The_Capt

I originally posted this in the Thin Recon thread but it is getting lost in the shuffle so I will re-print here for comments. My spin on the greatest question of our generation: "When am I being gamey?" My opinion All of CM is "gamey" it is a game. The creators have kept this in mind by allowing players to do, whatever the hell they want. The only "rules" are those agreed upon by two opponents. In my opinion some members of this community wish to pursue CM as a historical simulator. I think this is an empty goal and unattainable. And I can sight dozens of problems between the game and reality..BUT it doesn't make it any less fun nor negate their attempt to try. So if you want to recreate a WWII battle down to "cap badges and weapons sights" go ahead. And try and find like minded players who are also willing to play in this frame. BUT you are not better or superior because you do. You have only decided to play the GAME a certain way. The rest of us (and I group myself)look at CM as a game and will use everything we can in the game to win. So if it is a coy of flamethowers and your opponent is OK with it, PLAY ON! Problems and conflict arise when one camp bumps into the other. A die-in-the wool grognard meets a half-liquored Friday night CM goon whose girlfriend/wife wants nothing to do with him (or her...well you know what I mean just switch the gender labels around for you girls...both of you). They fail to establish "ground rules" and charge into a doomed battle. The Grognard, with his AFV posters and manuals is slaving over which Allied doctrine to try and modelling his unit purchases against WWII OOBs. "Now did Capt Johnson have a single or gold plated command rating? Well let's see how he fought at Anzio..." and so on. The Half-Baked Goon; "OK let's see what a map with nothin but Arty FOs and freakin TRPs will do..heh,heh. Oh ya I'll throw in 12 jeeps cause they burn good....man I am hungry....and thirsty. What is taking this guy so f#$4ing long." Now our two warriors meet. The Grognard has a perfect Bn advance as per the "Closing of the Falaise Gap"..."Now which coy actually was forward left..." The Goon sits and giggles "C'mon you pansy assed Brit Sh$t eaters...come to Fritzy....atta boy" Boom! Arty starts dropping like bird crap at a beach wedding. The Grognard "oh my now what was the allied drill...ah yes...very good..oh my he is using it all up at once...I think vonGoosestep tried that in Italy but this is France tsk, tsk." Goon " WOOOO-HOOO!!....(to sleeping boy/girlfriend)...you see that?! Now for the big stuff, 300mm and another beer...belch". BOOM, KA-F$#%ing-BOOM!!! Grognard; "Oh my, well let me see an Axis SS Division has ###long range arty assets...oh my! That doesn't seem right. My opponent will very "red-faced" when he sees his mistake, tee-hee....Oh dear there goes Stanley's Coy.." Goon; "TAKE THAT!! AHHHH-HAHAHAHAHA. I love this freakin game, I swear I saw bodies flyin. Oh sorry dear.....And now for the jeeps." Jeep assault onto hill 130 is carried out. Grognard; "Now I am afraid he has gone too far...time for a stern chat message.." Goon; "I wonder what's on Fox or wait I think that Arts channel has Euro-porn on at 11..." Chat message: GenAllisterMontegue: "Excuse me for saying but your force purchase seems a little excesive in the Artillery and Recon assets." JOhnnyRottAN: "What do yu meen?" GenAllisterMantegue: "Well if you consult "ALL THINGS AXIS" the 1998 edition, you will see that you simply do not have the amounts you are using here." JOhnnyRottAN: "Hey pal! If it works, it anin't broken...you callin me GAMEY?!!!:{" And we can all see hard feelings and anger which will result as the exchange degrades into....a forum thread. So the only rules are ones you mutually decide on and in the long run it is only God you will have to answer to in the end. So happy gaming and let's just be friends. And go our there and kill each other CM style!

