Where did all the funnies go?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Since we're allegedly discussing Funnies here, I'd like to ask if some kind soul could supply some information on the use of Canal Defence Lights (CDLs) in combat. It's my understanding that they were fitted with some flicker apparatus and were used to blind the enemy during night attacks.

Regards,

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<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.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen references to them being deployed to provide "artificial moonlight" during the crossing of the Rhine and possibly earlier in opertions prior to the crossing - perhaps the Reichwald ?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[/qb]

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor Beaz, hasn't gotten it yet and stbeing lead by the hand. Here is a distiollation of what I said (Ark used as an example but many others could be used);

Me:Ark needed a surveyed location, and upwards to 30 minuted to move into place and deploy.

Brian It takes 5 minutes to deploy.

Here it is not needed to refute Brian, he is stuck in a rut of repeating that because he read that the Ark deploys in 5 minutes, it could be in the game, but is ignoring my evidence that the Ark needed surveying (although this can be quick and dirty), a setup place (cannot just fling it anywhere), it must travel to its location without being under fire and then that 5 minute set up matters, 25 minutes or more into the game.

So, debate by evidence is derailed by one of the methods against which there is no coming back from, and the whole subject gets defeated: the dodge.

I submit to you that BTS could well include funnies in a future game, and including them may or may not be a bad idea, it is just that the knee jerk that is displayed here will not work. Build a better argument based on fact and you will be surprised at what you can get out of it. Yell to the skies as has been done in other threads that BTS hates the commonwealth and is out to screw the brits, and the commonwealth faction just looks stupid.

I am carefully going over the methods of argument that could be more productive for you in this and other threads because it really would be useful for you (and Brian for that matter) to understand why the historically inclined people like Hof and Germanboy have trouble with what you say. Of course I am putting some bite in it so you will read it, but I really do beleive that these are hard skills to master and hope that you at least take it to heart a little, even if you do not admit where it came from.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

'Tis amazing to see John Howard & Kim Beasley get on so well on this bulletin board despite their diametrically opposed political views. Shame how things change when you put them both into Parliament House and things invariably degenerate into a schoolboy style slanging match.

Regards

Jim R.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Poor Beaz, hasn't gotten it yet and stbeing lead by the hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only person who appears to need "leading by the hand" is yourself, Slappy. It is obvious that are having problems with the concepts being discussed here. Perhaps its your lack of military training showing through?

I would suggest slappy that in reality, if we were to see this sort of thing included in a future edition of the game, this is how it could be used.

Player A is provided with the intelligence that a river/ditch forms an obstacle to his advance. He then decides to purchase a means of crossing said obstacle - be it fascine, bridgelayer or Ark.

Come the game beginning, it is assumed that all pre-battle recconiassances have occurred (ie "surveying" as you refer to it). The player believes that he has the means of crossing said obstacle - based upon the intelligence that he has.

He then moves from his FUP or startline (its impossible to determine from the game manual which is being simulated in the "deployment zone") along his chosen route of advance.

He then utilises the means at his disposal, to enable his obstacle crossing assets to approach said obstacle and be deployed. Sometimes he will be successful and prevent the enemy from engaging the crossing asset, sometimes he won't.

A careful commander will eliminate the enemy means to interfere before he uses the asset. However, that doesn't mean it will always work or that some idiot will try and use it without the correct preparatory operations - buts life, **** happens.

Hey, presto, "in game terms" - the magic mantra which you keep using when ever you're pressed, it is the deployment time of the vehicle which is important, not the preparation time which you keep harping on about.

In the case of the Ark, which is only one of the means available to the British commander to bridge a linear obstacle, the vehicle must be drive into the obstacle before it can be used. In the case of the others, they merely have to halt beside it. Only the AVRE with either fascine or SBG Assault Bridge, does not need to either halt nor remove itself before other vehicles cross the obstacle.

Yes, these are "single shot" assets, which means you wouldn't get a second chance to use it, if you stuff up.

How BTS would handle this "in the code" is up to BTS but with that short explanation I've shown that such assets could be used in a "assault" type game. We already know they were available in real life.

You on the otherhand appear to even deny that. Considering there were, according to the site that Kim cites for 21 Army Gp.:

1944 1945

June Dec June

DD 265 56 90

Crab 189 133 180

Kangaroo 0 214 393

Churchill AVRE 0 164 251

Churchill Croc 0 90 187

Churchill Ark 0 3 35

Churchill B/L 6 8 7

Valentine B/L 33 9 13

Grant CDL 162 0 28

Its obvious that while the Ark and the Churchill B/L weren't available in significant numbers (no one in fact has claimed the reverse), that the Valentine and AVRE (all of which were capable of carrying fascines) were available in significant numbers.

