Tris

As for the crowded theater example, yes, I see you did in fact bring it up. Forgive me, I missed it in the heap of your rambling, self-righteous posts. I forgive you my child. (nowgosayyourhailmarysandbehaveyourself) [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

Tris, I am not intending to debate your point, because I think we are so far apart as can be. So be it. Some minor clarifications though. You were indeed labeled a free speech absolutist, but you said that you were proud of being labeled such, and therefore I assumed that you do not have a problem with that. None whatsoever. A point of order nevertheless. The second, I was thinking along the lines of a radio talk show host, or another influential person in the media, not some dictator. Which would not leave you any worse off in terms of influence over others. Just to explain where I am coming from: after the war, we had an addition to the German statute book making 'Incitement of racial hatred' a criminal offense. I think that is a good thing. As Jesse Jackson said according to CNN, 'Democracy requires vigilance, democracy requires patience'. I agree with him there. Democracy also requires tolerance and the right to free speech. I would think the good preacher would agree, but I don't know. In Germany we now have the concept of 'Wehrhafte Demokratie' (rough translation is a democracy able to defend itself), which was born out of the bad experiences in the Weimar Republic, where the militants ran wild. If you go public in Germany with a statement denying the Holocaust, you go to jail. If you call for Jews/blacks/insert-minority-here to be killed/persecuted/whatever, you go to jail. IMO that is a good thing. I understand that we are on different planets, so I am not going to enter a debate about this, I am just setting out where I am coming from, and that I believe that there are other approaches to this problem of unlimited free speech than allowing it, and that these have merit, depending on the circumstances. I understand, Andreas, and thank you very much for taking the time to put your thoughts, your feelings, your position in meaningful context. Some time ago I made friends with a countryman of yours--at the time he was a student at Heidelberg University, then he went over to England where he latched onto a position with some company or other and ended up addressing the United Nations the next year about these tiny drops of curious fluid he used to transport ever so carefully from one test tube to the next while he was still a student at Heidelberg University . . . he also loved wargames and he and I conspired with ever so much delight against the author of CC, though at the time the product in question was that Tobruk game Atomic Games had--have you ever met Keith Zabaloui, Andreas--an engaging chap, he--in order to improve the product in question, but alas, all we managed to do was get another, even better friend of mine in Dutch with Mr. Z--I ended up in hot water as well, but then again I can take it . . . . . . anyway, so a few years ago when I was in Spain visiting my daughter I called this guy up (he was still in school at the time) and we chatted about this and that, and as it happened our conversation rolled around to semi serious stuff. So he tells me, "But you see, Tris, after the war our society was turned upside down and inside out and now it's a bit paranoid about anything having to do with our former Nazi ways, the holocaust, even wargames, where the swastika is absolutely outlawed." Yes, I said, but still a society must eventually bury its past and move onward as best it might--it is unhealthy to do otherwise. To this my friend told me, "That is so. But it is not so easy to bury one's past when you are constantly required to introduce your good Uncle Otto . . . the Nazi." Well, that sobered me up fast and I'll probably never know exactly how my friend or you feels on the matter. My own people come from Germany (from around Leipzig, my family name is Schuler), but as a second generation American I'm divorced from such old-world societal concerns. I hear you, though. Freedom entails responsibility, and the responsibility is one that is on the people who want to stay free to fight those who want to deny them freedom. If you are behaving irresponsible, IMO you lose your right to be treated in the same way as a responsible person. There's merit in that position, too. We have found, or at least we came to believe in the fullness of time, whether right or wrong, that freedom of speech is a fundamental right of all men, or should be, and that it is far better to have this than not. Again, I am not intending to get into a debate about this. This comes down to personal value judgements. I think you have thought a lot about your opinion, and I respect that. I also think it is totally wrong. As you most likely think mine is. Best leave it at that. I do not think your opinion is wrong, Andreas. I think your opinion is different from mine, and the two are not the same. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

But I am true to my own philosophy, and therefore I am not contradicting myself. I can live with that. Now for the last time, Go to bed, Steven!

I deny nothing, except the direct charge you made that we are using our "power" to cause harm to the free flow of discussion here. I have made no such accusation, Steve. No go to bed and sleep on it.

