Where did all the funnies go?

[Marlow]

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

I cannot believe that so many people are mindlessly following Slapwagon and his campaign against the Australians and the British. Listen up Simon Fox, and Germanboy, and Hofbauer, maybe you should spend more time paying attention to your own affairs and less time slamming the commonwealth. I notice that the three of you like ganging up on Australians, is that a hobby of yours?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back under the bridge with you. The next time GermanBoy or Simon Fox mindlessly followed Slapdragon anywhere would be the first.

[Andreas]

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

I cannot believe that so many people are mindlessly following Slapwagon and his campaign against the Australians and the British. Listen up Simon Fox, and Germanboy, and Hofbauer, maybe you should spend more time paying attention to your own affairs and less time slamming the commonwealth. I notice that the three of you like ganging up on Australians, is that a hobby of yours?

If people want funnies, BTS will have to give them funnies to keep their business. If you don't like funnies, maybe you just don't have to use them. The rest of us will enjoy them and win lots of games with them.

As for the Bailey bridge mister smart guy, have you ever set one up? If not then you have no place to talk. I think when it comes down to it none of you can prove that it was not possible to set up a Bailey bridge in combat, just like you can't prove that the Ark could not be used under fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you just stay quiet unless you actually have something to contribute? If you think that differing from an Australian's opinion on something amounts to anti-Aussieness, you should have your head examined.

Pray tell, what is your expertise other than a funny hat and watching too many re-runs of Crocodile Dundee?

[Andreas]

Oh, and accusing me of slamming the Commonwealth is funny. Really funny. That made me chuckle.

If I cared one iota about your opinion I would explain to you why, but since you are a latter-day blow-in with a national flag implant where other people have brains, I won't.

Have a nice day down under.

[Terence]

I shake in my designer cowboy boots when I ask this, as I am about to invoke the dreaded medium of FILLUM, but didn't they set up a Bailey Bridge(that marvel of British engineering) in "A Bridge too Far"?.

Now watching that movie is as close to one as Ive ever been, but if that portrayal is accurate, (and Im assuming everyone on this forum has seen the movie) then it doesn't look like something you could do with anyone shooting at you. Even one or two snipers could screw that up...

If that wasn't a Bailey Bridge in the movie or bears no resemblance to one, I'll shut up now...

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Andreas]

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

[QB]I shake in my designer cowboy boots when I ask this, as I am about to invoke the dreaded medium of FILLUM, but didn't they set up a Bailey Bridge in A Bridge too Far.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the one across the Wilhelmina Kanaal at Son? Damn, I must have been out getting wine when they showed that scene (BBC ran the movie about two weeks ago). You can set them up under fire (43rd Wessex did at the Seine) but it is not nice. But you have to have a firm hold on the opposite site. The fire they took at Vernon came from the flanks. The opposite end had been well-cleared when they worked. AFAIK, you can not set up a bailey bridge unless you have a firm bridgehead established opposite.

Does not mean you can't try, but no-one in their right mind would do it as I understand it. I just read an account from the Sheldt battle where even surveying a site was impossible because the engineers were sniped at and machinegunned whenever they came up to the embankment.

The major problem in Market-Garden was to get the bridge pieces through the traffic jam.

[Eumundi]

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

Slappy, I've wondered why your so voracious in resisting an effort to correct the historical inaccuracies for the British in the game. I think Kim has hit the nail on the head - you're anglophobic, aren't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he is against Australians, and just lumps the British into the same boat.

Here is something to think about. I am a customer. Brian is a customer. Kim is a customer. Why should we have to prove anything to get what we want from BTS? They are getting our money afterall. Or does it work differently in the United States?

It is not up to us to prove that what we want is correct, it is correct because we are customers.

And Germanboy, just because you are some German wanabee does not allow you to pass judgement on me. I know a few guys who dress up in German uniforms and do the Germanophile thing and I think it is a little sick.