What is interesting is that the numbers of Ark's actually increases markedly, after peace has broken out in Europe and they are not being expended any further in operations.

It is also obvious that the British put great store on these vehicles - why else would they maintain such large numbers of them?

Yet, in the game, they are largely ignored...

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Yet, in the game, they are largely ignored...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is because, as has been pointed out, CMBO does not attempt to model the engineering battle. Which is something you can complain about, and no doubt the perfect WW2 simulation will have the engineering battle. Unfortunately I can not see anybody preparing that at the moment. It is after all a small side-show in the side-show that is wargaming. So, when it comes down to correctly model the behaviour of tanks (which, historically or not, appear in most scenarios), or the engineering battle (which is only of interest to a subset of battle, the assault), I can well understand any developer going for the former. There are no AT obstacles in the game, so why bother having vehicles that can handle them? There are no rivers smaller than 20m in the game (correct me if I am wrong, but the Valentine B/L crosses 18m?), so why bother with bridge-layers.

Instead of your example, I would go about it the following way:

Situation: clear the approach to stream X with your rifle company. The suitable site for the ARK is marked by a VL, as are the areas whence you can put fire onto the site. Then you go about doing it, the British player trying to capture it, the German player trying to deny it to him. You win the scenario if you have cleared the area (British) if you hold on to it (German). Once the scenario ends, the ARK rolls in. End of story.

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.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: You, however attempted to paint it as a disaster waiting to happen. Such hyperbole, Herr Hofbauer!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

haha says who? tu quoque, kettle! who was the one coming in here roving about how the funnies were oh so innumerable compared to the blue Mauritius - Puppchen? I think it was Mr. Hyperbole MBT AP himself who did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: I believe I posted quite a good link to "numbers", did you follow and read it, Mr.Slapdragon? One suspects not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That link shows numbers which are nowhere near to be even in the same dimension of the Puppchen figures, and if anything represent a total embarrassing smack in your face re. your preposterous original statement. You are still due to deliver any facts to *support* your original statement (otherwise there's only two choices left on why you made your original statement - either it was stupidity or just a blatant lie), not facts that support *my* view.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EXACTLY. It is *their* choice. As Germanboy pointed out, and numerous people repeatedly before him, it's the way the game *is*, it will *not* change - and for good reason, I might add. And that is that.

RMC,

I think it was called Shir Iran or somefink. I think shir might mean something like lion.

[edited due to my ongoing battle with UBB]

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

That is because, as has been pointed out, CMBO does not attempt to model the engineering battle. Which is something you can complain about, and no doubt the perfect WW2 simulation will have the engineering battle. Unfortunately I can not see anybody preparing that at the moment. It is after all a small side-show in the side-show that is wargaming. So, when it comes down to correctly model the behaviour of tanks (which, historically or not, appear in most scenarios), or the engineering battle (which is only of interest to a subset of battle, the assault), I can well understand any developer going for the former. There are no AT obstacles in the game, so why bother having vehicles that can handle them? There are no rivers smaller than 20m in the game (correct me if I am wrong, but the Valentine B/L crosses 18m?), so why bother with bridge-layers.

Instead of your example, I would go about it the following way:

Situation: clear the approach to stream X with your rifle company. The suitable site for the ARK is marked by a VL, as are the areas whence you can put fire onto the site. Then you go about doing it, the British player trying to capture it, the German player trying to deny it to him. You win the scenario if you have cleared the area (British) if you hold on to it (German). Once the scenario ends, the ARK rolls in. End of story.

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>

Again, this is a good point.

To lend you a hand here and clear up your confusion, CM is a game that simulated small tactical actions between two opposing forces. It is assumed that the forces have moved to FEBA (your lack of paying attention during your military service may not have informed you that means FEBA) and have deployed on terrain assigned to them for their attack or defence. This takes out the endless boring set up (by assuming it has already happened) and thus the bridge would likely already be in place, the path through the large mine belt would likely already be set etc. The game was not designed to simulate a 3 hours prep barrage, a 6 hour engineering battle, or a 48 hour feint and move into position.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

EXACTLY. It is their choice. As Germanboy pointed out, and numerous people before him, its the way the game *is*, it will not change, and for good reason, I might add. And that is that.

