Kim Beazley MP Ma

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed. The latter not being expressly modeled in the game. So what is the point again of having a device that allows the express modeling of crossing something that is not expressly modeled? Answers on a postcard... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It might not be modelled in the game but that does not mean they did not exist, I'd suggest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges. Well no sh*t?!! I never noted. More importantly, neither did Monty. Now if someone had only told him, this strange pre-occupation with the bridges in Arnhem, Maastricht, Son etc., and the delay in crossing the Rhine would never have occurred. He would just have thrown some fascines into the Rhine and walked across... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being rather silly now aren't you, Mr.Germanboy? I'm not talking about the Rhine, I'm talking about the numerous minor rivers and streams and canals which existed to limit movement in NW Europe. It appears that like Mr.Slapdragon, you believe union rules apply to battles. "Oh, we've come to a river. There is no established bridge here! Time out! Union Rule No.105 states that we will only cross water obstacles at established bridges!" *TOOOOOOOOT!* "Bloody hell, is it knock off time already? Oh, well, back off home to the wife and kids. Next shift!" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely successfully repulse the attacker. Hmm, let me think - oh bugger, yes. Well, IIRC the Germans seemed to do this an awful lot... The Odon, the Albertkanal, the Maas, the Rhine, the Weser, the Oder, just to pick a few. Gamey bastards. So, why did 79th Armoured not just prevent them from doing so (note - this answer maybe included on the above mentioned postcard). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps 'cause it was the role of the 79th to make sure that this method of defence did not work by providing the attacking commander with more options than just charging straight ahead a'la the Somme? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier. Non sequitur. If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from above would increase dramatically. Alternative means are not in the scope of the game. The rivers you see in the game (how often has that been said now?) are 20m wide. Again, what is the max distance a Valentine B/L can bridge? How many fascines do you need to bridge that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> River tiles are 20 metres wide. Rivers can be wider. Even a 20 metre wide river should not be allowed to represent an obstacle, forgotten that the British specifically developed means of putting in place complete bridges, very, very, quickly? It seems you're content with hitting your head against a brickwall, Mr.Germanboy. I'm not. You keep harping on about the Valentine Bridgelayer - it was but one of the options available to an attacking British commander and{/B] it could be utilised in tandem to produce a longer bridge, BTW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ooops! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry, here is one that is so off the wall that it suddenly dawned on me that you have not really played CM all that much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never claimed to play it "all that much". I have been playing now for about 6 months or so. I do have an alternative life, unlike yourself... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes, the average scenario will be 30 minutes. Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So? The combatants had union rules which limited them to 15 minutes at a time fighting? As I said, its an artificial constraint. It does not represent any real period of time. "battles" or "engagements" can be 1 minute to days or weeks in real life, Mr.Slapdragon. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Don't worry Cauldron, it wasn't what you posted that amused me the most. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true... Simon, send me some email!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: :eek: Surely you mean Croquet? Messing about with string and fiddly knots making tea-cosies is hardly a martial activity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You haven't been down the Ladies' Institute after they've downed a few cups of the "special tea", now have you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Listen, the above statements are just dodges, and you are trying to start a flame war. I think you are a bigot, but I do not think you are stupid. The concept here is not tough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your condescension is not necessary, Mr.Slapdragon. The only bigotted person here is yourself - you apparently dislike anything British, so seek to create an atmosphere of distrust towards anybody who seeks to redress the historical inaccuracies evident in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Take the 15 minute issue. Why 15 minutes? Because an operation that takes 30 minutes will only ever show up in the longest scenarios and at the end. Not exactly when you want your enablers to your assault to show up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 15 minute issue is an artificial constraint placed on scenarios, nothing more. I've yet to come across an account of a "battle" which lasted so brief a time. Engagements, yes, battles no. It might be a question of terminology, nothing more but it indicates we're not really talking about the same thing, Mr.Slapdragon. Personally, I have no problem with longer scenarios if it means I achieve the objective. I prefer to be methodical about my approach to gaining an objective as against going bull at a gate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Several other things you just failed to read. No problem, when you have read them and reformulated your reply I will be happy to discuss why this system, and the related subject of veracity in historical research, are important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You make severa big assumptions, none of which can be substantiated, Mr.Slapdragon. You really do more than teach journalism, you appear to practice it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is a fair summary, and I believe that if every proposal looked at this list honestly in this way, then used supporting evidence (historical and technical) then discussions would stay on the ground much better. I would next add my earlier discussion of methods of historical validty and reliability as it relates to simulations, since it outlines how evidence works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Translation = "I was wrong to attack Kim and others for desiring to see funnies included in the game purely because I didn't believe they were important as they are British and I hate everything to do with the British as a true anglophobe should."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: So, to spell it out in simpler terms for you, each new unit or concept must meet certian considerations for inclusion. 