Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Checking out of this thread (tipping the bellhop along the way), I will add a point that stands to be iterated. CM posters here with military experience, or also experience as a war veteran, can certainly be of value here in relating their views. Most of us here, and BTS, do know this. Where the military poster has his greatest value, however, is if he/she is experienced with the military subject on hand. By example of "combat engineering," Warren (The Capt) has had sufficient past experience to help in discussions for that subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. However, that can and should be extended to different nationalities as well. I do not doubt that Slappy will characterise this as a "nationalistic slur" but it should be pointed out - overwhelmingly, the flavour of the board is American, with a small sprinkling from elsewhere. Yet, we have viewpoint from someone like Slappy that he, as an American who has never served in a Commonwealth Army can tell someone who has, how the Commonwealth did or does things. Is it surprising that he raises peoples' hackles? I'd also suggest this is a problem with the game itself. Others have pointed out the various failings of the game to adequately model certain aspects of British/Commonwealth weapons and doctrine. Some of it is, I admit subtle, a "flavour" if you like, which only those who know it, would notice it by its absence. Some of it, is obviously because of some very American assumptions about how military forces do operate. Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns. To some, this doesn't matter. Indeed, I hadn't noticed until Kim Beazley brought it to my attention and even now, I'm not overly concerned by it, but it does bear mentioning. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The viewpoint of the combat veteran is also always of value, providing a unique perspective that postwar noncombat historians can never capture by themselves. But any one soldier's combat story likely needs to be taken in measure; not in isolation, but correlated by other stories of similar combat situations, as per Slap's point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This however, effectively tells the veteran that his experience should not be counted as of as great a value as the information recorded elsewhere. In addition, it makes the assumption that it is possible to correlate personal experience - remember, not everything is recorded. An excellent example is the film Kim mentioned a long time ago, in another galaxy. We can read all we like about how Fascines were carried, how they were meant to be used but unless we were there, we cannot relate to how they were actually used (or even meant to be used) by the people using them, themselves. Kim's film provides that missing link, but I'd be very surprised if what he related could be correlated from any other source - most written descriptions wouldn't remark on the speed with which a Fascine was employed - simply because those writing the account would either assume that was something which was already known or unimportant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> By example, a 6-lbr antitank gunner could relate a factual story, "I took out a Panther with a frontal shot, at 2000 meters, and using only one round!" Taking the story in isolation, however, might give the impression that this was a common occurence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But at the same time, effectively you're saying, "Hey, Mr.Veteran, we can't find any records of that happening - therefore you must be mistaken!" Whereas the veteran knows what he did and that it did happen. Whose incorrect, the veteran or the written record, Spook? Written records are important, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, we should recognise that they are not all ecompassing. Therefore, we should not discard quite so readily the experiences of those who have done something, merely because they cannot be correlated from what are in all likelihood, incomplete, hurried records. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So again, the input of many military posters here can be of great value, and I think enhances the overall knowledge base of the CM forum. But also again, some military issues require extensive correlation and cross-referencing to come to some resolution.

At the same time, Slappy, I have had personal experience of where you have denigrated my military experience. To whit - your claims about what I had said WRT the SMLE and the Bren as against what I had actually said. Furthermore, I pointed out the ridiculous nature of your claims to try and reclassify the Bren as an automatic rifle, yet you persisted with them both. I can only speak for myself but I have never attempted to stand on, "I have been in the military x years" - I have always utilised my experience to illustrate points which I feel were important. You, on the otherhand have turned around, to myself and other Commonwealth military posters, and claimed that our experience was incorrect, merely because we could not produce evidence to back what we claimed. It appears for you, personal experience amounts to nothing. A perfect example was the matter of the tripod mounted Bren. You didn't shut up until I posted some excellent pictures of their use, as late as 1950, in the tripod mounted role. To you, this was a mere "abberation" rather than proof that Brens were used on tripods, that use was widespread and that it might well mean that the standard, accepted piece of taxonomy of which you were so defensive, might need reassesement. In the case of Kim Beazely, he made the point that he had seen a particular training film which demonstrated something being done in a particular way. You then proceeded to try and heap scorn upon his experience - he might have seen that film but according to you, that film could not have been accurate - despite it having been produced by the users of that particular piece of equipment, and was intended to instruct their own troops on how to use the equipment, merely because you had no documentry evidence to show that was how it was used. I'm sorry, Slappy, I believe you've lived in an ivory tower for far too long and as Bill suggested, lost sight of what history is and how its made. Its also no wonder that people get pissed off at you, being told continually that what they know and have experienced is wrong.

