The_Capt

I hear ya Steve but I have a few counter points. There were what? 10 JagTiger produced and you modeled those, so very rare but "fun" elements are included with the game. Most "bridge snaps" are suppose to occur at night. I do not think this happened in WWII but how it works is like this. Bridges are wired to different states depending on the location of the enemy. State 1 (well in NATO) is to have the charges placed and Det cord laid out but not linked up and no intiation sets in place. To go from State 1 to 2 (ready to blow) can take 20-30 mins (especially under fire) if the Guard is caught with their pants down. So this is well in the scope of CM. What we are talking about is a SF action behind enemy lines probably done by Airborne Forces who will take the bridge at night before it can be wired. Armoured follow up is usually done PDQ after that. Did it happen...don't know actually. Could it have happened in WWII..definitely. Is it in the scope of CM..yes. Is it worth the time...not my place to say, but it would make one hell of a scenario. Just an idea.

Fionn Kelly sends: "Warren, I found your thread in the CM forum very interesting to say the least. So, I'd like to send you some thoughts for you to post on my behalf if you wish ( and discuss). In CM and reality the side with the "better" leader generally wins given equivalent forces. CM features more balanced forces so the "better" leader generally prevails. In reality the "better" leader may be outnumbered 10 to 1 and in such a situation all thought of pushing the enemy back must, in general, be banished and be replaced with thoughts of maximum force preservation. Unwinnable battle: Ah Kobayashi Maru (sic?) . I firmly believe that there is NO such thing as an unwinnable battle. There are only battles in which the conventional victory conditions are not utilised to assess "victory". Conventionalists work within the parameters set by others ( in this case the game company and the gaming peer group) and, as such, they only ever use "ordinary" ways, means and viewpoints ( "ordinary" is used in the Red Army meaning of the word). Because they work within parameters it IS possible to create a situation which is unwinnable within those parameters. When such a situation is presented to conventionalist they will gird themselves and either: a) complain loudly about the unfairness of it all or: do their best and decide that today IS a good day to die. Non-conventionalists ( let's call them progressives) are free to redefine the parameters within which they function. Non-creative progressives will not use this freedom to their full advantage but Creative Progressives will milk every ounce of advantage from this characteristic and, thus, CANNOT be faced with an unwinnable situation since the very fluidity of their parameters allows them to create an attainable goal no matter what the terrain, goal and enemy force composition is. In effect they redefine what we mean by "winning" and thus can always ensure it is achievable. This is not a virtual "cop-out" but something which you can see the great commanders in history doing time and again irrespective of the parameters set upon them by higher command levels. These great strategists and tacticians continuously redefined their parameters to their own advantage, limited only by the harsh realities of physics and logistics. I speak here of those such as Chuickov, Tuchachevsky, Model and Manstein and, to a far lesser extent, of Rommel and Montgomery. As regards your comment regarding playing a good player and improving as you played him. I've seen this phenomenon in action several times myself. I believe that the reasons you improve the more you play against a particular, talented person are as follows: a) You DO get to know their style. Some people have a fondness for hilltops, others for houses, others for reverse slopes. Often you can be quite certain of their force choices pre-game. E.g. In a 3600 point game I will purchase 1 Bn of Regular Motorised SS Panzergrenadiers, 4 x 120mm Regular Fos and 3 to 4 Veteran Panthers if I'm the Germans. This is the same whether I attack or defend or am conducting a meeting engagement. As people play me time after time they see this and begin to pick a force designed to hamper my expected force. A good player WILL find any slopiness in your play and punish you for it. Things which you would get away with against a moderately good player will give a very good player all the advantage he needs to rip your front apart. Consequently you WILL "do the basics right" when facing a very good player. Most people are very sloppy about the basics and paying attention to them DOES improve one's play markedly. So, part of the improvement you have noted is attributable to that. c) A good player will NOT be beaten unless you focus on your decisions. This doesn't mean spending 3 hours deciding your moves BUT it does mean not making your orders whilst watching TV, reading a book and/or singing along to the radio. I, personally, very often issue my orders whilst distracted but against people who might be able to beat me I turn the radio off and concentrate for the 2 or 3 minutes it takes to issue one's orders. So, when you play someone good you concentrate a hell of a lot more and consequently play closer to your "best possible performance" then you would when facing someone you know you're going to beat handily. One important caveat I'd insert here is not to forget that "studying the opponent" is NOT a one-way street. You may think you've learnt a lot about your opponent but if he or she is as really a good player they will, almost certainly, have been studying you at least as much. Perhaps they will have learnt more about you than you about them. This issue also touches on maskirovka measures. A very good player will, when playing someone he judges to be a possible future threat, know that this opponent is playing with a view to learning as much as possible about the very good player. Knowing this the very good player will take care to play "against his style" in their initial matches, doing only enough to win but not showing "all of his cards" at this moment. The longer the very good player can keep his opponent and his opponent's contacts in ignorance of the current state of his doctrine, the insight he has into his opponent's play and thought processes and remain under-estimated the better. As the opponent improves the very good player can always bring elements from his "first team" of tactics and tricks into play in order to keep winning. If engaged in a protracted series of battles