I think the two views mentioned by Mr. Bullethead and supported by others are too simplistic. It isn't a question of top-down or bottom up, it is a question of historical versus game play. All of CM is "gamey" it is a game. The creators have kept this in mind by allowing players to do, whatever the hell they want. The only "rules" are those agreed upon by two opponents. In my opinion some members of this community wish to pursue CM as a historical simulator. I think this is an empty goal and unattainable. And I can sight dozens of problems between the game and reality..BUT it doesn't make it any less fun nor negate their attempt to try. So if you want to recreate a WWII battle down to "cap badges and weapons sights" go ahead. And try and find like minded players who are also willing to play in this frame. BUT you are not better or superior because you do. You have only decided to play the GAME a certain way. The rest of us (and I group myself)look at CM as a game and will use everything we can in the game to win. So if it is a coy of flamethowers and your opponent is OK with it, PLAY ON! Problems and conflict arise when one camp bumps into the other. A die-in-the wool grognard meets a half-liquored Friday night CM goon whose girlfriend/wife wants nothing to do with him (or her...well you know what I mean just switch the gender labels around for you girls...both of you). They fail to establish "ground rules" and charge into a doomed battle. The Grognard, with his AFV posters and manuals is slaving over which Allied doctrine to try and modelling his unit purchases against WWII OOBs. "Now did Capt Johnson have a single or gold plated command rating? Well let's see how he fought at Anzio..." and so on. The Half-Baked Goon; "OK let's see what a map with nothin but Arty FOs and freakin TRPs will do..heh,heh. Oh ya I'll throw in 12 jeeps cause they burn good....man I am hungry....and thirsty. What is taking this guy so f#$4ing long." Now our two warriors meet. The Grognard has a perfect Bn advance as per the "Closing of the Falaise Gap"..."Now which coy actually was forward left..." The Goon sits and giggles "C'mon you pansy assed Brit Sh$t eaters...come to Fritzy....atta boy" Boom! Arty starts dropping like bird crap at a beach wedding. The Grognard "oh my now what was the allied drill...ah yes...very good..oh my he is using it all up at once...I think vonGoosestep tried that in Italy but this is France tsk, tsk." Goon " WOOOO-HOOO!!....(to sleeping boy/girlfriend)...you see that?! Now for the big stuff, 300mm and another beer...belch". BOOM, KA-F$#%ing-BOOM!!! Grognard; "Oh my, well let me see an Axis SS Division has ###long range arty assets...oh my! That doesn't seem right. My opponent will very "red-faced" when he sees his mistake, tee-hee....Oh dear there goes Stanley's Coy.." Goon; "TAKE THAT!! AHHHH-HAHAHAHAHA. I love this freakin game, I swear I saw bodies flyin. Oh sorry dear.....And now for the jeeps." Jeep assault onto hill 130 is carried out. Grognard; "Now I am afraid he has gone too far...time for a stern chat message.." Goon; "I wonder what's on Fox or wait I think that Arts channel has Euro-porn on at 11..." Chat message: GenAllisterMontegue: "Excuse me for saying but your force purchase seems a little excesive in the Artillery and Recon assets." JOhnnyRottAN: "What do yu meen?" GenAllisterMantegue: "Well if you consult "ALL THINGS AXIS" the 1998 edition, you will see that you simply do not have the amounts you are using here." JOhnnyRottAN: "Hey pal! If it works, it anin't broken...you callin me GAMEY?!!!:{" And we can all see hard feelings and anger which will result as the exchange degrades into....a forum thread. So the only rules are ones you mutually decide on and in the long run it is only God you will have to answer to in the end. So happy gaming and let's just be friends.

OK, I see a lot of different views on this subject so I will put in one last input. The concept trivializes the profession of arms far beyond any computer game. A computer game is a picture (a moving one) of warfare. We can all point out a hundred differences between reality and CM. CM and the like are games which simulate some of the aspects of armed conflict. Anybody can play them for individual reward and gratification. The TV show as presented, charges over that line by taking trained troops and having them apply real-world tactics to a "game" for commercial gratification. This brings the soldiers and parades them in front of the world as they demonstrate their craft. The only thing missing is the blood. In my mind this is exploitation and crosses too far into reality. Not unlike my views toward Soldier of Fortune which took shooting people to an unhealthy level. The service of arms is it's people and so long as you leave direct involvement of the troops out of it hey fill your boots, I have no problem with firepower demos or equipment shows. Once you parade real soldiers (who are in fact the soul of any Army) and have them do tricks for the mass media, so long as they get paid. I have a problem with that. Now that is my opinion and I won't be watching but seeing as this is a wonderfully free set of countries you may watch what you wish. I would only point out that in my opinion the show lacks class and is in bad taste.