As for answering Simon Fox, he just latched onto Slappy and his bigotry against the commonwealth. If he was going to say something important, why quote the biggest idiot on the board? His attacks against the Commonwealth are lame enough to make me wonder what exactly he is thinking, and he does not address the right of a customer who pays good money for a product to get good value. It makes me wonder if all Americans are communists.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Eumundi ]

[Andreas]

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

And Germanboy, just because you are some German wanabee does not allow you to pass judgement on me. I know a few guys who dress up in German uniforms and do the Germanophile thing and I think it is a little sick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are so stupid, you must be a troll. I think I should call the moderators in if it was not so hilarious. You have me in stitches. Go on, I thought it difficult for you to top the first one, but you managed!

[Andreas]

Oh Eumundi, not that I want to shatter your world of Kangaroos and Koalas, but you do know that Simon is Australian, do you?

[Terence]

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

It makes me wonder if all Americans are communists.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Eumundi ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DNFTT,

But I have to say... HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE.

Eumundi, you need a role model or a hug or something.

[Brian]

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

I think he is against Australians, and just lumps the British into the same boat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eumundi, can I politely suggest that you pull your head in? You're not helping matters with your scattergun approach. Simon is not anti-commonwealth, if anything he's been one of the more effective pro-commonwealth debaters. Slappy, gets quoted 'cause his lunacies need to be refuted, thats all.

Americans aren't all Communists, some might be but I'd suggest they are as Kim would say, "as rare as rocking horse ****".

[Spook]

In all due respect, Eumundi, your comments below have to rank as some of the damned funniest I have read here for their ludicrous nature.

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

I think he is against Australians, and just lumps the British into the same boat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beyond you, Brian, & "Beazley," how many others here concur?

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

Here is something to think about. I am a customer. Brian is a customer. Kim is a customer. Why should we have to prove anything to get what we want from BTS? They are getting our money afterall. Or does it work differently in the United States?

It is not up to us to prove that what we want is correct, it is correct because we are customers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just so f---ing hilarious to read. Really. "It is correct because we are customers." Without a congent argument has to how you are correct, simply your assertion.

The three of you are only just that. Three customers. Sure, you can just storm off and boycott BTS if it doesn't meet your trivial demands. So, if CM sequels still price at $45, that's $135 less in sales for one CM sequel.

But what if trying to meet rabidly-pursued but poorly-supported demands, with relatively minor impact to the overall game model, was to cost about $10,000-$15,000 per person in development time, by example? Do you understand the meaning of "capital costs" and "return on investment"? Your argued line above has NO weight with BTS. Zip. Best find yourself a different game concept if BTS won't kowtow to you.

Both Slap & Simon have provided "logic outlines" on how a game feature can be revised, or a new one added. Try to actually respond with answers to these outlines if you're really determined enough to demand a change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And Germanboy, just because you are some German wanabee does not allow you to pass judgement on me. I know a few guys who dress up in German uniforms and do the Germanophile thing and I think it is a little sick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas, formerly of Germany, lives in the UK IIRC. And he's repeatedly provided information on this forum for over a year regarding UK military matters in WWII, often quite detailed and referenced. Try doing a forum search by his member number to get a clue on his offered perspectives.

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

As for answering Simon Fox, he just latched onto Slappy and his bigotry against the commonwealth.

extraneous BS snipped...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same with Slap. Do some forum search history on his posts for over a year, and you'll find your "anglophobe" argument to be laughable.

[tabpub]

Originally posted by Eumundi:

[QB]

Here is something to think about. I am a customer. Brian is a customer. Kim is a customer. Why should we have to prove anything to get what we want from BTS? They are getting our money afterall. Or does it work differently in the United States?

It is not up to us to prove that what we want is correct, it is correct because we are customers.

I believe that MOST if not all of us are customers of BTS. One thing that I have learned is that customers are never entirely happy. In my businesses, if someone is not happy with me or my decisions, they can go somewhere else to try to find what they want.

Or, they can ask me directly to change my decision. But browbeating other "customers" would not be the way to make me change my mind.

And the last statement that you don't have to prove correctness, and that it is correct because you are customers is not as ludicrous as it first appears. I'll tell you what; 1) Get together with all the other people that want things changed by starting a new thread; 2) When you all agree on what needs to be changed, take your proposal to BTS and lobby them; 3) They will do one of 3 things; a) make a new patch for free that addresses all your demands (extremely doubtful), create a NEW game for the people that want it, titled "The Uber Combat Engineering Game" (doubtful unless you have about 5,000 people clamoring for this product), c) ignore you or give you some pablum answer that they hope will calm your distress.