Would you shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater where no fire existed, knowing that the result might be a stampede in which people could be either hurt or killed? Would you defend someone's right to do so? Well, as long as you don't blush at acting in a "brutish" manner then I suppose that I may too, yes? So . . . your reading skills are about as developed as your debating skills, Chupa. Your question is quite idiotic in light of the fact that I have already cited this precise example in one of my passages to Steve. Now please go back and read that post again, see that I am correct and that you have made a fool of yourself, then come back here and humbly beg my forgiveness. I may or may not grant you dispensation, just depends on my mood at the moment. But we live and hope. There. Do you like that approach better? You can stoop, I can stoop. Only believe this: I can stoop way lower than you and much more articulately. The only difference is I will not stoop unless utterly provoked. Choice is yours, my friend. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

You anticipate me, Andreas. I had just copied your post and was about to paste it here. Thanks for doing my work. Tris, since you proclaim yourself a free-speech absolutist, and are proud of being labeled one, I would be quite interested how you would propose to deal with somebody asking for members of a certain religious persuasion to be exterminated? Within what sort of context? A speaker for, say, the Nazi party in circa 1944? Some nut case out of the Louisiana bayous with a hardon for anyone who doesn't worship his notion of how the Christ child shook out? What if that person does not only have a clearly deranged world-view but also the means to carry it out or at least to influence a large number of people? As a free-speech absolutist, I would expect you to let such people get on with whatever they do, because such is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking as I understand it. If I got this wrong, I would be interested to see where the absolutism stops. In a sec. And don't pull age or whatever on me please. Never same in the same evening. Okay, back to biz: I believe you either have free speech or you do not. There is no such thing as a little free speech--it's an all-or-nothing state. Allow me that as my working premise. Should you care to argue against my philosophy as such, do so at your leisure, but for our purposes here and now that's my platform. So, should the free-speech advocate allow this dissenting (and disruptive, even threatening) point of view to be expressed? I would say most definitely yes. It could be that your next sundry Free Speech Absolutist in line might differ, but I'm all for hearing all points of view. In fact I think it forearms me to know what those who would harm me are at intellectually speaking. Does that not make sense? You say this person might already have the means or influence to carry through his dire intentions, Andreas. This by implication leaves me, the free speech guy, presumably with less means and influence, yes? Possibly so, certainly. In that case, then practically what form of censorship might I have to quiet this man of threats? Assassination? That's all I can think of, and I can tell you that isn't in my line. Examples of your what-if are not hard to find right here in America. Hell, they abound. Going back to the Nazi party reference, we had those all over the place before and during the war--still today--yet they were not hounded into prison camps, at least not in the main--for all I know some crazy Nazi spouter ended up behind a fence, but it was for a charge, trumped up or otherwise, entirely more substantial than his discourse on racial superiority. We did, however, have many people rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps, most notably Japanese and Italians, but the pretext here was not what they were speaking about but just that they were possibly unfriendly aliens of one kind or another--the crying shame there being that many had been in this country for some while with good work records. (If I'm not mistaken some were actually citizens, but with "ties" to one objectionable society/person or another. Someone may correct me on this if they care--I'm no particular expert on the subject.) But my point is our country has a long history of considerable tolerance in this very area with much to show for it. Wackos out of the Louisiana hinterland (or Michigan, for that matter) are neither few nor far between. So what? They continue to bejabber, the FBI continues to keep an eye on their collective activities, and once in awhile the attorney general goes mad and orders a rightious slaughter down in Texas. What can I say? The "boys" need the action. Only in America! By the way, I did not label myself a Free Speech Absolutist but rather was so labeled, and none to politely, by Steve. Please admit that much at least. Afterall, we all wish to play at cricket here, no? Let's get back to this, shall we? Occasionally I listen to someone tell me about how his girlfriend screwed him over, or a woman's husband left her, or the step sister of so-and-so went off and eloped with this girl's erstwhile lover--you name it. I come back like this: "You ought to thank this SOB for letting you know earlier than later what an SOB he/she really is. Take the SOB out to dinner, send him/her off with style." When I was in high school I read a SF novel by Asimov or someone about this place far off in the stars that had problems, and at the end there's this professor with some kid trapped in a lab while the insurrectionists are blasting away outside with rayguns. So the kid loses his thumb and screams to his mentor, "Why the hell don't you pull the damned alarm?!" The professor replies: "Because if a society is meant to survive it will do so out of the strength it derives from its own good purpose and state of being. If we are so weak as to need the help of armed force then how purposeful is all this?" Maybe you can use that, maybe you can't. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