I am not sure of what the use in WWII was but in modern warfare sharpshooters are usually attached to a parent unit and have training in the use of the scoped rifle. The sharpshooter is , much as in SPR, the local commanders counter-sniper and harassing fire asset. An inf Bn (Canadian one anyway) has a recce platoon in which the traditional "sniper" supports the Bn and Bde in Long Range Patrolling etc. These guys crawl around in "gilly" (sp?) suits, eat snakes and pick off en COs. The SF sniper is one who operates well forward or even behind en lines and takes shots at Saddam. As to sharpshooter/snipers shooting at moving targets, trust me it happens all the time. I was in the Balkans during the war and saw some amazing sniper work, often directed at me, I am sorry to say but I can remember the BG ambulance coming in with a very nice 12 inch grouping right in the centre of the red cross, luckly no one was in the back. The ambulance had been bombing down the highway at about 60kms/hr. I was personal "led" like a duck in a jeep as another sniper tried to make another 12 inch grouping on me. So at least in that area moving targets were the norm. I think that with experience sharpshooters or whatever learn to hit moving targets better and eventually it becomes normal practice.

More importantly, Do troops who go off-board lower the sides moral? The problem is that withdrawing can trigger auto surrender, leaving troops who can still act trapped.

In my opinion, This is utter and complete crap. SF guys playin games for entertainment. Small step to send mini-Web cams with Delta guys to see the "take out the bad guys in real time". Hell let''s start a real war cause it is great for the ratings. I don't mind documentary's which take a look at the job but this is ridiculous. This show trivializes the profession of arms. What is next "Dueling surgeons"? "The first one to remove that appendix wins". Battle of the Fire Depts? As a professional soldier, I am offended. We train hard to do a job that nobody in their right mind would want to. We do it to defend our nations interests and better men than me have died to prove it. To take this and make it into a game show is evidence of just how low some people (even our own) will stoop for money. What is the difference between that and gaming? Gaming is just that, a game. It doesn't equal reality. It is designed for "challenge" enjoyment and involves the players participation. In CM we send little pieces of code at each other, this is real people doing the real job to keep other people entertained. It is professional whoring. The TV show has troops out as "dog and ponies". I guess I am just as angry at any soldier that would do this, it is a small step up from merc-ing.

Hate to say it, It is really little of me, To self: grow up Can't resist... TOLD YA SO!!!!

Anybody done any work on the Worthington Battle Group? Death at hill 140 or some such. Interesting battle, probably would have to be a CM operation. Kinda was a Custer-esk situation in which the BCRs and Algonquins(sp?) got hammered by two SS kampfgruppes.

Let's get a rope!!!! Someone find a tree!!! I feel a lynchin comin on!!!

E-mail me and I'll set it up. I am on the TH Ladder.

On the same vien but different topic, Does Cm model the actual "beaten zone" of the MG? I am finding that my MGs are effective against only one target at a time. Is this a design or user issue?

Whoops sorry Manta, that was Luftwaffe, you sound like a harmless type whom I am sure is quite the player with the ladies.

After seeing some of these responses I am filled with the warm affirmation that hardcore gamers are in fact a. 30 yr old virgins, who havn'e even seen Mr Wiggly in ten yrs cause their belly is in the way. b. A serious psychopath, who is a ticking timebomb. c. Desperate men trying to squeeze fun out of a dark world d. All of the above. PS MantaRay they have a word for your suggested technique..assault. And as someone has pointed out they don't allow PCs in jail.

Better yet, Take your addiction elsewhere and convince her you are going to become a raging boozer. You need help and CM is your Sugar-Daddy! Either that or simply break down and cry like a broken man until she gives in, woman are suckers for that. Hell that's how I got her to say "Yes" in the first place....OK maybe I said too much....

