Magpie_Oz

Well yes you said, you would hold him down until you buddy shot him, so what is the other guy going to to if you turn and run ? Shoot you I expect. I also think it unlikely that the other bloke is going to lie there and let you buddy shoot him so I expect "manly melee combat" is the most likely result. No one is up for that which is why they avoid it like herpes. But when it does happen you have to be the baddest if you want to stay alive and hanging about for some one else to shoot him/you/what ever happens to be in the way when the trigger is pulled or running away ain't going to cut it.

When at work I have fairly low band width and some major firewalling going on

Yes for sure, just depends a little bit on how my work pans out as to what Internet I have (I work in the desert) but I'd be keen to be involved in someway, sounds like a fun set up and even with crap Internet I can help with admin.

Probably true enough but that does not preclude the notion of starting with a smaller group in the "off season" to get the system up and running for the main event.

Certainly bayonet charges were pretty common with Australian and I dare say other Dominions as well as the Japanese the main idea being to scare the enemy into flight rather than necessarily stab them, of course that would be the result if they didn't run away. That is more likely to result in getting yourself shot in the back by : who ever you are running away from in the first instance and your panicky buddy in the second. Also shooting someone at point blank range is not only difficult given the length of WW2 rifles it is also fairly dangerous given that the bullet will go through them quite easily and end up God knows where, either in one of your mates or ricochet back into you.

"Really good point, i may wait till the summers over and get the the project fine tuned." Or you could just start it in the Southern Hemisphere as we'll all be inside.

No I have been talking to my wife again.

I am reminded of the Afrika Korps AT gun trap.

I do not really understand what the insoluble problem actually is. You seem to be saying that because we can see the entire battlefield we are able to unrealistically concentrate our forces? I'd suggest that the notion of a blacked out map will not really achieve a hell of a lot. He's the thing, the map is blacked out so you advance with scouts ahead, the scouts see the ground ahead and the map is revealed so you stay disengaged and redeploy your forces for the attack, so in reality you end up at the same place you would have anyway but have used a few extra turns to get there. We kinda do this anyway it is just that we are looking for the enemy not the ground which is wholly consistent with knowing what is ahead from your map but not knowing the enemy dispositions which is pretty much how things play out in reality. Revealing unknown ground is a wholly different military task and not really what the CM series is about, unless Battlefront decide to model Topographic Survey and Survellience Units. Not sure how well that one will sell You may wish to reconsider this approach

Actually 1986 when the Australia Act was passed. Up until that time the British Parliament still had the ability to pass laws on Australians. The Act in effect removed the ability to appeal to the Privy Council. It is still theoretically possible to do so from the State Supreme Courts but highly unlikely. I might also point out that our Governor General is still appointed by the British Monarch and it is in our constitution for that to be the case. Although again unlikely it is still possible for the Queen to reject or sack our GG. So foreign is maybe not the best word to use for us. We actually prefer, in your best Westminster accent, "Damned Awstralians"

I think the notion of being able to see the entire map is a mechanism that goes quite some way to offsetting the stupidity of the computer. As your subordinate commanders are actually the inbuilt AI you are at a severe disadvantage as compared to reality in that you have dumb automatons for soldiers. A Company commander would never give a subordinate detailed instructions about what they are supposed to do they just give them the objective, in our game tho' you have to play both roles. Being able to see the entire battlefield allows you to react to the changing situation in a more realistic way. The platoon commander would see the terrain and its features as they walk through it and he would also have a good idea of what the terrain ahead looks like from a map or from the simple fact that you can see terrain far further than you can see people. A platoon commander does not get to the village and call up the Company commander and say "Well it was a long walk and we saw lots of stuff, there was a field with a cow and then we saw a village near a hill and there was a wall and we found a puppy , can we keep him huh can we ? ...... " No he makes a series of decisions as he goes, as does evey one right down to Private Plodd. The other thing, do you want to double the length of all your games by preforming a recce phase? So to have a "terrain update" transmitted in the next turn would not really gain anything for game play or realism

Real men keep it on REAL TIME !

How about realism level "Canvas" what you do is sit at a desk in a tent and have an Aide-de-camp run in with written notes about what is happening on the computer and your IntO draws a series of pictures on a map on the table?

- snifffff - time was the English did not consider us foreign http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/frown.gif

SNAP ! I was just about to ask the same thing. Cool that they still celebrate the liberation but I am having trouble with the Ultra link but I would be keen to find out more.

hmmm condescension, definitely a colonial thing

Yes I see the Zombies book. Seems to concentrate on a few different items in Aussie Military History, about the only one of great import to this discussion is a proposal that the Australians breaching the Hindenberg Line did not end the war. I don't think the actions of Monash are questioned, just the effects there of.

WOW, Massive work there Diesel, much more interesting than "bollocks" I might point out tho' that my posts have not really relied that much on the Roland Perry work, I have looked more at the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918) which references a number of works, some of which I have read.

Yup definitely a colonial thing

OK so it IS a colonial thing then

For me it is this fellow, While serving in Europe, North Africa, The Pacific and Korea is not totally unusual for an Australian solider you need to bear in mind that Captain Reg Saunders was not noted on the electoral roll nor was he entitled to vote until a referendum in 1967. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg_Saunders

What was the Battle of Mons? I thought that was WW1?

Is this a "Colonial" thing?

You seem to be fixated on who invented these things, the point is that Monash was able to use them effectively. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/in-the-trenches-with-monash/story-e6frf8lf-1111113001272 http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/monash-master-of-illusion/2006/07/27/1153816322191.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 http://landmarksofliberty.blogspot.com/2009/08/battle-of-amiens-august-8-11-1918.html

Thanks for that Diesel, certainly not taking anything personally mate.