I said I was out of that other thread and so I am. I thought I'd address your last two posts, though. First, the two of you both seem to ignore much of what I wrote, and wrote more than once at that. There is no issue here with Steve's right to censorship on his own board, that's a given, only that it is indeed censorship and needs to be called by its proper name. All I heard was denial. While I acknowledge the former (Steve's rights) in practice I must condemn the latter (censorship) in principle. That's all. Pillar, the pleasure was all mine. Please do not give in to the forces of the majority when you believe you are right. If it turns out you were mistaken, admit it, learn, and move on. Chupa (a friend of mine at Original Joe's in San Francisco is called Chupacabra by Sergio, one of the restauants's Mexican waiters--you and he are my only Chupas, by the way), I have no problem with how you care to go through your life vis-a-vis censorship. Is it sometimes useful? By all means, and most especially by those who do the using! In any event, you seem to acknowledge, at least, that no matter one's rationale censorship is still censorship, and I rest more comfortably with that than Steve's denial. As for your objection to my remark to Steve re the fountain of wisdom: I find it unfortunate that you chose to respond to me in the manner you did. Now you have much company, if you are interested, as this is the archetypical response to just such an observation within my experience on the Net. Then again, when was the majority ever much right when it comes to quality control? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

140,000 posts here in a year and a half clearly shows that people find value in this BBS. And I put it to you that it is our style of moderating that is the main reason for it. Then I am satisfied to leave it there, Steve. Feel free to have a last word and I will take no exception. As you say, this is going nowhere in particular and we've both had a chance to blow off steam or whatever this exercise was--I'm not sure, if you care to know. More to the point, I'm here because I want to be here, I like it, I love your game and all of that. For the rest of it . . . well, to each his own. I'm outta here! (backtomyownthreadwhereitspeaceful...headded) [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much of what's been written on these boards if "off topic" by any reasonable barometer, yet I notice only selective threads are locked. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Correct. The world I live in is not one of black and white, but shades of gray. Some topics are more off topic than others, some are more harmless than others. If you wish us to run a BBS with a policy that locks up ALL off topic threads or none at all, that is your business. But I personally object to Free Speech Absolutists riding a high horse into this forum (yes, it is you that is riding high in the saddle on this one) and telling us about the great evils we are responsible for here. Fine. As I noted you have the right to do as you please, but it still boils down to censorship, pure and simple. Also, I do not mind mind being labeled a "Free Speech Absolutist" in the least. Instead, I thank you for what I consider to be a compliment. You are mistaken about my riding a high horse, though, I do like to think of myself as possessing the high moral ground. Censorship is a loaded term, and you should know that very well. It is a loaded term. a highly charged item. And after all our country has been through to get where it's at, why do you suppose this is? But highly charged or no, if you engage in censorship then you either own up to it and get on with your business or ignore those who point it out to you, because you're not gonna win many points through denial: censorship is just too obvious for that. It always sticks out like a sore thumb. It is used when one wishes to brand someone as being incapable of debating truths and instead resorts to force to impose a narrow and indefensible viewpoint. Not at all. Censorship is often used by remarkably able men. It is often used by men of moderate abilities, and used by those with lesser capacity as well. Who uses this device and what he happens to be does not define censorship. How could it? So please do not pretend that you are not being judgmental, condescending, and at least a little insulting. Otherwise why bring it up at all? I bring it up because I see it. I bring it up because I find censorship, in any form, to be a repugnant thing. I don't like censorship. I am anti censorship. I am, in fact, that Free Speech Absolutist you have labeled me to be. And I am proud of this, let me tell you. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, I have a plenty thick skin. My problem is that I am smart enough to know what lies behind the words you post. That isn't even clever, as far as I can tell. If you have something to say, Steve, say it. Innuendo will get you nowhere fast with an educated man. Another good lesson. And I will add that I do not resort to similar tactics when I hold discussions with others, no matter the subject. I have something to say, I say it, just as openly and directly as I can. I expect the same in kind. So what is your message? What is this somethingorother that I mean to say or am "really" thinking behind all of these (clearly implied) veiled words which I've so insultingly "attacked" you with? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- all of this begs the central question, which in this particular case, as I noted, was the way you talked down to Pillar with references to ScoutPL's superior in-field knowledge of tactics and whatnot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You read into it what you will. I wrote what I wrote as advice to Pillar that he needs to do a better job if he wants to debate someone who does this for a living. That's funny. I've followed Pillar and ScoutPL for awhile now and it was my estimation that both parties had scored here and missed there. All in all I've found the debate to be of moderate interest and a fairly good read. You have ScoutPL, apparently, way ahead on points. We seem to be watching different fights. I make no pretentions that ScoutPL is infalible or should be beyond question, yet that is what you directly accused me of. What? Please cite any relevant passage of mine which supports this claim of yours. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to debate your point of view any more than Pillar shouldn't be able to debate Scout's. I seem to have missed that completely. Why would you think you cannot disagree with me, Steve? Have I asked you to go away with your opinions, have I locked any threads or screamed at anyone in frustration? Have I not bothered to respond to your replies to me, and at length? Am I not here again to politely respond to yours to me?