NEVER show an opponent more than you need to in order to secure the win in any given battle. If you can secure the win by walking slowly forward over open ground a la World War I then THAT is the proper course of action since that will lead him to under-estimate you in the next battle. Save all the fancy combined arms, mech-mounted stuff for later on when the really basic stuff no longer works. So, in general, I would feel that you DO generally improve when you play very good players since you concentrate more when playing against them and get punished so much for any sloppiness that you soon eradicate it. I also think that you get to know your opponent and thus begin to be able to anticipate his placements and reactions with obvious beneficial consequences. However I must warn you that a very good player knows all these things and will ONLY use the minimum skill etc required to win since by limiting the amount of his tactical vocabulary he exposes to you he ensures: a) he doesn't punish your slopiness as much as he might thus you're likely to keep being sloppy. If he's ever in a really bad situation you'll still have a bit of slopiness left and if he can take advantage of that then he could turn that game around and still win it. Keeping you sloppy is his insurance against a run of bad luck. if you underestimate him you won't concentrate as much when you play him. This means you will play more poorly and he can lower his game even more whilst still beating you. It's a positive feedback cycle. The worse he plays ( whilst still playing well enough to just beat you) the less you'll take him seriously and the worse you'll play. c) That he can keep his best tactics and tricks in reserve for when he really needs them. After all, he probably wasn't contracted to make you a better player. He was asked to give you some games. There's a difference in those two roles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> are there golden conditions which lead to victory and others which nearly ensure a loss? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question. Yes, there are golden conditions which lead to victory and others which nearly always ensure a loss. Actually, that's mistaken. There is A golden condition which leads to victory. That condition is having a precise, creative, experienced, well-read ( as regards doctrines etc), unflappable, confident, commander who is certain that this PBEM game came about so that he would win it. The fact that he can't always win is immaterial and irrelevant. What matters is that he believes every game he plays is merely another game he will win. He is aware that this is impossible but the mental state is more important than giving voice to sheer mathematical reality. Precision: The importance of precision is that it feeds into efficiency of force utilisation. This determines force component effectiveness and allows the keeping of reserves. These are essential to victory. Creative: Creativity is the cornerstone of greatness in chess, CM and all other problem-solving ( a CM game is merely a problem- solving exercise set within certain parameters). I fundamentally believe that it is impossible to be a great chess player (or CM player) if you aren't extremely creative ( to the point where you would like to chuck it all in and make your living as an artist or writer etc). Experienced: Experience allows one to build up schema which eliminate the need to actually consider tactical problems as they arise. One need merely dredge up an applicable schema which yielded an acceptable solution, alter it as little as possible to fit in with the unique objective reality of the situation and enact it flawlessly ( again the importance of precision). Removing the need to actually consider CM's tactical problems in detail removes a HUGE source of error ( human's are highly imperfect at this sort of analysis and therefore I feel the adaptation of existing schema INSTEAD of analysis of this unique problem is the method least open to error introduction), improves predictability and not only yields a "better" solution most of the time but does so with less thought AND with greater predictability in terms of time taken, cost and results achieved. These greater predictabilities allow much greater cohesion then if a "from the beginning" tactical analysis was conducted and enacted. Well-read: Well, this is just a personal thing but I think that it helps if the person has read enough about various doctrines to be able to anticipate them. The toughest group of opponents in the CM world are, IMO, professional military officers. Knowing how they are indoctrinated to think, what their doctrine tells them to do in response to certain situations etc etc allows one to skip the whole "learning about the enemy" routine and skip straight into the whole "showing them something for them to react predictably to" area. Once that happens you can get them to react to you exactly as you want to WHILST still ceding them the initiative. Truth be told that's my favourite style to use. Beating someone by allowing them the initiative for the whole game BUT using their own training and instincts etc against them so that they use that initiative to do ONLY what you want them to do is, for me, the most satisfying CM victory since it really is a case of using one's understanding of a powerful enemy to advantage. Kinda like what the NVA did to the South Vietnamese and American armies in Vietnam for such a long time with blockades and relief convoy ambushes etc. Unflappable: Setbacks are natural. If a Battalion CO falls apart when a company gets ambushed then he isn't going to be able to stabilise the situation even though he might have a reserve company in the area, be really well-read, confident etc etc. Confident: You win by taking risks. One thing I have learnt is that a situation which should be 50/50 given the laws of physics is NEVER, in reality, 50/50. No ALL situations are skewed towards the person ( or commander) who is more able to take advantage of them. Sometimes that might mean waiting and NOT doing something dumb but mostly it means charging in there as quickly as you can. A confident CO will be ready to charge in there in a 50/50 situation. His less confident opponent will hang back. End result whatever vital terrain was the object of the 50/50 situation will fall, generally, to the more confident CO since he will be willing to risk more. Experience, unflappability and reading will all give the confident CO the necessary tactical insight to accurately size up the odds and advantages/disadvantages in a situation. Someone who always rushes in is worth nothing. You need the brains to know when NOT to rush in too. Commander: Don't get stuck in the nitty gritty of placing this MG 2 metres to the left once it is in roughly the right place. So long as your guys are in the right general location by happy. Micro- managing them is the job of small minds. Your job is to maneuvre a Bn by companies and platoons. Worrying about squads and half-squads is beneath you and will distract you from your most important role. As regards some of the ideas: "First Seen First Shot". Hmm, I'd distill that down to "First Shot". I don't care whom sees who first. I care about the first shot. "Motion is Death".