In a mad effort to bring the thread back on topic... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is a good current compromise, followed by a proposal for a 4 level system: 1) Defeats Wheeled Vehicles 2) Defeats Light Tanks / Halftracks 3) Defeats Tanks (takes a dozer 1/2 time) 4) Defeats Dozers Here I would have a vehicle have to work on an obstacle for a set number of turns, to represent battering through it, with the final an an obstacle with a hole in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a workable alternative to the present situation, which is IMO rather silly. I was just reading David Fletcher's "79th Armoured Division - Vanguard to Victory" where he makes the point that AVRE's were used to demolish beach obstacles - the inference which can be drawn by other comments in the same book, that the AVRE's Petard was utilised to do the same against obstacles inland from the beach. I'd suggest a slight modification to your rule - with an addition that the removal of a given obstacle can be achieved with x hits from a petard or y hits from normal HE rounds from guns of => 75mm in calibre. BTW, the above book has an excellent picture of an armoured D8 dozer removing a burning wreck (unspecified and unclear from the photo) from a road, during an advance. So obviously the vehicles were used quite a ways forward (which is perhaps why they armoured them). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps other items could be rated in this scale also, so a dozer could knock down a building maybe if it was light enough or weak enough, assuming that this was done tactically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why limit it to only dozers? Tanks were well able to enter buildings - another facility which is not included in the game. I'd merely suggest that dozers are more efficient.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: It's always bugged me a little bit that Allied tanks penetrating bocage do not create an opening that can be exploited by following non-tank vehicles (and personnel). Michael (Just felt like getting that off my chest. Thank you. )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another good point. I'd suggest, particularly if fitted with a "prong", the resultant gap would be passable at least by other tracked vehicles or even semi-tracked ones. Wheeled ones I believe would still have too much trouble.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Trolls to the left of me, Trolls to the right! Well this thread is dead. Zed is dead babe, Zed is dead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is it? Who made you a doctor, Slappy? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Brian, the banned and returned Beazley did something called edit his post ex-posto facto. That means after the fact in Australian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If true, then why not react to the final form he desired the post to be rather than the initial one? Appears to me, between what you claim he wrote and what he edited it to read, he adopted much less inflammatory language. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However -- there is no need for us to fight. We might as well hug, admit there is not conflct in the world, that history is an illusion, and that Australian can play soccer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, it would take a remarkably cold day in a very hot place before that could or would happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: When BTS banned your accounts, they likely did not inted you to keep showing up Mr. "Beazly." They banned them for what I assume they felt are a good reason. It is not my place to second guess their banning of you, or the lack of credibility you have attained here in a very short time. As Micheal and Andreas pointed out, there are some real dolts in the military, along with some very high quality people. Being in the military for a long time does not make one a dolt or a quality human being. It merely makes them part of the military. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is this you erecting another strawman, slappy? You appear to have taken it to a completely new height, if thats the case 'cause I cannot find the quote you supply any where in Bill's message. They may be "part of the military", Slappy, but its obvious it also provides them with something - experience in a military environment of that environment. Yet you continiously denigrate, belittle and ignore their experience for some reason. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Have you tried the ambush function Vanir talks about? That should work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I admit, no. I was unaware it was possible. Still seems like a clumsy work around to me, whereas I simply desire them not to fire unless ordered to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: OK, then, a little more clarity here. This might be changed somewhat in behavior with the addition of the "assault" command in CMBB. Or if you want your moving men to stop before firing, then the "move to contact" also slated for CMBB could be of help. But if you are wanting for your moving units to hold fire unless they are within a certain range of enemy units, then that's something more along the lines of asking for a "standard operating procedure" or SOP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, what I am seeking is for them to be able to be redeployed without them suddenly popping up and openning fire. If I've given them hide orders, I expect them not to fire, even if I move them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Arguing for SOP options to be added to a unit's order menu is reasonable to do. I found them to be of help in games like TacOps, Brigade Combat Team, or Steel Beasts. But arguments for SOP's in CM have been made in the past, and those earlier arguments didn't quite cut the mustard. So, any new SOP argument needs to be formatted along the lines of the Slapdragon/Simon Fox guideline reposted in this thread. How shall we title this recent new guideline? "SlapSimon" or "DragonFox"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SOP's sound like a useful feature but I can see problems associated with them as well. As I said, I'm seeking is for me to tell my troops not to fire. I would be more than willing to accept a chance that my order will be disobeyed but I'd still like to tell them to not fire, if I so desire.