Three different moderators locked up as many threads strated up to discuss current US political events that have NOTHING to do with anything Combat Mission or WWII related. They have no place on this BBS since it is totally off topic and, potentially, flamebait. The topic that Madmatt posted, that you appear to find somehow out of place, was not at all. You just don't know his "update" subjectline style. Check out the thread in question and you will see that it is totally on topic with a tonge in cheeck parody of the current political situation in the context of an update to Combat Mission HQ. I have no idea why you find this to be some sort of great evil... I understand all that, Steve. Your argument (should you not be aware--I have no way to ascertain same so please do not take this as an attack) amounts to this: "We do not practice censorship for no good reason, our motive is not selfish or malicious or even self-serving in the basest sense but rather for the good of all." This is, for lack of better description, the "in the face of clear and present danger" rationale for why censorship is good or necessary or perhaps not really even censorship at all but rather "something else," and while I admit to it as one of life's hard realities I find it more than a little hard to swallow based on my own life experience. It might interest you to know that our various Supreme Courts (as they have evolved through the years) have found this argument equally hard to swallow, at least in normal situations (for instance, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is the classic exceptional case).

Er... you really need to relax a bit. You are implying here, in no small way, that Matt somehow is applying a double standard. In no way shape or form did he do that. A parody of current events is in no way in the same boat as a direct political discussion on a games forum. I'm sorry to see you can't tell see the difference here. Go back and look at the last 100 or so of his update subject lines and you will see a pattern. As for censorship, there was none. Nor was an abuse of power exercised. I think you would be hard pressed to make a case that either of things things happened. Pillar, I read the whole quote. But what you wrote was equally not backed up by anything. As I said, you are confusing differnet levels of recon. I thought ScoutPL addressed this pretty well (see Gulf War refferences). Relax? The only issue discussed here so far that I've taken the least bit "seriously" is that of censorship. I always take that seriously and I couldn't care less who objects. Indeed, the more people object the harder I will press for free speech. It's that simple. And always was. As for what Matt wrote and why he wrote it . . . none of that is relevant. My point is solely this: the other thread need not have closed. It was closed only for the reason you wished to have it closed, and that is censorship in any reasonable man's book. I like Matt's style, I like his work. But then I like your work, too. Go back to it and let me run wild over here, will ya? And quit denying censorship. Go look up the definition for yourself, Steve. You can't just make this stuff up as you go along in a group of schooled adults, it doesn't work that way. So sorry. And finally back to Pillar: again, whether Pillar was right or ScoutPL was wrong . . . all of this begs the central question, which in this particular case, as I noted, was the way you talked down to Pillar with references to ScoutPL's superior in-field knowledge of tactics and whatnot. All of that's given, as far as I know, but it cuts no ice with the issue of debate, which is of its own special context and so operates off separate dynamics. Let that take care of itself, Steve. It always does with time. Trust me. Truth has that way about itself.