RMC,

I think it was called Shir Iran or somefink. I think shir might mean something like lion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was indeed a Shir. Well Hof, I tried to help him deconstruct your argument about the Challenger and make it a little more intellectual, but to no avail. I may just take up the nettle on that one, like how did they come up with their numbers exactly?

As for the puppy-chow-chen. I can see his left engine burning, so I think you got him mortally on that one. No way I can give him a hand out of that ditch, he dug it too deep.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I may just take up the nettle on that one, like how did they come up with their numbers exactly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well ok you got me there. I don't know anything but what was written in that greek army press release I reproduced here unedited. I can only assume they would arrive at these numbers by checking certain criteria which they felt representative and important w/r/t the intended employment of these MBTs in the greek army, therefore apart from the fact that I suspect they would do these tests to have a workable result I cannot offer anything.

The other fact however is that noone outside the UK really wants the Challenger. I mean, no other country. Apparently it's not even cheap in relation to its slightly suboptimal performance.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

well ok you got me there. I don't know anything but what was written in that greek army press release I reproduced here unedited. I can only assume they would arrive at these numbers by checking certain criteria which they felt representative and important w/r/t the intended employment of these MBTs in the greek army, therefore apart from the fact that I suspect they would do these tests to have a workable result I cannot offer anything.

The other fact however is that noone outside the UK really wants the Challenger. I mean, no other country. Apparently it's not even cheap in relation to its slightly suboptimal performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not a total indictment, but it is an illustrative point. Certianly something kept it from being adopted, for example its price / performance ratio (just a guess).

[Eumundi]

Is anyone else tired of hearing from Slapnoggin? Get this kid, its just a game. If someone wants a new British tank, why can't BTS give it to them?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eumundi:

Is anyone else tired of hearing from Slapnoggin? Get this kid, its just a game. If someone wants a new British tank, why can't BTS give it to them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is not a tank? The 'tank' is actually in the game, it is the AVRE Petard.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eumundi:

Is anyone else tired of hearing from Slapnoggin? Get this kid, its just a game. If someone wants a new British tank, why can't BTS give it to them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. What a way to inspire BTS to look into this---just push their face harder into the grindstone. Kinda feels like the earlier logic discussions are just treading water.

Slap's post of 12:56 today outlines quite well as why BTS might not be able to "give" a requested vehicle. Perhaps BTS can accomodate with CM II, and if so, then great. If not, then allow the rationales as to why not.

For the upcoming CMBB, I was personally hoping that the multi-turret Soviet tanks like the T-35 or T-28 would be added, but have heard that these are not going to be included. (Anyone hear of this changing, though?) The offered rationale is that the CM code for CMBB isn't up to snuff to model multiple turrets with limited arcs for vehicle models. If so, then I can certainly recognize this as a plausible situation for now.

For that matter, some here have related that the existing CM AVRE doesn't quite function properly. If true, then shouldn't future coding priority go to improving the AVRE in CM II?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<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?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

So, the armour battle is not being attempted to be simulated, only the infantry battle??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct. Why is armour bought individually, instead of in troops or platoons?

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little hard to do in the game Either there is a river, or there isn't. If it isn't there you won't 'find' one, and if it is the victory locations may have a greater influence on your dispositions.

BTW - do auto-generated maps ever include river, or even water, tiles? I haven't seen it that I reacall.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

So, the armour battle is not being attempted to be simulated, only the infantry battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC correctly BTS have repeatedly said that the infantry battle is the core of CM. Which would explain all the effort they put into CMBOs armour penetration algorithms and not into its MG mechanics

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

A little hard to do in the game Either there is a river, or there isn't. If it isn't there you won't 'find' one, and if it is the victory locations may have a greater influence on your dispositions.

BTW - do auto-generated maps ever include river, or even water, tiles? I haven't seen it that I reacall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes you will get a pond, never a river in QBs.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are dodging. I outlined a successful strategy to get your ideas heard by using a logical progression of evidence and argument that fits the part you want into the game. The guys at BTS listen to this forum, and when they read good stuff, they run with it. Ignore it and you are talking to the wind, which is why people pick on you, Brian, and Howard so much. Pay attention to it and you really will be respected.

But do not expect the line around the game system to be redrawn. The cope of the game is pretty set, even for a serious engine update. It is an infantry based battle with support units battalion or smaller taking place in less than 8 km2 and lasting less than 1 hour of time (except for operations).