I believe I've made my position fairly clear. Given that the problem lies more in the way the terrain is modelled, as others have noted, most of the bridging vehicles would not work. Fair enough. If, however, the terrain modelling was to change, then its very obvious that methods of ditch/stream/river crossing would have to be included. At the present moment with terrain tiles being so large, I think that bridging could be "abstracted" without too many problems - in effect creating a terrain feature that a player could place between or before "battles" are started. Obsctacle clearing, however, does fall within the present scope of the game and is not covered by it. AVRE's did blow road blocks, while dozers and tank-dozers also cleared them and sometimes under fire. Wire cutting. While many have claimed this is "abstracted" by the game, The_Capt has quite rightly pointed out, that when Engineers clear a path through wire, they do so in a manner that means troops following are not hindered by the wire. Yet, in the present method, the game appears to portray each successive unit cutting its own path through a wire obstacle. This is clearly wrong. Digging in, is another area which is not well covered by the game. The digging of a shellscrape is well within the artificial constraints laid down as to what represents a "battle" as would be Stage One, IMO. I've read so many accounts of troops digging in, under fire, even to the point of exhaustion and falling asleep in the process. I also find the manner in which vehicles are dug in, without any way of them being able to withdraw from those positions, a trifle strange to say the least. Finally, there is the matter of demolitions. As mentioned before as well - what happened to the matter of demolitions - in particular of bridges? Again, this could be "abstracted" but its a necessary feature which is badly missing IMO. Therefore, from my viewpoint, its fair to say that the game is crying out for the inclusion of a great deal more of the Engineering battle. Some of it can be handled in an "abstract" manner, I agree but it badly needs to be there in whatever form it takes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The battalion commander gives the word to fire over the phone from down the trail and over the hill? You're joking, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In think you'll find that if a battalion is conducting an ambush, the battalion commander would tend to be in a position where he could observe and give the command to fire, from. Battalion ambushes are the exception, rather than the rule but I think the one at Gemas in 1942 was brought up, more as an example of how big an ambush can be, rather than necessarily an example of what could be considered the norm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: You are entirely correct argie. The original point/question regarding fire discipline is readily answered within the game as you rightly point out it is possible through judicious use of the ambush and hide commands to both set ambushes and impose fire discipline. I think it was Brian who brought it up and maybe he wasn't aware of that capability within the game or at least how to use it properly. The answer is of course that yes ambushes can be set within the game and fire discipline imposed and the effectiveness depends upon the troop and leader quality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the point I was making, Simon was that as soon as you move your men they start shooting at all and sundry, rather than maintaining their fire discipline. The thread then became sidetracked into discussion about ambushes, something I never intended talking about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The current brouhaha has little to do with that and more to do with Slappy using an entirely spurious line of reasoning. Now there are two possible explanations for this, either: 1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls OR 2) he hasn't got a clue. Personally I favour the first option. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I concur, simply because he's shown just how clumsy he is at it. Rather like watching a bull in a china shop. [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Hey Steve, I have a suggestion which may be a really good idea. Why don't you guys release a version of CM, or better yet a scenario pack which centres around "special operations" in WWII. There are alot of games out there which cover this theme and the interest in a tactical version could be quite high. It could include coding for bridge demolitions and scaling cliffs et al. It could also include "what if" scenarios where flail tanks could be used in an assault. Just an idea but I would pay a few bucks for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I too would be quite willing to purchase a copy. Could you also include a method of giving "do not fire" orders to one's troops? I'm fed up with them openning fire at the first opportunity, rather than holding their fire until I've decided they should.