That is how it works in the US. We are certainly not communists. Hell, the Communists aren't even communists anymore...

[Slapdragon]

My GOD, I check in for a few moments this morning, and read the lead topics when I get to work, but when I take a lunch break all hell has broken loose. Who is this guy and why is it that 4 people with under 10 posts come at me the same week like they have known me for years!

First off Andreas is German and Simon is Australian. This is because they post who they are on the threads, UNLIKE YOU. You just never bothered to read what they write.

Second, when even a rabid baiter like Brian calls you off, it should take some notice. This is part of your same clan afterall.

Back to your cave troll, you will get banned soon enough.

[Spook]

Well, we needn't await a response from Eumundi. Per the "Puchpen" topic which I only glanced at just now, he made the ban list.

Perhaps the useless "anglophobe" tangent can now die off.

[Ex Bellator]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Topic: Where did all the funnies go? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're right here! Superb.

[RMC]

This is one of the funniest threads I've seen in along time.

The customer is always right...even when he's wrong.

Somebody name a game or somefink that features funnies that the funnily challenged might purchase when they refuse to buy CMBB because it has no funnies.

Didn't we have "discussions" like this in the past that revolved around the point of "How can you say I am wrong for wanting somefink added to the game? I am just saying what I want, my opinion."

As for Germanboy being a "German wannabe" I think perhaps German wanna-not-be is more accurate.... LOL

[Andreas]

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

As for Germanboy being a "German wannabe" I think perhaps German wanna-not-be is more accurate.... LOL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now what are you trying to say, eh old boy? Toodle-pips and all that, I dare say...

Well, minus one troll - now let's get back to Class 40 bridges and all that, shall we?

[Andrew H.]

Maybe we all need to wait for CM:BF. Imagine the excitement as your funnies: Clear Mines! Lay Fascines in Gullies! Bridge Small Streams! Clear More Mines! Create Artificial Moonlight! Cut Barbed Wire! Clear More Mines!

Ahh, the anticipation. I can't wait.

[JonS]

Andrew,

if you aren't interested then save your keyboard some wear and tear, and don't bother posting. There are several aspects of this game that interest me not a jot - mods being foremost among them - but manage to restrain myself when yet another mods thread appears. Please, for both our sakes, have the good grace to do likewise.

Thank you

Jon

[Steve N Jackson]

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

No I am not content with hitting my head against a brickwall, and like you, I would love to have an all-singing, all dancing game that allows me to go from the Corps level down to the squad level, letting me jump into game simulation whenever I desire, gets all the aspects right, models all the most obscure vehicles, and gets the modelling of even the most minute aspects of the war right. No argument there. But then I tweak myself, and think 'Hey, this is bloody damn good, I won't get everything, so there will have to be choices'. The procedure for choices has been outlined by BTS (it is what Slappy posted earlier) and so far I am not convinced about the need to have all this extra stuff when looking at the procedure. If I could programme a game, I would try to do mine, but I am afraid I can not. Therefore I am stuck with BTS choices. Which is not a hard life at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must remember that I am new to this forum and thus unfamiliar with "the procedure". I was under the impression that this was a forum for the discussion of aspects of the game. I have raised, I feel a genuine question about where are these significant vehicles and Mr.Slapdragon and Co. have attacked me as being the anti-Christ or something similar for daring to be so heretical. Perhaps I was mistaken for being under the impression but I have shown that I can give as good as I get, I feel.

We have a procedure, Simon has answered the points required in that procedure. I don't have to add to that, I feel.

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

Now as for the quick bridging - I have not forgotten that. But what is the applicability to CMBO? 43rd Wessex and XXX Corps engineers took quite a few casualties when bridging the Seine at Vernon, but the bridge was not needed to stop this. Units that crossed in assault boats cleared the area. The Canucks crossing north got their tanks across on rafts. Again the bridging was not a CMBO issue at all.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, if you read about the bridging of the River Rapido, one finds that building of bridges under fire were not unknown and did occur in the midst of battle. It is an option which should be available IMO.