Redrawing the scope to include supply convoys, ammo dumps, medical evacuation, 24 hour battles, the approach phase of the battle, and all that other extra stuff is possible I suppose, but you bog the game down for no increase in playability in what is actually a tactical game.

[Simon Fox]

To condense and slightly modify Jacko?s criteria :

1)It must be directly supporting of the battle.

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).

3)It must have some effect on game play.

4)It must fall into the realm of the codeable within the capabilities of the current game engine.

5)It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game.

6)Priority, can it be done in time for the game and is it worth it.

Just a few general comments. The 79th armoured used assault teams which typically operated in advance of the infantry in assaults. Typically they might comprise 1 troop of crabs (flails) and 2-4 AVRE either vanilla or with SBG or fascine (usually 1SBG and one fascine and 1-2 standard). These would be followed up by a croc troop or infantry. The main obstacles encountered would be AT ditches and craters (apart from mine fields). I have a picture of one of the assault teams at the FUP for phaseII of the Le Havre assault. There is a AVRE in front followed by two crabs, then possibly another crab (bit indistinct), then an AVRE with an SBG (easy to spot ), then another AVRE, then either an AVRE with fascine or a crab (pretty blurry), etc...

Funnies

Croc- already in

AVRE-PETARD already in (although not fully modelled for reason 4 and 6)

Sherman Crab (Flail)

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y

4)? possibly

5)Y

6)up to BTS

AVRE-SBG

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y (only if appropriate obstacles present and they ain?t)

4)probably N

5)Y but limited to specific operations

6)obviously not

AVRE-Fascine

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y but only if obstacles are in the game

4)probably N

5)Y but limited (mainly for craters, SBG seems to have been preferred for AT ditches)

6)obviously not

AVRE-Bobbin, AVRE-Mine plough (not sure if this was a regular Churchill or AVRE) probably fail in most categories.

ARK and other bridging devices- I would think the only tactical use at CMs level was confined to D-day. Might add flavour to a scenario if you could start it with your bridge in place. That is, modelled as a terrain feature rather than a vehicle.

CDL- As I don?t think anyone is suggesting their inclusion so they seem a bit of a spurious example to use. Still their application is fairly clear from my reading. In the immediate aftermath of gaining a bridgehead over a water obstacle you need to defend the bridge against night attack especially sabotage. Searchlights attract a lot of fire, if they are amoured then the crew is safer. As far as I know only one CDL was lost to enemy fire by the 79th Div. They were operated, when required, by crews from the 49th APC regiment.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<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?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

To condense and slightly modify Jacko?s criteria :

1)It must be directly supporting of the battle.

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).

3)It must have some effect on game play.

4)It must fall into the realm of the codeable within the capabilities of the current game engine.

5)It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game.

6)Priority, can it be done in time for the game and is it worth it.

Just a few general comments. The 79th armoured used assault teams which typically operated in advance of the infantry in assaults. Typically they might comprise 1 troop of crabs (flails) and 2-4 AVRE either vanilla or with SBG or fascine (usually 1SBG and one fascine and 1-2 standard). These would be followed up by a croc troop or infantry. The main obstacles encountered would be AT ditches and craters (apart from mine fields). I have a picture of one of the assault teams at the FUP for phaseII of the Le Havre assault. There is a AVRE in front followed by two crabs, then possibly another crab (bit indistinct), then an AVRE with an SBG (easy to spot ), then another AVRE, then either an AVRE with fascine or a crab (pretty blurry), etc...

Funnies

Croc- already in

AVRE-PETARD already in (although not fully modelled for reason 4 and 6)

Sherman Crab (Flail)

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y

4)? possibly

5)Y

6)up to BTS

AVRE-SBG

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y (only if appropriate obstacles present and they ain?t)

4)probably N

5)Y but limited to specific operations

6)obviously not

AVRE-Fascine

1)Y

2)Y

3)Y but only if obstacles are in the game

4)probably N

5)Y but limited (mainly for craters, SBG seems to have been preferred for AT ditches)

6)obviously not

AVRE-Bobbin, AVRE-Mine plough (not sure if this was a regular Churchill or AVRE) probably fail in most categories.

ARK and other bridging devices- I would think the only tactical use at CMs level was confined to D-day. Might add flavour to a scenario if you could start it with your bridge in place. That is, modelled as a terrain feature rather than a vehicle.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<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."