llama

A '72% victory in Cemetary Hill'! Was that with 'Stick to Scenario Setup' and Extreme FOW? If so you not only get bragging rights but should beable to walk on water and win the national lottery at will - well at least be rated as one of the top CMBB players of all time - well you are definately a better player than me anyway.

Please could you post the name of the scenario. I have a PBEM partner who always likes to play the German side and is particularly fond of the early war period. I think he might enjoy the challenge! Cheers

Interesting that the Brits have gone to a corporal per fire team. Who runs the section these days? Traditionally a Brit Infantry Section was lead by a corporal with a lance corporal as 2 I/C. Plus two LMG equivalents rather than the traditional one. And two grenade launchers. HMG is certainly splashing out on the hardware since my days in the ranks when a full strngth section would be armed with 1xGPMG and 9xSLR (note no SMG in an infantry section at all - no one wanted the bloody awful and useless Sterling). Cheers

British naming conventions have been spoken of on the pages many times and need no rehearsal here. There is a logic to them, though it may not be immediately apparent to our American cousins. However, I am foxed as what you meant by "extending the concept into force naming structure". Platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, corps, armies; its all standard stuff. Ok, the artillery with its batteries and the cavalry with troops and squadrons may not be completley standard but enough other countries used those titles that they are not that confusing, surely. Please do explain what you meant. Cheers

Phillipe, You are quite right about British Regiments longevity. Quite a few regiments have been around since the late 1600's, and the Grenadier Guards since 1658 (the Royal Scots - nickname Pontious Pilate's Bodyguard - have been in existance since 1633, but one doesn't like to mention them in polite society). You mentioned the Guards. Please don't lump them altogether as there is a distinct difference between the Grenadiers and the lesser types, then there are the horse guards. Cheers

The British organisation was similar overall but there is sometimes confusion over the term regiment when people, particularly our American cousins, are talking dealing with British forces. The typical British regiment had many battalions (not just three) and tended to recruit from a particular area – though this was somewhat watered down later in the war when replacements were drafted in. For example the Gordon Highlanders took, and still take, most of their recruits from Glasgow, which of course is a lowland city and not in the Highlands of Scotland at all. However, it was very rare for two battalions of the same regiment to fight together. Instead battalions from different regiments (usually 3 of them) were brigaded together under a Brigadier. Some additional confusion is sometimes caused by one or two formations. The Royal Regiment of Artillery is not actually a regiment it’s a Corps which is made up of numerous artillery regiments; including the Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery, which is a Regiment and not a troop. The Royal Tank Regiment was also a corps made up of many regiments. However, artillery regiments and tank regiments do not have battalions. The old King Royal Rifle Corps (part of which started off life as an American unit) was not a corps but a regiment. Hope this helps

I'll vote for the ability to put down proper creeping barrages. Predictive artillery fire was well advanced by WWII and the requirement for the observer to have a line of sight if the barrage is going to be anywhere near accurate has, I believe, more to do with game play than any link with reality. In CMBB and beyond the power of defensive arms has been made more realistic (remember charging machine guns with infantry in CMBO?) but the benefits of artillery for the attacker has not caught up. I appreciate that artillery could become too powerful and so detract from the enjoyment of the game, but if we are talking wish lists and making the game conform more to reality, real artillery gets my vote. Maybe the ability to set up a timed creeping barrage at the start of the game would be a reasonable compromise - more WWI that Brit army 1944 but it would be better than the nonsense we have now. Cheers

It it helps, my maternal Grandmother's large terraced house in Wimbledon was built around 1908 and definately had an upstairs bathroom and loo with exterior plumbing as shown in Juju's picture. It was built as a residence for fairly welathy people though - it had bell pushes to call the servants in every room which rang in the kitchen area (great fun as kids we had with those). On the other hand the two-up two down terrace house (also built between 1900 and 1911) of my paternal grandparents was a distinctly working class dwelling with a loo in the garden. Finally my own first house (not in London but genteel Worthing) was a bungalow built in 1935 which had an indoor bathroom and loo with indoor plumbing as did all the bungalows in the road. So my guess would be indoor bathrooms at the time of the second world war would be common for houses in the better neighbourhoods, but "working class" people had to face the cold and the wet and trek outside. With the three buildings on offer I would say the large "Georgian" house and the pair of semis could well be pictured with exterior plumbing for indoor facilities but not that based on a rural stable. Fascinating topic, what? [ August 18, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: llama ]