> Disagree. I wouldn't argue that "Motion is Life" either since some motion can be pretty god-damned dumb. I would argue that perhaps one might write "Exploitation is Vital" and "Positional Advantage is Life". Moving to advantage is the lifeblood of maneuvre. And moving to advantage without moving to exploit is like getting married without the wedding night, IOW a real waste of good time and money. When you get an advantage you are either exploiting it with movement and fire OR you are wasting your men, ammunition and time. All three are finite and to waste a finite resource in combat should be a capital offence. "Seek the Mad Minute".. Agreed. Most players are immensely fragile psychologically. I put a lot of this fragility down to them not being in a mindset where they believe that this game is destined to be won by them. It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or pre-destination or whatever. Every game you start is NOT an opportunity for you to win it is a pre-destined win. The ONLY issue is how hard the other guy will fight before losing. Anyways, hit most people hard for 90 seconds and they'll mentally fold. Their units might fight on a bit more but rocking them back on their heels is enough to send them to the canvas. "Speed". Hmm. I would kinda disagree. I see myself as being very cautious in the approach march and usually "get there" more slowly than my opponent with tanks etc. but get there more quickly with my infantry. I might suggest that Speed might be better replaced with "Get inside his OODA" since that is really, I feel, what you're trying to say Warren. Speed for its own sake can get people into a lot of trouble. Speed with a PURPOSE, on the other hand, is good. ElGuapo: I thought you made some interesting comments but I would like to disagree with one aspect. You stated that all the good players take a long time analysing a map etc and then seem to suggest that good players have fixed ideas of how the enemy will initially act and then adapt if this doesn't happen. I would argue that the better the player the less formed his initial ideas will be ( in general) and the more he'll just spread a line of infantry across the map in order to leave no massive gaps and then use his reserves etc to kill the enemy wherever he turns out to be advancing/defending. I think that that is the difference between good and great. Good try to figure out what the enemy will and won't do whereas great just bring their stuff to the "party" and react to the enemy wherever he turns out to be. Said reaction either seizing the initiative or ceding the initiative but "guiding" the enemy. And now onto the comparisons with chess. which were fascinating to me since I used to play that competitively and still find it a very interesting subject. I've often also tried to decide if computer wargames and chess can be accurately compared or not. On this issue at least I'm undecided so far. Comments and arguments welcome however. " Of course, in chess, some players win over and over again because they can rely simply on their own skill and not be subjected to the "luck factor." Or they can rely on getting inside their opponent's OODA loop. I won many of my games by setting a tempo and aggressiveness which simply blew my opponent's OODA loop out of the water. The OODA loop is NOT, as many seem to think, something which can't apply in games where people have several hours or days to make decisions. I've had 8 and 9 hour chess games with my opponent taking 15 to 20 minutes per move which I've won through shattering his OODA loop ( even though he had 20 mins per move). Same in CM PBEM. "It is a difficult question to answer because each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. " Hmm, I think that you're making it all too complicated there. There IS a single absolutely correct answer to that question. This answer is: "A great player will be able to analyse the situation or draw on a schema and decide the correct course of action for whatever objective reality prevails at that time." A great player will decide on the correct course of action and make it happen. Certainly it's an imprecise answer etc BUT it is also correct since it is no more imprecise than the question. Personality to be a great CM player. Same as makes a good problem- solver. Someone with a mental switch so they can go from human being with a sense of humour, care for others etc etc to an entity which calculates probabilities, doesn't let subjective emotion, wish- fulfillment etc impinge on its objective analyses of the situation and is disassociated from the subjective aspects of the problem, solutions and resulting consequences. If you've got the sort of confident, experienced etc guy outlined above AND he can conduct objective analyses AND be willing to do what it takes ( within the rules) to win then that person is going to be a very good player indeed IMO. People who can't flick the switch can be very good indeed but I'm a bit suspicious that they really will let subjective factors have too much impact in their decision-making processes and that that will prevent them reaching their full potential. Flexibility etc are all part of divorcing subjective issues from analyses of objective reality. If you search for the best solution to a problem with no regard for what you would prefer to do etc then you won't be held back from extra-parametal (aka extraordinary) solutions. This is known as flexibility. As to whether a detail man or a hip-shooter makes a better player. Detail men make bad players IMO. They're also dreary to talk to during PBEM games. Hip-shooters draw on schema more. Detail men conduct new analysis each time. That's an inferior solution IMO. Hip- shooters should find more correct solutions than those who being analysis afresh each time BUT without all the other stuff ( see above) backing them up hipshooters will never become great either IMO."

