from the flag to your nearby squads, just like the command-link line from your leaders. This would be cool, but I think it is a bit much for a teeny-tiny sub-issue. I will be happy after the fix if they just TELL me what the range is. Anything more is icing on the cake, but just extra work in my mind. 3. Ok, here comes the biggie. Your argument is clearly stated, and it is an important point, on which a decision must be made- one way or the other- and in favor of the choice which provides more realism in most situations that the other choice (again, the 90% right vs 90% wrong idea). Because they’re so spread out, and this post is a good starting place for an earnest discussion and decision on this sub-rule, I’ve collected below all the points made previously on this topic that support my point of view (that the attacker should be able to hold the flag even after leaving the area of the flag). (I boil the points down at the end if you want to skip the quotes.) Then they can be refuted one by one in an organized fashion by anyone who objects. From page 2 of the thread: (I have changed the main arguments to bold print) ---- (My first mention of the subject): I will assume for the sake of argument that the MG nest is a 100pt objective. You say that after destroying the nest, the attackers move on without manning the nest- they don't need to man it. I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view. If my flag rule change suggestion gets implemented, you will get the 100pts for that MG nest at the end of the game even though you left no units on it. ONLY IF enemy forces IN FACT re-occupy the MG pit would they get the points for the flag. And the above is how I would handle the re-capture by the once-ousted defender of flags in an attack/defense situation. This is the logical next step in the discussion of the attack/defend flag rules: what happens once the flag is overrun by the attacker, and the defender attempts to re-capture it? I say it should be handled as stated in the MG pit example above. The attack can move on and retain possession of the flag without leaving anyone on it, and unless the enemy physically re-captures it, the attacker gets the points for it in the end. In essence, the attacker, having taken the Flag, now becomes the defender of that vital objective, and is free to defend it however he sees fit- be it throwing caution to the wind and charging the shaken enemy remnants, or finding a safer location to defend the flag against any attempt by the original defender to re-capture it. What does everyone think about the above "re-capture sub-rule" [or “no-attacker-garrison sub-rule” (not sure what to call it)] in the context of the attack/defend flag modification argument? (I can think of one palatable alternative.) [that once-palatable alternative was Colonel’s “required-attacker-garrison” method of course. I no longer find it palatable, having had a chance to think about it.] -------- (Seahawk’s excellent supporting rationale): Actually I start to think that a sticky-flag would certainly be a better and the same arguments apply to the attacker if successful. he should not be required to stay put in part to maintain control: he has kicked the defender out and should be able to pursue him. THEN, if the defender is able to sneak some units back and regain control all the better and all the better from a realistic point of view as well. But if he does not than he cannot hope for an automatic greying out of the VF just because he is running away and pursued. (in reference to the withdraw tactics aiming exaclty at this: grey out flags because of luring the enemy into pursuit and escaping from the map aiming to a draw. It is instead a debacle not a draw! --- (My best statement of why my version of the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule is more realistic, and more fun): YOU ARE THE ATTCKER. You don’t need to squat in an MG nest! You cleared it- you deprived the enemy of its value, and therefore of the points. You have gained the points due to your success in this mission to take the MG nest. Now- in the scant minutes or hour that remains in the battle, under my proposed rule, you have to make the same real-life decisions the commander in the field makes: are their some germans over in those trees that might try to re-take this gun-pit and regain its benefits? Should I therefore garrison the pit? Should I leave the pit behind and hope that the enemy has no plans to re-take it? If I garrison the pit I may not be able to defeat that squad of the enemy hiding in the house over that hill, but I have to take it also, as it is the enemy command post... Being in command is what makes the game fun. Having realistic decisions to make adds to the fun (if you like realism!) As the flag rule now stands, you can’t make these decisions. You are FORCED to leave men in the pit to get credit for depriving the enemy of the use of the pit- when in fact, the enemy isn’t going to be able to counter attack anyway. If they do manage it, then the regain the use and benefit of the gun-pit, and get the points back that you earlier took from them. Which rule is better? Better= More Realistic! My rule is better because it reflects life more accurately. [The above bit about the realistic decision-making choices allowed by my proposal, is an especially important and desirable option.] ---- From