However, I'd just much rather see such bridges treated virtually as a terrain feature than necessarily being build in the course of an engagement.

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

So since the Valentine B/L is not the issue, what exactly do you want now? Have we gone from a desire to include funnies to a desire to include Class40 rafts and bailey bridges?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want the ability, as a real life commander does, to overcome obstacles, natural and manmade which might lay in his path. Simple as that. River? Bridge it. Ditch? Fascine it, etc and so on.

At the present moment, we are forced into the IMO unnatural situation that we must seize a bridge if we are to cross any sort of water obstacle. Essentially, the attacker is channelled to choke points which are easily defended.

[Andrew H.]

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

Andrew,

if you aren't interested then save your keyboard some wear and tear, and don't bother posting. There are several aspects of this game that interest me not a jot - mods being foremost among them - but manage to restrain myself when yet another mods thread appears. Please, for both our sakes, have the good grace to do likewise.

Thank you

Jon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real point of my post is that vehicles like this are outside the scope of CM and belong in some other game that is more suited to their actual deployment. Presumably, that's why BTS didn't spend the coding time to put these engineering-type vehicles in the game in the first place.

Look at CM as it is actually played and it is hard to imagine anyone purchasing these units. In a, say 1500 point QB, who's going to buy a bridging unit or a flail tank? Not many people, I would suspect.

True, you could have a scenario with, say, a bridging unit (assuming, for the moment, that CM had terrain that could be bridged by these units). But it's hard to imagine that as a very interesting scenario, because if you destroy one key unit (the bridging vehicle), that side loses.

If CM had a larger scale -- large enough that the attacker could pick a weakly defended sector of the front and use engineering vehicles to cross obstacles so as to force a breach in that part of the front, it would be a mistake not to include these vehicles.

But that game isn't CM. CM is a tactical, squad level game depicting battles between approximately equally matched opponents. There's not a lot of room for much of the engineering battle at this scale.

[Steve N Jackson]

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

Re-reading this, and coupled with your other comments earlier, I have decided that you are indeed clueless. You seem to have no comprehension of the engineering battle you clamour on about so loudly beyond the training movie you watched. I sincerely suggest you go and talk to an engineer about the laying of bridges under combat conditions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit I am not a military engineer - never had ambitions to be one. I have observed Engineers at work though - and I am well aquainted with what their capabilities are.

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

Here are some clues, to help you on your way:

1) If bridges were unimportant, why did armies go out of their way to capture/blow them up?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not say they were "unimportant". I made it clear that they represent choke points for an attacker, in the context of the game (as Mr.Slapdragon's mantra has it).

Armies sought to capture bridges because they would ease their advance and their logistical burden. However, at the same time, if the desire was to advance along a different route where bridges did not exist, then armies do have the ability to create their own.

I can think of only 3 famous operations/battles in NW where the capture of bridges were the major focus - over the Orne, in Normandy, Market-Garden and Remagen. I'm sure there were others but there were also cases where bridges were deliberately bypassed and the attacker decided to cross somewhere else, away from the obvious defences.

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

2) If 79th AD was the panacea to all German resistance, why could the Germans hold on for months to defenses behind streams, e.g. the canals in the low countries, the Rhine, the Scheldt. 79th AD was present at all these battles, and materially influenced their outcome, but why not faster, if it was the be-all and end-all of combat engineering?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB]

I never claimed it was a panacea, merely an advantage that the British created to help them to circumvent those very situations, where obstacles were used to hinder or channel their advance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB}

3) What is the deployment time of a Class 40 bailey bridge, and what are the pre-requisites for its construction (hint - the answer as to why existing sites with blown bridges were used is in here)?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the deployment time is very dependent upon several factors - primarily the number of men and whether or not they are under fire. According to This site, which is the manual for the modern US Army class 40 bridge, it depends upon the distance to be bridged and the number of engineers undertaking the task.

