Brent Pollock

Oh yeah...well...at least I can SPELL, yah "looser" Face it, you're really just GreenAsEnvyForBrent'sHalfsquadHordeKnowledge Mandatory, obligatory HS content: Anyone who does NOT like the halfsquad horde should stay clear of my "WBRP - Company Town" battle wherein both sides start fully deployed to mimic lack of cohesion whilst poking their noses into a new town. And Brent looses all the time, so it can't be that much of a strategy worth worrying about </font>

...and Artillery Observation Aircraft (I can't convert one of my ASL scenarios until CM gets this). Love reading the CM dev history notes from BFC.

Removing MGs from vehicles...possibly rearming uncaptured units & replenishing Low Ammo units (NRBH). Eh? In what form? Maybe I'm not thinking right... Michael </font>

Obviously you need to widen the playtesting team - I started doing it from the get-go

yyyyuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm...spatzel...but I don't know what kind of wine to have with Pzdufflebags III... Having tried my hand desiging a few CM/ASL scenarioes now, I'm of the opinion that "Semi-Historical" is as accurate as you're going to get.

Score one for "ignorance is bliss" vs "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

It was usually very unlikely that a building would get dropped after absorbing quite a lot of HE. It was also possible for a single round/salvo to drop a house. The chance of a 75 mm HE round rubbling a wooden shack in SL is 1/36 * 1/6 = 1/216. It had zero chance for a stone building. 150mm HE versus stone is: 3/36*1/6 + 2/36*2/6 + 1/36*3/6 = 10/216 ...[although with my current headache, that might be the wrong-way-round for calculating probability.] Some of us felt this made them a tad too tough, without comparing it to actual data, of course. However, there's this quote from Doyle, Chamberlain & Jentz regarding the 150 HE from the StuG 33B: "capable of demolishing houses with two or three rounds" This seems much more in tune with the CM model than the SL one. I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings. </font>

That counts as a strike against SL for some folks, including myself. I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings. </font>

...and motorcycles Operations (aka HASL) with flank entry points & reinforcements entering during the battle. Night/starshells/illumination rounds/illumination from fires.

I am as thick as a llama.

Amen! ...and the Germans (the very genesis for adopting the LMG 34)...and the Italians (not one but two LMGs in the LMG section)...and Americans (BARs, BARs and more BARS)...and the French (BAR)...and the Finns/Hungarians/Romanians/Russians...Japanese/Chinese/Siamese/Polish/Ethiopians/Greeks/Bulgarians/Yugoslavians/Czechoslovakians I'm not so certain of...along with anyone else I forgot. As to someone's comment about it not adding anything to the enjoyment... ...I LOVE it. It gives me that micro-managing buzz of having the firebase and assault sections...well...ummm...act like firebase and assault sections. Add to that the layered zone approach (assault section up front with short cover arc; firebase behind another 50m or so with an appropriately extended cover arc) and the Up Stairs/Downstairs split in buildings. Love it, love it, love it. [ January 20, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

You don't even have to have LOS to the target - I had a SPW 251/16 area fire near a sound contact on the other side of a wooded patch - KABOOM! That was one unhappy open-topped AC crew.

I'll step in as a dedicated "Spawner of Half Squads". Gamey - hell no! This seems like an accurate reflection of proper squad tactics; assault section moves in while the firebase lays covering fire. Second nature to players of Up Front. Moreover, you gain in coverage and manoeuvre but lose in bulk firepower and morale, so there is a trade-off. I tend not to use it with lousy troops because I suspect (no proof) that the morale hit makes them virtually useless. I usually deploy at least half of a platoon. My main reason for doing it is damage minimisation: you only lose half as many guys when scouts hit an ambush or if an OP gets overrun. In tight LOS games (e.g. lots of woods/rubble) the manoeuvring is great as two half squads can outflank a single squad. As to it being gamey because a single squad cannot engage two targets at once - phah! - if you'd had the sense to deploy that squad in the first place, it could've engaged two targets at once And you can prevent them from recombining by swapping half-squads during set up (e.g. 1A goes with 2B and 1B goes with 2A)...I admit that I find that part gamey

Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek:

Oh gawds! If my 11-year old son ever finds about these things I'll never here the end of it at the dinner table :eek:

Based on what I've read about our troops' predilection for rye whiskey, I'd have to concur. ...and I still don't know what is wrong with the danged picture, unless it is the gun calibre.

Amen - and don't forget to use a shortened cover arc to let the cheap-lure units pass through the LOF unharmed, then expand it in a turn or two to nail the really meaty stuff.

Wasn't the entire Soviet Army one big penal unit Seriously, that sounds like a good guess. Maybe they were also ad hoc units formed from remnants or guys that had recovered from wounds. Could even have been guys fresh off the tran that hadn't had time to be incorporated into a real unit. Sure hope someone knowledgable comes along...

Looks good but I didn't mind the first one - looked like it was built on the remains of an old Roman Legion camp.

Sounds groovy - keep us informed. I'm starting to think this is the only method to use for the Pegasus Bridge HASL conversion, if only because there are so many entrance/set up zones and it requires consecutive night battles, something the Op enginecan't handle.

Well - CRAP - I've had it! I'm just going to have to quit my day job so I can playtest full time

Grabbing it now. I've got both of the KGP HASLs, and Cheneux is the only one I ever played. [or I will once Explorer can access it...seems to be havng problems at the moment]

Are you certain of this; from what I've read, the AI makes a balls up of Exit for Points unless it is very near the exit edge? Perhaps the flags are what induce that AI confusion?

Oh Gawds! That's hilarious - I forgot that I'd already designed flagless ones (WBRP = William Brent Robert Pollock...blame my folks for that mouthful) I can also agree that #1 is a viable AI fight. I designed them that way because many of the TOBRUK scenarios had damage as the only real victory criterion, so I thought flags would be inappropriate. I only used them when TOBRUK demanded a location to be seized.

Okay let's see if I muddy or clarify the waters here: The SOS mission is the same thing as Danger Close for Canadian units (IIRC); essentially, the idea is that your guys are in cover but the enemy is assaulting and, therefore, not always in cover. Also, your position is on the verge of being overrun. SO, the cold-blooded balance sheet say, "if we mortar our own position, we'll end up losing fewer guys to friendly fire than we would to an unhindered enemy overrun". The TRPs on your own position are what represent this self-zeroing. 81 mm mortars are mentioned specifically because they are the arty with the fastest response, being directly attached to the battalion. Other calibers would be regimental (105 mm) or divisional on up (150 mm & rockets). We're all talking about ways to keep the spotters in positions with lousy LOS so they can only really be effective calling fire on TRPs, rather than perching them in the bell tower wherefrom they can spot all enemy movement and burn all the ammo before the overrun occurs. This still does not prevent FOs from doing a mission planned during the Orders phase for Turn 1 (which is why I suggested having them come on as a reinforcement, so they can't do this pre-planned stuff, which do not require TRPs nor LOS). Another of Michael's points is that one company of the battalion can selfishly use up all of a battalion asset, which might be required by brother companies not represented on the map. The artillery element of the counter attack is really to induce more chaos in the attackers so you can actually deliver the counter attack; it prevents them from getting settled in to cover your approach. Hope that helps...