Did you try an 88 AT gun, how does it compare? Also the JagTiger would be interesting to see in the same test.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: Capt, as usual, you need The Lawyer to correct some of the info you spill forth. Here it is: In a draw, you have two LOSERS. No truly great CM player accepts a draw. Therefore, the amount of losing in CM will always exceed the amount of winning. ipso facto Glad to be of service. Now, carry on...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that is one bottom dweller who feeds on the misery of humanity and sacrifices his soul in pursuit of the almighty dollar's , opinion. A draw can also be seen as A DRAW in which neither side can achieve victory. A win or loss would have to be determined in context to a higher situation. OK I've seen some good stuff and the Peng crowd are starting to swarm. So I'll inject another intelligent question and scare them away. What type of personality makes a better CM player. If CM is closer to chess than a meticulous "detail man" should have an advantage. BUT with the human element, instinct comes into play. So the "quick thinking" hip shooter should have an advantage. I personally think that flexibility is key to winning the game and making sure your forces are purchased and deployed to support that flexibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Whoops... tired eyes. Original post by me was based on 1st page of discussion, not last. Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. We have discussed bridging during a game many times in the past, but we still maintain that this isn't something we should divert attention away from the core issues to simulate. Steve [ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pretty much what most people here are saying. However I do think one Engineer specific Operation can be put into the current game..The Reserve Demolition Guard. This is a very interesting situation where a bridge is set-up for demolition and an enemy force tries to take it. It becomes a race against the clock to blow the bridge or hold it until reinforcements show up. I think it would be very cool but I might be in the minority.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: 33 FES, actually - Reserve. (Are they part of 8 FER?) My other buddy is Ed Storey in Ottawa; I believe he is mapping and charting now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, 33 FES is an independent unit but whenever there is a Western Challenge or whatever the hell they call it now, they get rolled into 8 FER in Edmonton. Brent should still be out there, he's an ex-Reg and one hell of a snappy dresser. I don't think I've ever run into the other guy you mentioned. I only know a couple of guys in Mapping and Curling as I spent all my time in field units.

