Rifle1860

Thanks for the idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: We may still want to consider having various engineering assets available for setup both in QBs and in scenarios. Here I mean a fascine bundle or a bailey bridge, or an Ark bridge that could be dropped into place during set up, or a "swept mine" area that would represent attack lanes already created. This would be in addition to any funnies our research finds fit into the battle scheme.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My 2 cents. I just wanted to capture this para to ensure it wasn't lost amongst all the other noise. To me, having "fascine bundles" as a purchase item makes sense. Placement of these within a friendly set-up area would replicate the preparation of routes into and through the FUP and Start Line (areas that are usually "secured" prior to an operation) in the case of Attack and Assult operations. I realize that there is more being discussed here but this is a good start and one that may not be dificult to do. Over.

You know, the nice thing about the 7.62 round is that you don't have to wait for them to step out from behind the tree.

Not sure if it is too late but I would love to get into this game! Any chance?

Can you update on what teams still need players?

Not sure how things worked everywhere else but up in the Great White North things used to work like this .. (in the good-old-days, you know. The Cold War when you knew which way to point your rifle) Intelligence-type people (G2) (oops)would randomly generate lists of single words. The lists were held at each level above brigade. As a new operation or contingency plan was thought of, the next name on the list would be assigned to the plan. This ensured no connection between the type of operation and the name. The names were further vetted to ensure that "chance" had not struck and that the name had no connection to the operation. The trend recently has been to assign names to operations as part of the public affairs effort to ensure that the civilian population would better support the op. [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ]

OK, I'm in. Please send me a copy as well.

OK, so I have to ask ... who is Bob Semple?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xerxes: I personally prefer mutually agreed force restrictions to prevent bizarre unit selections that are tuned to the situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just so that we are clear, I am not suggesting that bizarre unit selections should be allowed. Nor am I suggesting that this type of a mechanism is appropriate for "historical" games. These games, as much as possible, contain those units that actually fought in the battle and should not be modified. Instead, I am refering to the types of choices that a commander could make. All changes should be made within the existing unit types in the organization his troops belong to and within the existing point ratio for the situation. A short example: In a given scenario, an attacker is told that a dismounted infantry element is defending the area. When he looks at the map, he finds that the terrain is hilly with clumps of woods with lots of open terrain between. One hill may look like a good fire base to support the attack. Based upon this information, he may make some of the following decisions. - take fewer PIATs and take more infantry sections - take fewer carriers except for the firebase element(if he had them in the first place) - change the reinforcement area from the right side to the left to conform with his flanking choice. - If he can see some natural obstacle areas, take more pioneers (a battalion resource) - take all 2" mortars loaded with smoke vice HE to cover movement over the open areas - Bring the MMGs in later, mounted rather that early, dismounted. - Add more ammo points to the FOO etc. Again, I have no idea how this could work but wouldn't it be nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: In doing so, a commander would then be able to make the best decisions as to forces, FUP, routes, etc. and not simply be pitched blind into a situation in a very artificial manner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an interesting point and one that I have been confronted with as well. I must admit that I don't see how it could be incorporated. Are you suggesting that a player could make some limited purchasing decisions based upon the ground? There are some decisions that can be made at the company or battalion level that may be impacted by a study of the ground. For Example the Commander may decide to enter his infantry dismounted rather than in vehicles. He may decide whether he wants his MG in a SF role or not. He may decide thast he needs more smoke than he has. Lots of other variables. He may also decide that he does not have sufficient forces and wants to phase his operation. This could drive him to want to change the composition, location and time of reinforcements. If, based upon the ground and his plan, the commander decides on any of these or other changes, and if a way could be devised to allow hime to save and expend points in this way, I think that it could be useful and would add another dimension to the game.

The backblast on these weapons is HUGE. I had a chance to fire a few rounds on a 106 RR (many moons ago) and was nearly turned inside out. RR weapons are supposed to be lighter because the weapons system does not have to sustain any of the recoil. The round goes out the front and the expanding gas goes out the back and the weapon basically stays in the same place. One of the main advantages is that you can mount a relatively heavy caliber weapon on a light vehicle (In my case it was a modified 52 pattern jeep). Same general concept as a rocket laucher but MUCH more. Firing from an enclosed space would almost certainly kill the crew.

Sounds good to me. Count me in for the Maple Leaf. I may be bringing one more with me.

Hi there Albow

I would love to get involved in the tournament but I am not that expereinced in the game ... yet. So that I don't dash the hopes of the Canadian team, any chance of forming a "Junior Canadian" team? If so, I have two nominations.

Thanks for the help. I actually applied the military maxim "RTFM" (read the f------ manual) and I am better now.

I too like the 2". I have found the best distribution for them is to group or "brigade" them in the defence and assign them behing lead platoons in the advance. I must admit that I use them mostly for smoke (until it runs out) to cover gaps while advancing.

I think I am having the same problem. In my case, I have created a game and given 2 setup areas to each side. While I am creating the game, how can I designate units to either of the setup areas? When I try it, they are all allocated to only one of the two on each side.