1) It must be directly supporting of the battle. Tanks are included because they directly support the battle, strategic bombers are not, because if they did get used, they were used way before the foot soldiers show up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that the means of crossing obstacles and demolishing obstacles are indeed in direct support of the battle, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) It must be able to be used within the confines of the battle (the average scenario is 30 turns, so say 15 turns, or 15 minutes). Tanks guns can be fired in under 15 minutes. Prepositioned artillery can support the troops in under 15 minutes. A battery of 105mm artillery on the move would never get set up in time, registered, and placed into contact with an infantry unit in action in time to get shell one into the air as indirect fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, if I can put it impolitely, bull****. Time into action for most field artillery is a lot less than 15 minutes, Mr.Slapdragon. However, that is a whole new thread in itself. WRT to funnies, the dropping of a fascine or the laying of a bridge can, as Brian's post pointed out, occur well within the artificial 15 minute limit you've laid on matters. If CM is intended to simulate a "battle" of only 15 minutes duration, I'd suggest we should stop using the term "battle" and instead substitute the word "engagement" or even "firefight". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) It must have some effect on game play. Medics are assumed to be carting off wounded in the game, but in terms of play, they can function in the background without concern of coders because the presence or absence of medics is not a short term variable that will increase or decrease the battles effectives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that the ability to effectively bridge rivers or ditches would very much have an effect on game play. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4) It must fall into the realm of the codeable. If you cannot quantify it at least by approximation, the game engine cannot handle it. It would then be more like a mod -- eye candy that is really nice to have, but having neat mods wins no games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anything is, in my experience, "codeable" if sufficient resources are thrown at the problem, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 5) It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game. Could the Maus have fought? Likely not, or if it did it would have been a localized event. Do you include it? You could, if nothing else needs your attention. Of course if you are forced to leave out the M16 for lack of time, including the Maus would be a bad move. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As the funnies existed and were utilised, I think that question has been answered, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 6) The engine has to be able to handle it, and again the issue has to be worth it for engine inclusion. So -- how often was the CDL used. The current engine does not handle 5 kilometer maps with 1 kilometer wide rivers very well for various reasons, and the engine lacks a ray trace element. To add the CDL into the game when it was only used to light runways or once on the Rhine is a serious waste of time unless you are including ray tracing anyway, and the CDL is just a half day of coding on a model you already have (a few tanks got in just because the models were easy to do). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe that comes under the topic of "coding", Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would suggest that many of these recent threads fail on these points, or more importantly, the historical points. US units did not carry huge numbers of SMGs, Brens did not often travel with tripods and usually fought with their teams / vehicles, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Still missing the point - its not a matter of how often it was done - its a matter of the fact it was done and could be done. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, to convince BTS, you need to develop better arguments that tell them how to model the issue / item, what is the historical context, and why your idea better simulates reality than the game. Since the burden of proof is on you, it is more important that you develop these ideas in depth rather than just saying "my Tiger was killed by a Sherman, wahhhh -- BTS do somefink."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I sense that finally Mr.Slapdragon you are starting to see some sense. You have moved considerably from your original position which derided any suggestion that these vehicles should be included. Perhaps the increasing weight of evidence and argument is finally penetrating your smug exterior?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: It is no co-incidence that the only engineering vehicles in the game are the ones that were used to directly support the infantry through their weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, the armour battle is not being attempted to be simulated, only the infantry battle? I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed. As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges. Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely successfully repulse the attacker. A good example of this is the "All or Nothing" scenario. Its not impossible to defeat the AI when its defending, its just bloody hard and expensive. When I've defended, I've successfully managed to defeat the AI attacking several times - despite being handicapped by a screwy deployment of weapons. If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier. Slappy'd just prefer to ignore the whole problem and impose the idea that its "outside the concept of the game" - it might be, as a game but as a simulation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague: Beazley, what planet are you living on? Dorosh, German boy and the rest of the lads are right.Armour Arty and intelligence were not on tap as you seem to mistakenly believe. Aerial photographs, Prepatory bombardments, Accurate maps and time for a nice leisurely reconaissance.... Well, wouldn't that be nice. Then we can all sit down in the langorous afternoon sun to enjoy a nice game of bridge, with our tea and scones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Crochet, actually, old chap. However, you appear to have mistaken what I'm saying - that essentially before a battle starts, apart from the verbal or written briefing notes that a commander is given, other sources of intelligence are provided. I'm not claiming that that intelligence, what ever its source, should be 100% accurate but rather that before playing a game, a player is expected to "purchase" his forces (or accept what the AI throws up), and deploy them almost completely blind. Such a situation would only exist, I'd suggest in meeting engagements or hasty attacks/defences. In deliberate attacks/defences, both commanders would have some idea about the terrain they are going to fight over and would make plans based upon that knowledge. However, even that is denied to the players by the game sequence/mechanism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier: Great, but these screenshots aren't new for everybody on this planet Is there such a space between the turret and the hull of the T34-85 ?