I've decided to be diplomatic and leave out a great deal of the peripheral argument and instead zero in on what is in reality the crux of this thread - the Engineering Battle. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required. The same for breaching minefields. Oh, we totally agree. And that is why the engineers in Combat Mission can in fact do this right now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They can blow a gap in wire? Funny, I can't find any reference to that in the games manual and when I move a Ginger-Beers section near or even through wire, they act as if they even lack wirecutters, let alone Bangalore Torpedos. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No, they can't use rare Funnies or the ultra rare mine rollers, but I don't recall seeing any battles where they were employed in a Combat Mission scope battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, I think that could be because of the artificial time constraints you've placed on what constitutes a "battle". Even in your "operations" - which are meant I am given to understand in reality are what is really the Battle as against Engagements, the question of Engineer tasking is not covered. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: So, Bangalore Torpedoes didn't exist then? They were not carried as part of the standard establishment of most Engineer Troops? They were not utilised to blow gaps in wire? Sure, I never said this wasn't true. But CM Engineers DO have this ability already. I don't know why you don't think they do. It might be more abstracted than you would like, but we can't please everybody... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, see above. If they have this ability, please tell me how to activate it. After I read your message and before I replied to it, I tried a quick test. I purchased several platoons of Pioneers and an AVRE and set them to either demolish or traverse both wire and roadblocks. The AVRE was unable to destroy the roadblock, the Pioneers the wire or the roadblock. Perhap I missed something in the manual but I would have assumed knowing the capabilities of units in real life, this sort of thing would have been quite within their capabilities. It wasn't. Now, if we had some of those other pesky funnies, such as a few armoured dozers or even a couple of tank-dozers, just imagine what I could have done - and all within the "time scope" of the game, as well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Perhaps you'd care to point to the many battles which lasted 30 minutes or less or should we be utilising the less specific term "engagement"? Whatever you like. The average high intensity engagement time was generally under an hour. For an active battle there would be several of these engagements during the day with various periods of other actions inbetween (all the way from nothing to full speed pursuit). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, so it comes down to a disagreement perhaps over the terminology, more than anything else. What you call a "battle" I would call at most a firefight or an engagement, while what you call an "operation", I would refer to as a battle. So, I think great many of my criticisms could be solved quite easily if engineering was available in "operations" - perhaps either as a seperate "phase" or perhaps as added elements, utilised between the various "battles" which make up an "operation". Even so, this still does not explain why Engineers cannot cut wire or why the funnies are not available (and yes I've the claims that most of their abilities are "outside the scope of the game" - something I disagree with for most of the funnies which I feel are very much in the "scope of the game"). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Will they be included in future releases or will they be merely ignored, as it appears they have in this one, as being merely "inconvenient" to how you view the how a battle should be simulated? Man... you really do have an insulting bite to your posts, don't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do I? I was merely asking a question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No, they will not be IGNORED in the future, but they probably won't be simulated either. Reasons are all here in this thread and in others. If you care to disagree with our position... fine. That is of course your right to do so. However, we still think you are flat out wrong If we thought you were correct, then yes... we would put what you asked for in the game. But then again, if we thought you were right we would have put it in the game before we shipped version 1.0. It isn't like we didn't think about this stuff beforehand or in the months that followed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As long as we agree to disagree thats fine. I also think the obverse of yourself but thats the rub of the debate, now isn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: At the level of command we are talking about in CMBO (regardless of time constraint), it really was not the local commanders decision to blow the bridge or not (e.g. the bridge in Nijmegen which the local commander wanted to see blown, while Model stopped him, because it was needed for potential counterattacks).. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To a certain degree I agree, although, the point I'm making is, it is possible to blow a bridge. I merely desire the ability - obviously constrained by the scenario but still an ability which is missing from the game. There are other cases, where bridges BTW were blown early or on the initiative of the local commander. Two which spring to mind are the Corinth Canal bridge (and now I'd like to see how the game would model that situation :eek: ) or the Sittang, where it was blown against the wishes of the theatre commander through panic (again, a difficult situation to model). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While I grant you the gap blown in wire (which is simulated to some degree, if you have not noticed, because your men can actually get through it), I would really be interested in a range of cases where the flails were used in a battle, as opposed to before a battle, as seems to have been the case in Astonia, for example. Mines in the El Alamein defenses were also cleared the night before the attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, actually, the Scorpions used at El Alamein were used to lead the advance, and we've had mention in the other thread of Totalise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How do you intend to use the flails? Have them roll in front, and the infantry and other tanks follow close? Why do you think it is up to a local battalion commander to decide if a bridge is blown? I would say that is up to higher level of command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why the emphasis on flails? I did not mention them in my last message at all. There are other ways and means. Yes, the thread is about the "funnies" so, I'm quite willing to accept that you thought I was talking about flails but my comments were directed more towards the general use of engineer assets, than anything else. I just find it rather disconcerting that the only means to achieve some things are engineer sections, when there were other means available, in the period under discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I don't understand how you can think this. The units necessary to do the actions I listed above are absolutely "specailly trained" units, and therefore the actions that they are trained to perform are by definition "specialized". Otherwise, why would an army need "specialists" if any Joe Schmo coming out of basic training can scale cliffs, jump out of an airplane, clear out a fortress with a 100 man garrison, utilize a GHQ vehicle such as a landing craft, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB] Perhaps the point is that in reality you have already provided for virtually all those operations, the troops if not the means to undertake those operations. I think what you misunderstanding here is that not that training is needed but rather the technical means. You have provided mountain troops, airborne troops, etc. but they do not have the means, the technical means to undertake those sorts of operations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB] quote: Afterall, aren't most, merely variations on the assualt? Different equipment, perhaps but still an assault. They are specialized assaults Most of the things I mentioned were done only after painstakingly difficult and time consuming planning and execution. They were NOT done on the fly. Some even were done in multiple phases, and only after enemy resistance had been broken or at least diminished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, I'd have said, as I already have, that they are merely variations on the single form - assaults. Planning might take longer but execution in most cases, occurs in basically the same time frame. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, ... or call up a platoon of King Tigers, or call in 8" artillery, etc. etc. What you are talking about is game theory vs. battlefield reality. In the game you are a lowly commander with little to no influence over what you have, when you have it, or how to employ it strategically. That is about as real as it gets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yet, as has been pointed out, suddenly we do have the ability to "call up a platoon of King Tigers, or clal in 8" artillery" - you appear to have forgotten that we have this marvellous system for purchasing equipment, men and units. That, elevates the player suddenly from the level of the "lowly commander with little to no influence over what he has, when he has it or how to employ it strategically" to that of the much higher commander. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period. Which troops? You mean every lowly Infantry Company had a section of assault boats or several TONS of explosives and the engineers to know how to use them? Poppycock <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, but the commander who sits back and designs a force structure for a particular operation does, does he not? You have provided the ability of the "lowly Infantry Company" commander to suddenly determine what sort of company he will have, what sort of support equipment he can utilise - except it appears to be focussed exclusively on, what I will call for, want of a better word, "the pretty stuff" rather than the more mundane, such as engineering equipment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In CM you are just a peeon commander, like the vast majority of commanders in WWII. You don't have the ability or authorization to do such things. Yes, in rare cases you would, but I point you back to my definition of "specialized warfare" and earlier comments about how rare such stuff was in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required. The same for breaching minefields. Find me an example where all this AND the general inf/armd attack was done in 30-60 minutes while under frontline enemy fire. Then find a couple hundred more, then we will talk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, Bangalore Torpedoes didn't exist then? They were not carried as part of the standard establishment of most Engineer Troops? They were not utilised to blow gaps in wire? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: I find the artificial time constraints, the arbritrary "30 turns" of Slappy, very annoying - purely It is not "arbitrary" in our book, since that was what we designed the game to center around. So when you see him say that, know that there is a very good reason for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you'd care to point to the many battles which lasted 30 minutes or less or should we be utilising the less specific term "engagement"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: 'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences. Totally disagree. Again, find me an example of a regular old assault through prepared enemy defences, which included "specialized" actions, which took even 60 minutes to do, from start to finish. I know of none. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB] Funny, there is that "60 minutes" time limit again. Why only 60 minutes? By your own admission, most real life battles took far longer than 60 minutes to complete, yet you've decided, arbitrarily to limit the game to that period. Forgive me if I'm new to the board and ask the obvious question which I don't doubt has been answered before but - why? Why limit the game length to 60 minutes? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB] The mistake you are making is that of compaction. What generally took hours, days, or sometimes even weeks you want to have done in 30-60 minutes. It just didn't work that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I believe I'm saying I don't want it compacted into 60 minutes, not the other way 'round, which is what you're arguing. The problem is the 60 minutes time length. Even so, you appear to think that the preparation time for a great deal of this work has to be included in the game, whereas I'm merely interested in being able to utilise the end result, which I am prevented from doing because its simply not there. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: I'm hoping that you as BTS's representative a taking note of this discussion. Well, I also was 1/2 of the design team, so I always take note I also took note of the dozen or so discussions that came before this. Which, I might add, had input from some combat engineers who strongly favored our side of the argument. I also remember quoting from an Engineer's manual I have here about the time, materials, specialized equipment, and skills needed to do some of the things you talking about. Honestly, you are woefully underestimating all of this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good. Thats all I'm asking. I believe you've come to the wrong conclusions by not including them but I admit it was your choice. Will they be included in future releases or will they be merely ignored, as it appears they have in this one, as being merely "inconvenient" to how you view the how a battle should be simulated?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: 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> I find the definition of "specialised warfare" interesting, if even a bit inexplicable. I'd suggest that these were, for the most part, with the exception of the "mountain combat" pretty much non-specialised forms of warfare which were in reality the bread-and-butter of warfare in NW Europe in the period in question. Afterall, aren't most, merely variations on the assualt? Different equipment, perhaps but still an assault. However, lets leave that aside for the moment - I'm much more interested in this idea of what constitutes in your mind "normal" warfare, as against "specialised" warfare. I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period. While I agree that some aspects of that can be handled in an abstract pre-battle phase, some cannot IMO. Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required. The same for breaching minefields. I find the artificial time constraints, the arbritrary "30 turns" of Slappy, very annoying - purely 'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences. I'm hoping that you as BTS's representative a taking note of this discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I agree with this completely. Time scale in and of itself is only downfall one for some engineering units that would disqualify under other parts of the test. So, a bailey coding may not be worth it for QB and Scenario, but may be an option for operations, where something different applies -- for example, if you capture both sides of the bank you can throw a bridge up inbetween battles in the operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or a bridge might well already exist and you have to defend the bridgehead. As far as I'm concerned, the matter of Bailey Bridges is a red herring, thrown up to obscure the real purpose of this discussion which is the funnies. Bridging would be better suited to being treated as a terrain feature IMO, rather than as an active unit. It is usually, something which occurs before or after a battle - only rarely during. The use of the funnies OTOH are much more a part of the scale that CM utilises IMO - afterall they were developed to be utilised in the assault, afterall.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: In the interim, if some gamers here don't wish to wait, and truly desire to play special WWII scenarios with a detailed combat engineering element, then seek out ASL and its added game modules. (Or SPWaW? I haven't tried that game though.) [ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that you mistaking the purpose of the thread. It is not to slam BTS, nor is to try and have CMBO necessarily altered, as it stands now. Rather it is to discuss the matter of funnies, their employment and their possible simulation in future releases of CM. I used to turn my nose up at SL and ASL, still do to a certain extent - I was a pure figure gamer and found the SL/ASL methodology , like CM, rather restraining. I know/knew that it was possible to do certain things in a "battle" but within the SL/ASL system, it basically just wasn't allowed for someone to think independently and apply their own rules - the mentality of most SL/ASL players I found were just too narrowly focused on "the rules" as