That would be what one could call an "empty victory" for the Allies. The Axis may have surrendered but before they did they took out a 1:1 ratio of infantry and 6 vehs. I will assume those vehs are tanks and if they are expensive the points for them are going to outweigh the flags and captured losses on the German side. In short the Germans may have surrenderd but they gave the Allies such a bloody nose that by the time they put up their hands, there probably weren't enough Allies around to take em prisoner. Question, was it an auto-surrender or voluntary by the player. If it was voluntary, I would say he/she jumped the gun and should have fought on. [ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Ok time to up the ante here and start up a really mind bending topic. In CM or reality, why does one side win and another lose? What constitutes a win or loss? We argue on this board about "critical factors" and "turning points" but why does a battle turn out one way or the next. Is there such a thing as an unbeatable battle? Is it just luck or can we set pre-conditions in such away that victory is almost always assured. Or is it simply figuring out the game to an extent where victory is almost always assured. How much is technical and how much is psychological? I had the opportunity to play an individual who is very good at the game (he will remain nameless). I found that the longer I played him the better I did. Is this because I am figuring him out and what role does "know thy enemy" play. I recognize this is an enormous topic and may be an exercise in mental masturbation BUT are there golden conditions which lead to victory and others which nearly ensure a loss? This is at the heart of why some win and others lose. Let's stick to CM here. In a ME QB with two players of equal experience and capability, odds are someone will win or lose. Draws are rare. So why and if they play the same game again will it turn out different..you bet. So with so much randomness in the game one would think we should all have a 1:1 win loss ratio but some out there do not..why? I will offer a few ideas. "First Seen and First Shot". This is the theory that first to see and shoot will have set a pre-condition to win. "Motion is death". If you are not moving and he is you are going to win. So positioning or gaining positions of advantage quickly is very important. "Seek the Mad Minute". Overwhelming firepower at a critical point will win the day. When combined with the first two it can be a game winner. "Send the Sinking Feeling". This is psychological pure and simple. It is a point where your opponent goes "Oh ****" and is no longer able to carry out anything but a response to what you are doing. "Speed". Get there with the mostest, fastest. OK, that is a start. Any thoughts from the truly great players? Any thoughts from those who should be great but aren't? We need an "Acient Art of CM" and I think this may be a good place to start.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: Ok, you grogs! That's enough! Here is the link! http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/5-277/toc.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AAHH come on argie, I slept thru this material once already. Don't make me live thru it again. Serously though. CM has lots of room for the Engineer battle. But mostly at the pointy end. A lot of things have to be addressed in order to do this though. And there is the over-riding question of "is it worth it". Assuming we stick with the assault and protective minefields and keep tactical minefields out of the picture. They will still have to get a lot cheaper. Protective minefields are very easy to emplace and can cover a wide area. Breaching assets (bangalore and the like) will have to be modeled better and the entire operation will be quite complex. I think BTS and most wargames steer clear of this because it quickly begins to outstrip all but the most hardcore or professional players. Most people find coordination of Arty, armour and infantry hard enough but add in engineer breaching teams in a series of well timied assaults and it may cease to be fun for some. Play balance will also be changed quite a bit. Obstacles are designed to make a fight unbalanced and unfair, so putting them in without serious thought will only see most casual gamers screaming all over the forum. For fun, I set up a 36 Tp hour (basic field troop with 2xDozers in support) obstacle plan in support of a Bn position. The problem was that there were so many obstacles that the game wouldn't let me buy troops. So you can see that a prepared position is a horrible thing to assault without tremendous superiority and will prove very frustrating for many. I guess engineering does have a part in the game but it is on the line between fun and work. Much like realistic command and control, realistic spotting, troop "group-think morale", continuous time and logistics. It may some people here happy and even may make an excellent military simulator but it would probably only gain a small amount of ground on the commercial "mass consumer" side. Perhaps the best analogy is like building a beautiful observatory onto your house. Fine if another astronomy nut wants to buy but for most of the market it will only be a freakin big empty room with a glass ceiling..hardly worth paying extra for.