And now I am getting personally attacked as a moderator? How nice. By whom have you been attacked recently? It was not I. Please do a search on "locked" to see WHY we lock threads. It is not censorship, rather a very deliberate attempt to keep discussion from wandering off the topic too far. Nice try, but no matter how you choose to spin it censorship it was and censorship it is. Much of what's been written on these boards if "off topic" by any reasonable barometer, yet I notice only selective threads are locked. This is typical of censorship since censorship is always the vice of special interest. Yes, Steve, you represent special interest, no, Steve, that is not a dirty term; neither does it actually attack you. You can do things the way you like on your BBSes, but we can do things the way we like on ours. I have been moderating this one for almost 2 years, so I think I can handle it just fine, thanks very kindly. 140,000 messages on this BBS clearly shows that we are doing more right than wrong at the very least. You are correct insofar as this board is yours, you run it, etc. That does not make it right, though, it does not make it good or beneficial to anyone. I would add this: I have much more experience in these matters than the two years you cite for yourself on this board, and furthermore I am rather senior to you in raw years of life judging from a picture on your site, taken recently, no doubt (correct me if I'm mistaken), so I think I am qualified to warmly invite you to dismount your high horse, smell the roses and listen to a lone voice of quiet reason: censorship is never a good deal. And then into a nice personal attack on me, based on one post. Twice as nice: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is that all there is? So where was the attack? Uhmmmmm... were did I say that Pillar was wrong and that anything out of ScoutPL's mouth should be taking as the word of God? Nowhere. Quite the contrary, I wrote this: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please try and not attack ScoutPL because he knows a lot more about recon that either you or I do. Question and debate him, that is fine, but please try and keep it civil. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You wrote more than that. The thrust of your remarks were directed toward Pillar, not ScoutPL, and on top of that you spoke down to Pillar, both in voice and spirit when you cited ScoutPL's qualifications in a more than little haughty manner with the clear implication that that should persuade Pillar to "know his place." That was the thrust of that. I am not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but I kindly ask that you do not bring it in here and challenge me to knock it off. And we were just discussing service to our country over on the other thread re use of scouts for intelligence gathering. So let me spell it out for you: I didn't serve my country lightly and certainly not to put up "Love it or leave it!" baloney or those who would suppress free speech. No matter what their special interest. Now call me funny in that way if you choose, but there it is. If you haven't already, go serve for awhile yourself, then come back and tell me how it is with you. You might be surprised. Also, you could use some thicker skin. I sure wouldn't go into a combat zone with what you've shown thus far. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

"MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about?" Well apparently you didn't read the thread as it wasn't about politics but about my nightly CMHQ update. I was just using the ongoing spectacle as a backdrop. I realize that, realized it at the time. But still, you took liberties and acknowledged as much yourself. End of story. Look, I have no trouble with anything anyone wants to write on this board or another. I'm all for free speech. I just think it needs to be free all around, not selectively free.

Hold on, brother! Pillar's not the only one to go overboard with his phrasing. ScoutPL came down wickedly hard on Pillar just two posts back. Go read it again. It's a matter of public record. I think ScoutPL does have much to offer here based on his real-world experience, but no one man is the end-all to the trickle of wisdom from the fountain of knowledge. If you haven't learned or somehow fail to appreciate that wisdom then you have much to learn indeed, Steve. Anyway, so far I'd say ScoutPL is more sinning than sinned against when it comes to the amount of abuse heaped between him and Pillar, and that's the bottom line here, not who knows most about what. That'll take care of itself in due course through the open process of learned debate--assuming that debate is allowed to continue. Finally, I have some good advice: I have worked in media for my living (as a print jounralist, mostly), I've run a popular BBS back in the day, and I'm here to tell you and everyone else at your company that I'm not all that keen on the locking of threads, the pulling of individual posts or anything of a similar kind. I am, in fact, 100% against censorship in all of its forms for the reason that it accomplishes nothing good and often does bad for the sake of special interest. Furthermore, I notice that within a 24-hour period or so, after you'd locked the thread re politics, MadMatt waltzed blithely onto the board and laughingly opened up yet another thread re the same subject. What was that about? You make awful good games, Steve, and for this I am pleased. I don't know about your capacity as the moderator of a board, though. Something isn't right, that's for sure. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

Good question. Black deployment zones are whatever's left of the map after all the other zones have been established. A scenario designer may place units for the setup initially in this area of no-man's land, but it's unclear to me if this is possible for subsequent battles in an operation--haven't gotten that far yet. Are they there to afford space for units so initially placed? That sounds logical, but I can't recall reading either way from the manual. Guess it's time to go back and re-read it.