I would recommend CM for the multi-player alone. I will admit, I don't play the AI anymore but PBEMs have provided more enjoyment than any game has in a long time.

As has been requested the first attempt at the CM Bde Campaign system is currently underway. I have gained new respect for the BTS crew because just developing rules which emulate WWII combat has been a long and painful process. Essentially we have developed a two Bde model in which Bn COs are actually players. The Bde Comds communicate thru the GMs and Bn COs carry out orders independently. Thsi has opened the opportunity for loss of communications (ie Bn and Bde cannot talk due to en action) as well as Bns who may decide to try something else there Bde Comd didn't think of and ask forgivness later. There are many catches and intricacies to this and after the first game I may be open to posting a Web Site outlining the system. But I want to run thought it a few times to make sure it works. I am one Bde Comd, who in this run through commands a Battle Hardened crew using Attritionist methodology and tactics. My opponent is the notorious Fionn Kelly, who is as cantankerous as everybody makes him out to be but I think I am beginning to like him. He has a hand-pick crew from his circle of friends who are going to use Manoeuvrist methodology. In short we are going to see what happens and will keep you all posted. Except for one HARDMAN apparently.

I have read about the fact in several books and on history documentaries. Don't ask me to quote them all because there have been quite a few and hence "my common belief statement". I watch one show one the history Channel "Codebreakers" or some such and the British had code breakers in the Pacific who had access to "hints" of this information and when the invasion was reported to Churchill an eyewitness who was interviewed stated that he showed no surprise or emotion at all. Indicating he knew before-hand. I am not saying I am an expert but the British network was very well established by then, thanks to colonial influence just about everywhere. I agree that the belief in the time was battleships but a forward looking Naval officer could have easily seen the results of Airpower in the German Campaigns and draw a few conclusions. I don't know, I was just asking the question to see if anybody had any insight.

Biggest problem is that weapons effects are not modeled properly. "My God what did that Heritic say?!!! Burn Him". CM is a game and must be approached as one. You are right that odds in RL do not equate on the CM battlefield. Here is why. 1) MGs in reality have a large beaten zone whivh allows them to spread their destructive power over a large area. MGs particularly on the defence are fired till the barrels glow and not in bursts. The net effect is that an HMG which is actually design to cover a say 50 by 200 oval and has an effective range of 500m is in fact neutered at range and forced to fire at on target only. I have played a lot of CM and I have never seen an MG surpress more than one target, when in fact an MG could surpress a platoon. Tank rounds and mortar fire are also a little on the modest side. I can tell you as one who has seen this stuff in action. 2) Depth, often a defender has to deploy in a zone which is very small as compared to the actual depth in which say a coy would have at it's disposal. This prevents a defender proper use of combat power to attrit the en as he is coming in. 3) Group morale. We see it on a large scale but in reality if a platoon watches one of there squads blown apart by a tank round, the whole organization will go to ground. And won't be up and moving. I guess you would call it shock but on a larger scale than that in the game. In reality the loss of a Pl HQ will paralyze squads for more than an additional 10-15 seconds. 4) Engineer works. Minefields are much deeper and more efective than that modeled in the game. An tactical AT minefield is actually about 1000m wide and 400m deep which is the size of some maps. AP minefields are much more effective as people tend to freeze up when they are in the middle of one. AT ditches will stop an armoured force if sighted properly and combined with a minefield. CM is a great game and I highly encourage everybody on the planet to buy it and have fun with it but do not try and make too many parallels between it and Real Life. In a real attack against prepared enemy you can expect 30% casualties or better. The 3:1 rule is there so you can actually do a second attack if you have to. That because in reality it is a whole lot more dangerous