Well Michael you can take it from this "CME buddy" that bridging in the face of the enemy is a very bad idea and it was tried a few times in WWII but was very costly. Bailey is more cumbersome than MGB and it's build time well outside the scope of CM. A CM opeation would be to secure a bridgehead line so that a Bailey could be built. Assault bridging is relatively new and is still limited to small gaps. For anything larger you really have to go with a swimming/fording op. I have seen a few sexy new toys coming out of Britain where a heavy bridge (MLC 70) is mech assembled in 15-20 mins. For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the damn thing. If you are in Calgary, you are in 8 FER territory. If you see Gord Stringer or Brent Waldon say hi from me.

I like it. As long as we don't know what the "running average" of a scenario is before we play it which may influence play style. Otherwise it is a very good way to judged who played well and who didn't beyond the simple point score. Under the current system as sides are random (Axis and Allied) then how are we ensureing that everybody is getting a balanced chance at playing the easy scenarios and racking up a high score. If you average a scenario across all three groups and give points scaled to that score this would eliminate the "easy high score" advantage of an unbalanced scenario. For example if you draw the bad straw and get 5 "bad draws" out of seven your score would be much lower than if you got 5 "good draws", even though you may play your games very well. The system you purpose takes care of that. I vote yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'll repeat this since it seems to have been missed - did the Bailey bridge not require troops on both sides of the water obstacle in order to properly emplace it - as opposed to the other expedients discussed in this thread, which could be emplaced through the efforts of a single AFV and crew?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, You are comparing apples to oranges here. A Bailey bridge is a "Line of Communication Bridge" designed to be built to ensure follow on logistics can in fact be pushed up to the front. If I recall, a few times they were built "under fire" as an assault bridge but the cost was very high and slow going. The Fascine, is an assault "gap crossing" mechanism, designed to be employed under fire (well within scope of CM btw). Now as to it's success, well I can only point out that they (fascines) are still in use today. As it has been noted a Bailey and it's son, MGB, take hrs to erect under the best of conditions. I have personally done AT ditching drills where the ditch is in the middle of a tac 400m deep minefield. We got our time from first strike to having a hole in the enemy wire in about 7 mins, which was slow (they used to do it in 4 in Germany) but we were just trying it out for the first time. In short fascines could be incorporated into the game but one would have to provide AT ditches first. The Engineer battle in CM is in serious need of re-working to bring it anywhere near reality, so my hope of seeing "assault breaching" is pretty small until at least the CM II engine. On the other side, just about every wargame out there short plays the Engineer aspect in favour of play balance.

Pffft!! CM2 Demo, that is sooo "last week"..now the CM3 demo is something to see! North Africa rules!!

Destroying minefields in the assault is a very hard thing to do. Normally it is a small Operation in itself. The infantry and armour have to provide firepower and security which will allow engineers at the minefield. Before all of that spotting of minefields is done by recon forces. CMs treating of this is comical. Recognizing "mine sign" is something all combat troops are trained to do and your chances are a lot better than what CM has given you. Beyond that, once a field is found, breaching points will be decided upon by the local engineer comd. In the scale of CM, 2xbreaches will be attempted to achieve one. Engineer sects, again two for each breaching point will be supported by as much firepower as can be brought to bear and smoke. The timing is again off in CM for AT breaching but pretty close to the mark for AP minefields. The section will push up and use line charges for AP minefields. The infantry will push thru and assault bridgehead objectives. In the context of WWII will conduct a hasty "hand and blow" breach for AT minefields. Where troops will push into the minefield on their stomaches and breach a vehicle lanes for follow on armour. That operation takes a lot longer. Again mine warfare has received casual treatment in the game in favour of fast gameplay and balance. The goal of obstacles is to unbalance the odds in favour of the defender, so most "unfun" in terms of a game. That an actual employment of forces in these operations is somewhat outside the scope of the casual gamer and would probably seem "unfair" and "gamey" in play.

The world is going to change today my friends.... I am going to try hard to remember what it was like yesterday...

Back to the original topic, BTS has like almost every tactical computer wargame I have seen, has marginalized the Engineer battle. In reality it is as critical as the other two pillars Direct and Indirect Fire. But as it seems most game developers have little expertise in this area, it get pushed to the side. CMBO does model a few things which more than some games but the cost vs effect of some of the obstacles is waaay out of proportion to the negative and other aspects have been left out. Engineering in the assault is probably as critical as your indirect fire plan in reality but in CM they get pushed into the role of "infantry with satchels". From what I have read the crew is developing the obstacles et al for CMBB and I will be interested in looking at just how much they change the game. So I guess the short answer the "funnies" went the same place as proper minefields, crater groups, wire which can be blown, AT ditches, vehicle run up positions and various other engineer devices which are used in reality but risk throwing the game off balance if employed in such a way.

