Possible Forward Observer Bug...

[JonS]

Actually, a thought just occurred to me - the radio operator himself is largely incidental, since the FO should be able to operate the radio. What's important is the radio itself. Does your FO have a radio?

[WriterJWA]

Here's a screenshot of what I'm basically seeing:

[WriterJWA]

Incidentally... this man should be dead. He was killed the previous scenario.

[sburke]

oh there's your issue. You are using Ghost protocol.

Sorry can't see the pics, am in the wonderful land of internet censorship. My I feel so warm and fuzzy being protected from bad thoughts... and with the incredibly lousy air quality I am mostly prevented from seeing them too.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not that it really does beg the question (it may beg that the question be asked, but that's not what "Beg the quetion" means),

LOL, I had actually thought to myself "you better edit that before some grammar grog says something... nah".

but the firing unit probably needs authorisation from its C2 links in order to fire...

Perhaps. However, there is an exception to the rule requiring the firing unit to be in C2. If the HQ or FO calling for the fire is withing 50m of the firing unit it can call indirect fire from that unit even if both are out of C2. This is true even if they in different chains of command.

[Michael Emrys]

Yup.* Wire comms, for example, was far more common than radio in WWII.

Then there was what might be called the "mixed media" setup. George Blackburn describes his equipment as a wire hookup back to the carrier which had the radio. Sounds like a sensible arrangement as the radio at the time, along with its huge, heavy battery, would have been a load to lug around on foot.

So, should British/CW FO teams have an organic carrier? And should they be required to remain within some specified distance (50 m?) of it to remain in contact with the battery?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

LOL, I had actually thought to myself "you better edit that before some grammar grog says something... nah".

Not a question of grammar so much as one of logic. When I was a philosophy major I know what it meant, but that was before most of you were born, so don't ask me now.

Okay, I looked it up for you.

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion.

You can read more about it here.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thank you, Michael, but I've known what it means for many, many years. And it really is just a grammar issue. People use the term "begs the question" colloquially to mean "begs for the question to be asked" probably with more frequency than it is used correctly. Kind of like when people say "could care less" when they really mean the opposite; it's not because they don't know what the words mean.

[JonS]

Then there was what might be called the "mixed media" setup. George Blackburn describes his equipment as a wire hookup back to the carrier which had the radio. Sounds like a sensible arrangement as the radio at the time, along with its huge, heavy battery, would have been a load to lug around on foot.

Yup. Spike Milligan describes the same setup in North-West Africa and Italy.

So, should British/CW FO teams have an organic carrier?

I think they do?

And should they be required to remain within some specified distance (50 m?) of it to remain in contact with the battery?

Ideally, perhaps, but those kind of inflexible hard limits generally do more harm than good.

[Michael Emrys]

People use the term "begs the question" colloquially to mean "begs for the question to be asked" probably with more frequency than it is used correctly.

Certainly. I suppose by now even the grammarians regard it as common usage.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Ideally, perhaps, but those kind of inflexible hard limits generally do more harm than good.

How would that be different than the current rules about units being within some range of their HQs in order to be in C2?

Michael

[JonS]

How would that be different than the current rules about units being within some range of their HQs in order to be in C2?

Not much, except that voice distance and signalling distance don't generally vary much (though it could be argued that wind and battle noise and other things should affect C2 more in CMx2 than perhaps they appear to ... I think? I haven't really checked that). But there's no particular reason to assume that there's exactly 50m of wire on the comms cable drum. Or 20m. Or 100m. I've read instances of the carrier being parked right outside a building, and other cases where the carrier was parked at the bottom of a substantial ridge.

Which is *the* correct answer?

Answer: neither is, because it depends.

[womble]

Isn't this supposed to be a 1:1 game?

Yeah. Mostly. There are a whole bunch of abstractions though: microterrain; alternate C2 methods; general control of Arty; TRPs; camo bonuses for unmoved ATG; magic all purpose demo charges; indestructible hedgehogs; prohibition on zook-family firing from buildings ever. Just a few that spring to mind.

Wired telephones are not listed in the game manual as a valid, or even included C2 method.

The manual is not the be-all and end-all descriptor of the game's mechanics. It doesn't mention microterrain saving throws. Steve has explained (hadwaved) the comms methods as including wire comms because it's too hard to program an accurate representation.

Yes, it would HAVE to be a radio.

Only if your assertion that wire comms isn't included in the abstraction were true, which is not the case.