The list is well-nigh endless--Panzer Leader, Hitler's Generals, The Rommel Papers. I suggest you go to your public library, approach the reference librarian, query her and proceed from there. You have the rest of your life.

Which ever one is commanded by that guy "W.B. Wilder". That dude is out of control. I once saw him take out a Panther G, a Hetzer, a Kingtiger, and 3 kubelwagons, all with one shot! I remember seeing something similar on one of those Walt Disney Davy Crockett features with Mike Fink on TV when I was small . . . but that was ages ago and time does have a way . . . .

I'd be well advised to wait and see if anyone experiences lockups before I install as my trust for anything Microsoft remains small, and also I'd like to wait (say, the weekend after next) until BTS rewrites its code for CMBO in order that everything we have now then takes full advantage of all these new optimizations which, hopefully, will not cause any lockups along the way . . . though I probably will not and just grab it right away along with the rest of you schmucks. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

Without looking to see if the cost for an infantry battalion runs linear to the cost for an infantry company . . . I'd say the latter. An infantry company will give you your most bang for the buck. If not then it has to be its parent the battalion. And it's easy to see why. Infantry can go everywhere but cliffs and so can maneuver in and fight from cover the most easily. Face it, the game was designed around the concept of man fighting over land. Armor's nice, but it's expensive stuff and fragile as can be; artillery is limited in its effectiveness for various reasons (timeliness, accuracy, LOS restrictions, supply); infantry's always on the job, resilient, flexible, your main combat asset and tool. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

I have made every effort to give both sides the time for reconnaissance, Todd, and they should both, by all means, so avail themselves. I agree that it seems as if this game lends itself best to company-sized actions, but then I have spoken at length to its limitations and do not wish to come across as some neophyte hypercritical of an otherwise excellent model--hell, the best yet hands down. As for operational intelligence: that can easily be simulated by the scenario designer with his brief to both sides. Movement on an operational scale is a different issue, but until I tackle that in-game I won't be able say one way or the other. I suspect that this area, too, of the simulation is best modeled for smaller actions; we'll see soon enough. I'll tell you one thing: I intend to explore this game's limits one way or the other.

And yes, I appreciate the effort you made in your preamble to your tutorial re your limited experience with re to WWII field tactics, etc. I just assumed everyone would grant my knowledge of same as I grant theirs, since, as you note, this is all clearly spelled out. Look. I'm direct. Always have been, always will be. You should have been so fortunate to have me in your squad long ago--at least you would have known always what you had.

Good, Peter. You struck me as a hardy lad so I'm not surprised you came through this ordeal with me more or less unscathed. The last New Zealander I met was kid in a pancho slouching outside a bar of parte vieja in San Sebastian, Spain. So I bought him a beer and he told me he'd been treking across Europe for the past year and half. When I raised my eyebrows he remarked, "Oh, that's fairly the norm where I come from. They boot us out of there right away!" Is that true?