ROLF!! Homo-erotic Nazi propoganda, I think that is a first. Now all you Peng scum can just move along, I have a special Lurker issue for you coming up. "Coffee Beans in an Irish Line Dancing Competition" What's wrong with that?! Ok it might not flow off the tongue but it sounds catchy, kinda like a Summer Blockbuster title.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: "...open to other suggestions" Well then you sig is all wrong. It is when you are wounded -and left- on Afghanistan's plains. Talk about missing the point; it means the dear Capt' isn't coming back for your sorry tailbone, nidge-it! And it is when the women come out to cut up -what- remains, not -your- remains you bleeding piker! Then it is -just- roll to your rifle; you left out the "just", the whole point of which is to insinuate this is a normal daily occurance for which every Tommy is always prepared. Naturally the only part you got right is offing yerself, because you think about it all the time even in Pittsburg, and you've never been to Afghanistan's plains, and can only dream of so fine an excuse for ending your miserable existence. How's that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me sig is a paraphrase so I don't have to put a "Kipling" under it, that and the fact I couldn't remember the exact phrase. I don't know Jason, you may be a little to Groggy to stick you neck in this one But God love you "That's the Spirit". As to the fear of being a target..gentlemen I am an Institution, I will wrap myself in the Lurker flag..let the heathens try to assail the freedom of my journalistic...er, freedom. They will be dashed upon the ground like so many coffee beans in a Irish Line Dancing Competition. God rides with the truth and I am that truth incarnate in the humble yet brilliant mind of a poor servant of the Almighty!!

Hey guys give it time, I expect some response over the weekend. I already have a few topics to start things off hmm let me see... A. I THINK CM SHOULD BE REAL TIME!! B. MGs SHOULD RUN !!! C. THE NON-AMERICAN ALLIES SUCK BUT THEN AGAIN THEY DID IN REAL LIFE TOO...HELL WE WON THE WAR!!! I am of course open to other suggestions.

Yup it is time for the good ol'Capt to blow fresh air into this forum. No offence boys and girls (both of them) but this forum has gotten staler than a bag of Ramses Egyptian Funeral Potato Chips. I swear I am reading the same posts over and over again. If I was really paranoid I would think that Madmatt is recycling old threads under new titles just to keep the forum "dead sexy", well he is half way there. OK so how do we liven this party up...Oh look another CMBB thread!! Well I am going to put it up right here and now. I have noticed a section of the forum, a dark and nasty section of our society. The Flame Troopers, that is right, not the 70's rock band but the bunch of guys who always come out of the woodwork to argue anypoint to whatever degree just so long as they can spill your blood on the screen. This group usually swims around quietly until some poor bastard actually asks a really dopey question or posts some inflamatory remark. Then the Flame Troopers (FTps) attack with zeal. I have watched these lads strip a Newbie of all flesh in about 10 seconds. Grown men run away screaming, Grogs say "well screw you Mr poopy head" and head down into Moms basement. Now don't confuse the Flame Trooper with a Freak. Freaks have no direction and once their hormones level out, they have as much chance at being normal as anybody. No FTps are a special breed who have directiona nd zeal. Sometimes they work in concert and sometimes alone. They will argue black is white and you are under-educated window mold for not agreeing them. So if you are a FTp, you can skip to the end where I will have something which you can strike on but for the rest of the uneducated masses the following is a brief guide, ignore at your own risk. FTps tactics 101 Ok first thing is that no one thread will ensure the arrival of the FTps, often benign threads will escilate to the point where the blood in the water will attract them. So beware at all times. You may be discussing the merits of the PIAT and next thing you wake up on the General Forum, slathered in virtual vasoline with a PIAT in a place which God never wanted it to be (you know that because PIATs are neither chewy or particularly nutritious). You will look up and see bare chested painted lunatics dancing over your prone form. My friend, you will pray for a padlock to deliver you from this hell but no padlock will come...it is nightmare time. Your only hope will be to abandon all dignity and run from the forum, your clothes in tatters and you know will be jumping like a shaved cat when someone says anything that sounds like PIAT for the rest of your (God be merciful) short life. So rule #1 Trust No One. Do not be baited into a tangent discussion and watch for "the glove", it will be the trigger for the firefight. It may be an off handed remark like "Well what do you think about the Churchill...the man" and whammo the **** will start to fly. Remember the CM Forum is like the freakin Mob, the guy you may be talkin to may be your best PBEM buddy but when the call comes he may be the one who "does" you. Rule #2. "Your Momma has left the building". Madmatt and his admin choirboys are not here to take care of you. Hell they don't even like you, all day, everyday they have to stick their noses in this place and put up with your crap SO SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE HELL UP!!!! Sorry I think I was channelling (sp? whatever nevermind) there for a minute. Anyway, if you expect Madmatt to come on board and stop the schoolyard fight for anything less than someone posting: "****ITY **** ****, GODDAMN STINKY CHEESEDICK SON OF A BITCH, FARTSNIFFIN DOGWATER DRINKIN STENCHQUEEN FRITO SON OF FRANKO, CHEETO SNORTING PIPE BUNNEY!!! I HOPE YOU DIE SCREAMING THRU A MOUTHFULL OF BLOOD!!!! PRAISE SATAN AND MY NAZI OVERLORDS!!!!!" You are quite mistaken, you see they don't care if you are being torn to pieces in front of 1000 spectators so long as it is kept clean. So be forewarned you are on you own. Once Mommy drops you off at the curb you are protected by your own keyboard and (God help us) wits. Rule #3. "Long Post only drain your strength". So you have dismissed rules 1 & 2 and you have gotten into a forum fight with a FTpr. OK well I guess you are here may I suggest you at least put up a struggle, it makes the whole thing last longer for the entertainment of the rest of us. Now when answering a Hot Post, don't start pulling out facts or historical links or any long winded argument. I'll tell you a little secret...NOBODY READS EM! Especially not the sharks circling, they get as far as "Oh ya well let me just tell you about this HISTORY OF PIATS I read". At which point they will unlease at length about your literacy and the doubtful veracity of that previous statement followed by a re-hash of why they are in fact totally right and that you are so wrong that your are in fact risking your eternal soul by even contradicting them. Rule #4. "Don't stay on topic." Trust me a moving target is harder to hit. If you stick to your guns expect to have them blown out from under you. You may be totally right but 15 obscure and questionable sources can't be wrong, again God hates you and your mother is sleeping with a bull in hell. Have a nice day. Rule#5. "When you get bumped to the General Forum...run." OK at the Main CM forum there exists some sense of law and order (stress on the quantitative) but the General Forum is the Outer Wastes. Hell Madmatt doesn't even like going out there. Strange creatures who want to talk about Evolution, Politics and "Other Games" live out there. The FTpr is a veteran of the Wastes and is quite comfortable there, especially if he can get the "mouth breathers" out there worked up in his favour. You, my young and new friend, are screw--id at this point. There is a prophecy that one day a Chosen One will come and make the Wastes and civilized place but you aren't him. Rule #6. "When in doubt be from somewhere else" Ya you are Joe Kansas but once it starts getting ugly you are now Kilthazar Jithbathsnub from Outer Yemen...You English is not goot but You very happy to play CM. It is shallow but it may just allow someone else from Outer Yemen to pipe up and take the heat off. Rule #7. "CM Rules" Even if you are pointing out an obvious flaw in the game, remember IT RULEZ. So long as you have that as your shield you may survive. Even FTps know better than to come out on the bad side of CM. The only thing worse than an FTpr experience is a CM Zombie Mob attack...damn I just wet myself typing it... OK seven little rules to live by.. Now for the Flame Troopers and you know who you are, I would like to invite you to The_Capts first Open CM Flame War. Let's settle once and for all who is the baddest "mutha" in the Valley. I will start it up in the General Forum but for now I am taking topic suggestions, so think up your hottest and post it here, the winner will get a wonderful plate of cheese from the bottom of my fridge. [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ] [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