they existed. CM has IMO huge potential - it is the one computer game thats made me reconsider figure gaming - it removes a great deal of ambiguity from various aspects of how a "battle" is conducted but like SL/ASL it is very constraining. We have someone who thinks "people aren't interested in the engineering battle" - which should be translated in reality to "I am not interested in the engineering battle". He also believes we should only be thinking about equipment that can be employed/utilised within the very artificial and narrow time constraints that he has decided are what the majority of gamers want and he's been fighting a rearguard action ever since. Then, on the otherhand, you produce a much better argument about the question of "focus". I think we all recognise that CMBO is a harbringer of what the potential future holds, than necessarily the final be-all and end-all of how the game system will be. Therefore such a discussion as this is more about suggesting improvements, than necessarily trying to force through one particular viewpoint or another. We recognise that BTS decided to "focus" on certain points and they have done a reasonably good job - that does not mean that in future editions of the game, they cannot widen that focus to include such matters as the funnies. Yes, it means that certain terrain features will need to be included which are presently absent but the point is that they did exist and the means to counter them also existed. [ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Jon - my understanding is that the Bailey Bridge took several hours to construct, and you needed troops on both sides of the river to do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite. As Kim pointed out, there were alternative methods developed and used to allow a bridge to assembled off-site and then pushed into place. Where the Engineers were required on the opposite bank was to prepare the approach down to the river, not necessarily in the construction itself of the bridge. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I thought fascines were more than just bundles of locally collected wood - but were more on the order of cut and formed lumber (sort of like the stuff you see in snow fences). Am open to correction, as always.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fascines were, as I understand it, made from local materials but not necessarily locally collected wood but rather locally collected timber of a particular size and shape. In addition, if it was known they were to be used in a wet ditch/stream, they were usually bound around sections of piping, to allow the water to flow through the fascines, rather than under them, thereby preventing them forming a dam and being washed away. This is according to the 1945 British Army training pam, which I have in my possession.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think 'going soft' is probably the wrong expression. There were a number of factors here, but amongst them are that 7th AD had been in 'it' from the start in the desert, while they knew that many divisions were in England training for the whole four years. Also, they had seen what a German AP round could do numerous times, and the vets in the division had come through - but if you believe you have a finite amount of luck to spend, they could probably see the bottom of the barrel for that one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While "war weariness" has been overstated IMO by many authors, what hasn't been examines is "war wariness" - a better understanding that you can only survive for a certain amount of time in any combat situation, which only comes from the sort of experience that you're talking about. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Another factor was that they had nice diesel-powered Shermans in Africa, courtesy of the US Govt. They left them there, and were not only given slab-sided, crappy Cromwells that ran on gasoline, but also told that this tank was the best thing since sliced bread, an insult to their intelligence and battle experience (and before the proponents of the idea that British tanks rocked get all in a huff and fluster - this is directly from a divisional history of 7th AD, and based on the assessment by people like Tout). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've read the reference to the 7th veterans being unhappy with the change from diesel engined Shermans to petrol engined ones (which is interesting in itself, as it brings up questions as to why the US was so unwilling to continue with the diesel engined vehicles as against the petrol ones, in the light of the 8th Army's combat experience). I believe it was in the book, "Desert Rats, Desert Foxes" or something similar which I've read just recently. I was unaware of any unhappiness (beyond the general one of "why do the Germans have so much better tanks than we do") about the Cromwell. In some ways it was considered superior to the Sherman, if not as good as - it was faster, had the same gun, the armour was approximately the same value, etc. It was though, primarily restricted to the cruiser and recce regiments, though. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The division was also badly led during the initial phase, something that was born out when the Brigadiers (I think it was both of them) and the GOC were replaced. Villers-Bocage was a direct consequence of loss of nerves on the part of the command. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The issue of quality of command is one that is always difficult to qualify or quantify. John Howard provided the Australian example of the two AMF battalions in New Guinea, who had very similar backgrounds and experiences - one was well led and gained great hattle honours, the other badly led and broke and ran. The problem for the 8th Army units brought back for the invasion was that all too often their commanders were judged "too old", "not aggressive enough", "out of touch", etc. and replaced with commanders whose experience was not as great and who weren't as well known by the men under them. Much to the detriment of the units. The result was, as you note that a great deal of the responsibility for actually leading the units in battle and ensuring momentum was maintained was down to the junior leaders, the SNCO's and Subaltans in particular, with the result that as they suffered disproportionately high casualty rates, their unit's morale and cohesion suffered as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: John - excellent post. The dictum of the time was as you say, but officially it was DOWN, CRAWL, OBSERVE, FIRE. At least, it was in the training pams I have seen. It was taught as part of fieldcraft, and many histories (Canadian, at least) repeat the phrase, as it was often repeated (read: drilled into) them. DOWN, CRAWL, OBSERVE, FIRE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think John is guilty of assuming that what he learnt as a digger was what was taught in 1944-45. In the Oz Army its been "run-dive-crawl-observe-fire" - we prefer to make a moving target for the enemy. However, apart from that, an interest set of insights on both sides which has reinforced what I already knew/believed about British training - its fairly rigid and orthodox. Harks back to the "battle-rings" (or schools) which the British army established in WWI on the Western Front - all troops were regularly moved through them to ensure that they recieved the latest training and were at a consistent level throughout the army. In WWII, I understand the British Army adopted a similar system but primarily within divisions, rather than outside them, as happened in WWI.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: It does beg the question - how many non-specialist Churchill tanks were commonly used in frontline action? Bouchery reports only 3 brigades of Churchills were used in NWE as opposed to 8 British armoured brigades equipped with Shermans or Cromwells, and two Canadian brigades (four, when I Canadian Corps arrived in theatre in Feb-Mar 45) plus Polish armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Used or "on strength"? The webpage that Kim first posted and which I quoted from in the earlier thread, here contains details of unit strengths for June 1944 (I presume start of June, rather than end), whilst the two other companion pages at the same site here and here cover the dates for December'44 and June'45. They supply units and strengths.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: [QB]Oh, and BTW, exactly how would the AVRE carrying the fascine know it was under fire? Afterall, the view out of an AVRE with a fascine is extremely limited. Only the driver and his coie can see forward (and that is limited) and the commander is limited to vision to the sides and rear. If it was then left to the detechment commander to determine if the carrier needed to drop the bundle, then I'd suggest he'd decide if it was needed to be dropped, not SOP's. I got lost in the thread and I don't know where the above quote was taken from but I wish to comment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was mine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> AVRE commanders habitually sat on the fascines ! This was particularly true of the approach march from the FUP to the Start Line (fascines were loaded as late as possible because of the lack of visibility - ie the FUP). When they came under fire they could retire to behind it (and stand watching over the top - most fire would have been from the front 90 degrees or so..). When they were sure that the driver could see his "target" they could retire to the turret to "fire" the bolts. There was a periscope designed for the commander but apparently disliked because of lack of field of view, vibration and ease of loss or damage. Casualties were not noted as being any more servere with AVRE commanders compared to the general populace (of tank commanders) so it must have been no more dangerous.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A good point. However, they were forced to sit on top of/stand behind the fascine bundle purely because the vision was so bad. I also suspect that when artillery/mortars started dropping, the command retired to his turret very quickly indeed! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I note that Churchill crew casualties overall were much less by proportion than Sheram/Cruiser tank crew casulaties. It was slow(er) but tougher and did not burn as easily (even compared to wet stowage versions of the Shermans).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've mentioned that in another thread as well. Churchills suffered the lowest casaulty rate for any Allied tank in NW Europe, according to Fletcher's book "Mr.Churchill's Tank".

[i've decided to pull this message in an effort to "chill out" as Slappy put it. I am still offering him an olive branch, despite his rude refusal via email to accept it.] [ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, give it a rest. Matt has asked all of us to take a more civil tone in no uncertian terms, and we should each respect his desire to maintain peace. Flailing up a flame war is definately not what Matt meant, and will only result in more bannings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That may be so, Slappy but I'll run the risk. Personally, I find your patronising tone, your unfailing efforts to erect strawmen and your efforts to be a prig, rather annoying. Inside your posts are sometimes some good points. Unfortunately they are all too often obscured by the bull**** you put around them. Stop treating the board as your private possesion and assuming that you are the font of all wisdom, Slappy and you might find people treat you a great deal better.