I will note though, that the British worked to overcome these limitations by building entire bridges off-site and moving them into position as rapidly as possible to allow an assault to occur. As Chamberlain and Ellis note in their "British and American Tanks of World War II":

"Churchill AVRE's were used operationally to propel various types of assault bridge used in combat. These included the Skid Bailey, a short bridge built from Bailey parts, mounted on skids and pushed and pulled into place by two AVRE's, and the Mobile Bailey Bridge which was a complete (class 40) bridge

mounted on dumb Orolo track units. Two AVRE's were also used to propel this. Two other similar types were the Brown and Dalton Mobile Bridges, used in Italy, built from Bailey parts and pushed by one AVRE while a second AVRE, with turret removed, acted as the carrier vehicle."

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

4) If you have a game without anti-tank ditches and small streams, is there a need to model the means to cross these non-existant barriers in the game?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree there isn't. Nor have I insisted there should be. I have noted that I think its rather unrealistic to expect a simulation which purports to portray WWII in NW Europe to not have those features included in it. If those features were included in the game, then obviously a means to overcome them would be required.

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

5) Why don't you just admit you are wrong, instead of continuing to have a go at Slappy? It gets tiresome, you know.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there are two things here - one, I don't necessarily believe there is a "right" or a "wrong" in this discussion, more a case of a thesis and an anti-thesis - the combination of which will produce a synthesis.

Mr.Slapdragon, as Brian has noted, appears on the otherhand to treat CM and this BBS as his private property and woe betide anybody who questions his authority. I like unseating those who like to seat themselves on such high horses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB}

6) Have you ever seen a canal in NWE?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. I was though, referring more to the network of irrigation and drainage canals, rather than the major navigable canals which I think you're referring to.

Either way, there are a lot of waterways in NW Europe which are in all likelihood, 20+ metres in width, which don't appear in most scenarios.

[Simon Fox]

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

Oh Eumundi, not that I want to shatter your world of Kangaroos and Koalas, but you do know that Simon is Australian, do you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sssssh you git! You Germans were never very good at this intelligence stuff and no bloody wonder!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

The real point of my post is that vehicles like this are outside the scope of CM and belong in some other game that is more suited to their actual deployment. Presumably, that's why BTS didn't spend the coding time to put these engineering-type vehicles in the game in the first place.

Look at CM as it is actually played and it is hard to imagine anyone purchasing these units. In a, say 1500 point QB, who's going to buy a bridging unit or a flail tank? Not many people, I would suspect.

True, you could have a scenario with, say, a bridging unit (assuming, for the moment, that CM had terrain that could be bridged by these units). But it's hard to imagine that as a very interesting scenario, because if you destroy one key unit (the bridging vehicle), that side loses.

If CM had a larger scale -- large enough that the attacker could pick a weakly defended sector of the front and use engineering vehicles to cross obstacles so as to force a breach in that part of the front, it would be a mistake not to include these vehicles.

But that game isn't CM. CM is a tactical, squad level game depicting battles between approximately equally matched opponents. There's not a lot of room for much of the engineering battle at this scale.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So we are supposed to ascertain the real point of your post through mental telepathy are we?

Since we are not talking about a single vehicle then if you want to make a point you should address each vehicle individually and offer some sort of supporting argument or evidence that they in fact "belong in some other game". Whatever the real point of your post then unless you support it with irrefutable evidence it is merely opinion and should therefore be expressed as such. Your presumption as to why certain vehicles aren't in the game is just that.

Many people do not play QBs at all. Are mines in the game?

Your point regarding bridging units is largely moot since the appropriate minor obstacles are not present. If and when BTS elect to change the terrain model and include them there may be an argument for such vehicles. Typically for bridging type assaults over obstacles like AT ditches there would be multiple assault teams for exactly this reason.

Some people would love to see a better representation of engineer supported assaults in CM. I would suggest that many more people would agree that this would add a new and interesting element to the game. This is evinced by the many threads on the subject pre-dating even the beta demo. The current treatment of it is largely cursory and it is currently outside the scope of CM. In my opinion the scale of the game has nothing to do with it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Terence - indeed those are Bailey bridges. We still use them in Canada; one of my best friends is an engineer in the Canadian Forces; it does indeed take a wee bit longer than 30 minutes to "build" one.

Germanboy is about the biggest proponent of Commonwealth stuff I know (duh) so its beyond me why any of you regulars feel the need to respond to him. Ignore the little peckerwood.