Quick question on the Janapese/US debate. It is commonly held that Churchill knew about the raid before it happened and let it go on anyway without telling the US because he desperately needed the US to be drawn into the war. Now my question is; does anybody have any evidence that FDR had that info but also let it happened anyway as a method to bring the US into the war. I find it unusual that although significant damage was done at Pearl Harbour, that all of the carriers were out training. If one were to make it look real, but not cripple the US fleet doing so, it would seems that this was the way to do it. Just a thought.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (for what I hope is the last time). As has been echoed many times and I am not even sure if I said it first: Manoeuvre and Attrition are two sides of the same coin. The are methodologies and philosophies which encompass an entire school of thought and all of the shades of grey in between. They are twin children of Mars joined at the hip. Attrition often precedes and follows Manoeuvre and vice versa. There can be no extreme of any one camp. The trick is, and what seperates the great commanders from the good ones is knowing when, where, with who and why to apply them. Many of the answers to those question are unachievable and left up to the commander to instinctively know. We have taken steps to deliver a clearer picture of the two sides so that we can stop "hoping" someone "gets it" and trained ourselves and our officers to a higher level so that our chances are better that they (and we) will be able to better employ the principals. This is an art gentlemen not a science. It is like asking a painter to plan and describe why he has done something. Often "it just seemed right at the time".

I think that the meat and potatoes of Manoeuvre and Attrition as actual tools for deployment and employment of resources happens at the Bde/Div level. At those levels (if anybody else has had the opportunity back me up on this) there is freedom to properly try some of these concepts in anything other than a philosophical sense and how they are apllied to a given situation. At the platoon level, I think what we call Manoeuvre and Attrition are thought of in much simpler terms. Manoeuvre is what the old school call initiative "pull your head out of your ass and show some initiative!!" A quote I have heard and given many a time in training. Attrition is mission or direct order. Or more simply put "Listen to what I have to say and freakin do it!!!" I guess one can see how the two schools are opposed but even now modern militaries are pushing the Manoeuvre philosophy down all the way to sect. Manoeuvre says we should tell our subordinates why we are doing this, why our boss wants it dona and why his boss wants it done. We then empower our subordinates that on any given situation they have the right/duty to apply the intent of the commander to any situation even if it run counter to the actual mission order. Attrition basically say what I want done so do it and wait for more. Mission before all else. We adopt Manoeuvre philosophy because it shortens our action loop by allowing sub-units to exercise initiative towards a common goal which will support the overall goal all the way up at any given moment. A Simple example: A Battle Group (BG) is advancing towards a town at a critical cross roads. Your BG commander has said in his orders that the BG mission is to take and secure that junction. The intent is so that the Bde can have access to a critical avenue of approach in sp of a Div advance. Your Div Comds intent is a rapid advance with minimal tie ups so we can secure operational objectives. Your Bde Comds intent is to swiftly advance and secure an objective which supports Div with a by-pass policy of platoon and below. Your BG Comds intent is to ensure that the cross-roads is secure and not drain the BGs combat power doing it because he wants to be able to follow on in sp of the Bde so and fight the fight the Div Comds interested in. Now on your left a reinforced platoon is on a position which dominates the BG approach to the junction. On the radio your BG Comd says "En at grid 123456 destroy them!!". He is a man of few words. So you and your Combat Team prepare for a hasty attack. You are about to move to an Assault Position when Recce comes up and tells you the enemy has withdrawn across a river to a position on high ground but which does not threaten the BG advance. Now what do you do and why? To simplify let's narrow the options: A. You chase down the enemy and destroy them B. You occupy the enemies former position even thought is will expose you to fire and observation. C. You form a BG screen which keeps an eye on the enemy and ensures he cannot get back to the original position. What do you choose and why...at this lies the heart of Manoeuvre and Attrition. Note: this is a reproduction of a simple scenario in The Army Doctrine Bulletin but I have tinkered with it to make it a little more difficult.

As suggested on another thread, I am wondering what the feelings of the pro's and amateurs are on the RL application of what we do in the game to reality. Little, lot or somewhere in between? I will reserve my opinion but I think points that come out might be able to make CM2 a better game, provided anybody listens to our ranting of course.

Yup same game, Shadow I'll e-mail you with the concept soon, still looking for a committed GM (got one want two) Looks like we have enough players though

I'll put this discussion in the same file as "no running with an MG" which has also been hotly debated.

To clarify, that is one "game" per week not a turn..so 3-4 turns per day or a network game.