(I'm talking about the high turret ring). If so, is there a particular reason for this design ? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I noticed that as well. I hope it will be corrected in the final release. I also noted that lack of "hang" on the upper-run of track on the SU-85. Apart from that minor quibble, it looks quite impressive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: From my (limited) reading, the sentence should be 'were intended to be used to blind the enemy at night'. Apparently they were so secret that commanders did not know about them and did not request them. One of the CDL regiments was converted to LVTs (Buffaloes) IIRC. Bovington Tank Museum has/had a call for veterans to come forward and tell them whether and how they were used, indicating that there is not a lot of material to go on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only reference I've ever seen to them being used was in India - a regiment was sent out there in late 1944/early 1945 and ended up patrolling the streets of an Indian city during riots with their Grants. Can't remember where I read it though, I have to admit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Nope Beaz, he presented evidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which I acknowledged, Mr.Slapdragon. So, what is your beef? That I refuse to play the role you assign to me? Sorry, I'm not the fool around here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for dodges, may I suggest that the whole engineering topic became to hot for you when Hof tried to pin you down on sources and books, and I on why overall setup time including surveying should not be considered in use of the funnies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe I posted quite a good link to "numbers", did you follow and read it, Mr.Slapdragon? One suspects not. As for the "surveying" I did not suggest it should not be considered - you have made that claim. I have made the point that it is something seperate to the actual deployment of the vehicle. Indeed, I started an entirely new thread, on the topic of pre-battle recces, which is where it properly belongs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You also never responded to ideas about just giving bridge and fascine in place ability and leaving go of the vehicles, since it may, through real research, come out that they do not fit in the scope of CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I must have missed those, Mr.Slapdragon and if I did, I apologise. I would suggest that as they were intended to be utilised in the assault, as a means of bypassing obstacles, they do very much fit into the "scope" of CMBO as I understand it. BTS chose not to include obstacles or even water tiles narrower than 20 metres. I think that was foolish of them but its their choice. I should also point out, that you have dodged every mention of the difference between historical accuracy versus your claims of a desire to create an "uberBritish" force/creature. Could it be that you are more concerned with oneupmanship than you are with historical accuracy? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, don't feel bad about having a problem with constructing useful arguments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, your patronising doesn't work, Mr.Slapdragon. Its very obvious that I do construct very effective arguments which all too often confound you. The mere fact that you keep confusing and erecting strawmen, instead of talking truthfully about what I say, tends to indicate that it is yourself who has problems following or understanding other people's arguments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In my undergraduate honors research class, one of the first things we do with st udents is break them of the habit of argument from opinion and retrain them in debate from supporting evidence. It is a difficult skill, and many of my students who have gone on to be NSA, Rhodes, and NAFH scholars have had a great deal of difficulty mastering the skills of evidence supported debate. Most students in my research class do master these skills, it just takes time and dedication. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder if you also teach your students how to deliberately misrepresent their opponent's viewpoints? Oh, thats right! You teach journalism, don't you? No wonder thats what you do! I find it amusing that for a person who likes to claim he argues so much from evidence, Mr.Slapdragon I've yet to see you refute what Brian has said about deployment times, which is quoted from a military manual. Isn't it interesting how the US Army, which didn't have any funnies of their own, has a manual which is very different to that of the British Army which created them in the first place? Could be a lesson in that. [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pacestick: What I think is "funny" is that there are people that thought you may have been a rather portly politition. It got better, it then turned out there were people who knew you were not but were concerned you were pretending to be the said portly gentleman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pretty good, hey? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you hear a knock on your door some Sunday morning and it turns out to be Jenny George and Cheryl Kernot they will not be there to convert you, be afraid.... very afraid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, I'm holding out for 'tasha...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Given that the Kiwis (at least in my own personal experience) are a sensible people, I think its tendency to want to lie down in the midst of its duties would have proven sufficient reason for them to quietly set it aside regardless of whatever else may or may not have been available. There is, after all, such a thing as "a danger to one's own side". Michael [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, then in your opinion they should not have adopted the barometric fuse used on 3in mortar rounds? I cannot remember the correct designation at the moment but it had a tendenancy to be quite lethal to the users as well as the enemy - if dropped the difference in barometric pressure was sometimes sufficient to set the round off. I can think of several other, similar weapons which quite often proved as dangerous to friendlies as to non-friendlies. One uses what weapons are available. If the Japanese had suddenly appeared off the coast of New Zealand and it was not possible to get better vehicles through, I'm fairly sure they'd have tried to use what was on hand.