page 3 of the thread: (my response to Philistine): Admittedly a certain amount of abstraction is needed if you are going to accept that the sneaky attacker has obtained AND RETAINED the points for the VF after moving off it, all unknown to the defender (who still thinks the flag is his). … we MUST let an attack pass through a VF and retain control of it when he moves on, or else we have an unrealistic situation of garrisoning useless (to the attacker) positions, and a consequent dilution of manpower for the final attack or destruction of the enemy, if one has the remaining resources to attempt this. … When those attackers sneak through, they LEARN that the position is harmless, and get all the attendant benefits of knowing that. For the attacker, who is just entering the territory, PERCEPTION plays a large role. And the defender is wholly deprived of the position, be it a radar site or depo that the staff was trying to evacuate, etc. It doesn't have to be a defended bunker to have value to the defender. And just because the defender still thinks they have control, doesn't mean they do in fact. For the defender, who knows the land, it is REALITY rather than perception which is important. I once read a story about a commander who had no barbed wire, but ordered his men to plant fence posts all along the front- the resultant delay and indecision caused to the enemy (who was too far off to suspect there was not wire between the posts) allowed reinforcements to reach the position before the enemy attacked. [And I think that story is a great example of attacker’s perception vs. defender’s reality. Even had the defender secretly abandoned the position, the attacker is still intimidated by it, due to their lack of information. The knowledge that a position is ACTUALLY clear, should convey the points to the attacker, who is then free to move on if they choose.] ---- Boiled down to the basics, the 4 realistic points in favor of the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule include: 1. Upon taking an objective, the attacker (just as the defender before him) is free to choose to defend it from wherever, and by whatever method, he wants to, be it continuing to attack the retreating enemy, moving to more favorable defensive terrain near (but not ON) the flag, or sitting right on the flag if this is more favorable. 2. Defender cannot use the worst sort of Gamey tactics, hoping for an automatic “greying out” of the flag just because the defender is running away and the attacker pursues. (in reference to the Gamey withdraw tactics aiming exaclty at this: grey out flags because of luring the enemy into pursuit and escaping from the map, aiming to a achieve a draw thereby. With the “no-attacker-garrison” rule, it is instead a debacle- not a draw. 3. The attacker in most cases does not have any desire to sit on objectives (this is an attack, not a meeting!) when faced with the opportunity or necessity of advancing further. The no-attacker-garrison amendment gives the player-commander realistic choices to make about how to proceed, whereas the required-attacker-garrison rule FORCES the player to leave forces behind at the VL, for the Gamey reason (again, the worst variety of Gameyness) that he is worried about getting the points for the flag at the end in a close game. 4. The no-attacker-garrison rule accurately portrays the concept of “attacker’s perception vs. defender’s reality.” Even had the defender secretly abandoned the position, the attacker is still intimidated by it, due to their lack of information. The knowledge that a position is ACTUALLY clear, should convey the points to the attacker, who is then free to move on if he chooses. Now obviously, once an attack overruns a flag, the original defender becomes the “attacker” of that flag, and all the above considerations apply with equal force to the “counter-attacker.” I think everyone would agree with the “90% right is better” idea I was advocating earlier. I therefore think it is insignificant to point out a tiny chink, or a very rare situation, in which the “no-attacker-garrison” sub-rule is found lacking. If you want to effectively advocate the “required-attacker-garrison” position, you are compelled to begin by strongly refuting the above four points, on the grounds of realism. Finding one unique “chink in the armor” is not going to overcome the fundamental “90% right is better than 90% wrong” idea. If you don't address them I'll be telling you that you can't contradict their logic, etc... So if you’ve got a strong, broad-based rebuttal, let’s hear it, point by point. If on the other hand, you support a change in the flag rules as I’ve stated them, lets hear that too. And then lets really open up on the issue of how to handle flags in meetings, and solidify the patch proposal. Unified flag theory! Homba

Just saw it. About a notch short of Private Ryan, but excellent stuff. I only wish when we saw things from the German's view, the russians would be heard speaking russian, and vice versa.. fine by me for them to speak english in their own scenes... tho I guess Jude Laws english accent was way out of place All in all, loved it. Homba

Come on Colonel, I am waiting on your reply. Since it has taken you this long, it better be full of wit, grit, and literary allusion. Or have I won you over? H

Swamp and Atlas deserve a Bump or two. H