Well I can't say much about history but current staff estimates run at about 15% stress casualties can be expected in any formed unit after sustained operations (greater than 3 months). We are suffering higher rates from the tours in FRY and Africa in the 90s. Nobody is quite sure why but I have heard that it was the duration (six months being in your face everyday) with only one or two rotations back combined with the overwhelming helplessness of the modern Peacekeeper in these environs. From WWII we were taught at staff school that a very good CO, G3 or COS would last 6 months and then be burned out. Some didn't make it past a few days. From a personal point of view, sending someone to do something which will probably get them killed, day in and day out, is one hell of a thing to live with. The worst part is that the troops know instictively that what you are telling them to do is very dangerous and their chances of getting nailed are very high. You can see it in their eyes, but they do it anyway. There is a great feeling of guilt associated with that but at the end of the day you have your job and they have theirs. Somedays I wished I had theirs.

Hey Kiwi, Where are you getting this "Airborne" rule from? I just checked the CAL site and there is nothing (including Optional rules) which place a restriction on Airborne troops..are you think of SMG troops?

Awlright you Canadian dogs bring it on!! I am the baddest Canuck...huh....oops. Sorry wrong thread Well while I am here I'll tell a tasteless anti-Kiwi joke. Why do NZ sheep farmers have sex with their sheep next to cliffs? SO the sheep will push back..AHAHAHAHAHA Ba-bumpity boo. Hey folks I am here all week, don't forget to try the veal.

Hey while we are at it, Why don't we model realistic "danger ranges" which model shrapnel and not just blast, so that when we use patterns they are in fact useful.

Well he was a troll...a very intelligent sounding and well written troll but a troll none-the-less.