Todd, you are a bright guy and so you ought to have caught on by now that far from any desire on my part to "zero in on" you or your thoughtful approach to this game I am, quite to the contrary, the person who went to the trouble of informing the CMBO community of your work over on DeanCo's site for the reason that after studying you I found much to be learned and so wished that as many players as possible might have the same opportunity. In other words, I am without a doubt one of your biggest supporters. However. I think for myself, I am no novice to wargames or war (yes, I served, a generation before you, as a humble leg, albeit) and I found your approach to intelligence gathering as it weds with this simulation to be somewhat rigid. That is not to say I necessarily disagree with your reasoning--that I find to be flawless. I do see the other side of that coin, though, and it is that position I argue here. I like you--or rather I appreciate what you've offered to date and admire your clarity of thought, ability to present information, etc. I also respect your experience. I just think that this system is lacking in some very critical respects, and wish to work around these drawbacks as best I might. Now I do not advocate the wholesale use of sharpshooters willy nilly to gather intelligence, as it's child's play to see the potential abuse of such practice--most notably for the reason that it's one see-all see with regard to this sort of data. (Another serious limitation to the simulation, one which the designers are well aware of.) Then again, in an action as large as the one I'm currently at I think it is reasonable to look for some way to simulate what any battalion commander in his right mind would wish to have: a reasonable notion of what lies directly in front of his lead platoons and armor assets. Wouldn't you want to know this? There's also something else working in here, though I realize you do not fall into this crowd: it's the RTS syndrome, the "I want a bunch of Tigers versus your Shermans and just mix it up" approach to the simulation. This attitude I find to be more gamey than my present experiments with sharpshooters with the scenario in question, much more so--and quite less academic in spirit, I might add. Along the same line, this RTS group-think seems to view "assets" as just that, numbers to be toyed with. I, on the other hand, try to put myself in the shoes of the fisherman, see my assets as boys from back home, some of whom I might even know, all of whom are human beings with futures . . . especially if I don't waste them on same crazed rush up the slopes of an unnamed hill in some forgotten corner of France. See what I mean? So while I can imagine with no difficulty scenarios where my micro approach to intelligence gathering, per se, would not fly, I can, too, see cases where it might--and if fact should be an intuitive approach. I believe my scenario falls into the latter category. I know for sure I tried it your way the first couple of times and managed only to see a full company of good infantry chewed to bits, any number of halftracks, jeeps and Shermans blown to smitherreens, so certainly something isn't right with the "let's just push forward in V formation and take that hill" approach. At least in my scenario. Thus informed, I looked for an alternative. Enter four sharpshooters stage left. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]

Peter, my comment in reference to the other thread re scouts was not meant to be snide, it was meant to convey my preference to keep any thread in which I participate in entirely less contentious. I do not wish to set anyone up as "being in" one camp or the other re the use of the game's assets vis-a-vis the acquisition of meaningful intelligence data, I wish only to express my concern for this game's very real limitations in some respects, and my desire to employ this simulation in a manner which will afford me the best possible gaming experience. Re my scenario: it's basically a battalion/battalion assault action (an operation) which takes place for 20 turns (30 moves each) and fought over topography 2960 tiles square with a river/three bridges to cross, three towns to negotiate and like that. In other words it is rather large, not one of these little "the enemy's over there in that village and you're here and you have 20 turns to bust him good" jobs. For what it might be worth: I've yet to play anyone PBEM, Peter, and this scenario is my first serious effort with the editor. I might add that I've owned the game but a bare month and the only scenario I've played thus far in which snipers were afforded was the one where the Germans defend against Americans down the road from Carentan, whatever its name might be (oh, hell, let's just go look--okay, it's called precisely that, Carentan), and I believe I was given just one sniper there. So, we have one battalion versus another, in effect (with additional assets, armor and artillery, thrown into the fray) meeting over the course of some three and a half days (I start it at night, with successive night turns falling every sixth battle), and if I must use sharpshooters (I believe "sniper" is actually a foreign term to this system) to effect the presence of reasonable intelligence assets then I will--split squads sure don't make it, with that you must agree, and I'm not about to commit a full battalion and then some to battle with next to zero effective intelligence of what that unit's getting in for. No way. Now if the system is to blame for this "gamey" approach of mine, so be it. That's on the system's designers, not me, and if the community has a problem with my approach then it can either ignore me and/or my design efforts or petition BTS to change the game system--I would recommend the latter. I just can't see the wisdom of willingly restricting ourselves to known system limitations (faults, oversights, call it what you will) at the expense of both enjoyment and historicity. Similarly, why should I likewise limit my design to scenarios so tiny as to effectively negate reasonable use of intelligence assets? Is not that also "gamey" in its own context? Todd, because of one of the game's limitations, that being the way it divvies up the map between battles of operations, I've decided to shrink no man's land to 0m so as to ameliorate as much as possible the somewhat disturbing and wholly unrealistic effect of that global magical line of demarcation which is imposed on users between battles straight across the entire breadth of the landscape. That irks me in a big way. Also, with the 0m imposition I negate the equally false effect of pushing the map either this way or that several hundred meters to allow for "possession" or whatever it was BTS wanted to achieve with this effect. Finally: I respect your combat experience and there is wisdom in much of what you write, but this is not Panama and Desert Storm we model here but western Europe over half a century ago and the two are not the same, not by a long shot, most especially when it comes to the issue of intelligence assets and the gathering of same. Meanwhile, please continue the great work. It's my opinion this game and its users benefit greatly from your presence. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]