Where did all the funnies go?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Back to the original topic,

BTS has like almost every tactical computer wargame I have seen, has marginalized the Engineer battle.

In reality it is as critical as the other two pillars Direct and Indirect Fire. But as it seems most game developers have little expertise in this area, it get pushed to the side.

CMBO does model a few things which more than some games but the cost vs effect of some of the obstacles is waaay out of proportion to the negative and other aspects have been left out.

Engineering in the assault is probably as critical as your indirect fire plan in reality but in CM they get pushed into the role of "infantry with satchels". From what I have read the crew is developing the obstacles et al for CMBB and I will be interested in looking at just how much they change the game.

So I guess the short answer the "funnies" went the same place as proper minefields, crater groups, wire which can be blown, AT ditches, vehicle run up positions and various other engineer devices which are used in reality but risk throwing the game off balance if employed in such a way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An excellent and well thought out post, Capt.

I and others have also wondered where the ability of engineers to influence the battle had went. Why is it not possible to crater roads, demolish bridges/buildings, destroy barbed-wire, etc.? As a task force commander, I would have these facilities, which were utilised "in the assault". It even appears the humble wire-cutters have been forgotten.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

It even appears the humble wire-cutters have been forgotten.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But even if you cut a hole through a barbed wire obstacle (and really, how do you model that in the game without having to calculate how long someone was working at it, etc.) you still have one small gap in a 20 metre stretch - you are still going to channel a squad going through it, meaning they will have to slow down to pass through, not to mention bunching up - which one can argue is currently modelled anyhow.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

There are a number of problems in this area (well, here we are in that imperfect world again, aren't we). I was just thinking tonight how often in QBs I am obliged to begin my forces in terrain that I would not choose to defend or (if the attacker) would not choose for my start line. It's often impossible to have my FOs in locations with good LOS. If I have vehicles, there may be no good covering terrain for them to wait behind until they are called for. And so on.

This is not to say that commanders in the real world often had all that they could want in this regard, but I strongly suspect that they may have had a bit more flexibility available to them.

Michael

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In "real life" I agree that commnders do not always get the best situation possible, handed to them. However, they do tend to try to work out as much as possible before the start an attack. One point is that unless things were hurried, platoons do tend to stick closely together. Yet in CM when I've started quick battles or even the planned scenarios, I keep finding sections spread all over the place, on the opposite sides of deployment zones, and so on. At the same time I find my "columns" more closely resemble sunday school outings than proper approach columns with an advance guard, main body, etc.

Now, I don't know if this a fault of the game's mechanics (I've only designed one scenario thus far myself and am still working through the process) or the laziness/ignorance of the scenario designers.

[Ales Dvorak]

The_Capt,

Lurker?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Play scenarios that get good ratings at the Scenario Depot, and rate those that are crap, and over time the quality should go up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most scenarios are US-centric, which I am not that interested in. An alternative is write my own, which is something I'm presently working on.

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

Regarding the statement of the Commonwealth being undermodeled - *shrug*. Finns think Finns are undermodeled (and they are not even in the game), and some think Germans are undermodeled, and Americans think Americans got shafted, which to me says BTS got it pretty much right.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not debating that they did not "get it pretty much right". What I am suggesting is that it requires a little bit more tweaking. As there appears to be little input from BTS itself in these forums, as far as I can tell, its a bit hard to determine if what is being discussed is being considered for inclusion in patches or new releases in the future.

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

Even people I really trust on the Commonwealth stuff (like Simon Fox IIRC) say that it was difficult to say how common the tripod-mounted Bren was. I have never seen a picture of it, or heard of it being employed, and I own a fair range of Commonwealth books.

[/QB/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't Brian post two pictures of the tripod mounted Bren in another thread?

I haven't heard anyone suggest it was necesarily common, but then so many weapons which were not common are already included. Production levels for most German AFV's was so low that IMO it would have been possible to fight an entire campaign and never see a vehicle - how common were Ferdinands/Elephants/Tiger(p) in NW Europe? How common was the Lynx?

Same goes for the Allied side to a certain extent - how common was the Crocodile? How common the Jumbo or the M26?

Yet, here we have a piece of equipment which was part of the CES for the weapon and its not even included.

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

As Vanir says - BTS did not have time to do everything. They needed to get the game out at some point, it was already six months late, and one my most beloved funnies (and a truly crucial one for the Scheldt battles) is the Buffalo. I eventually got over it.

Anyway, since a fascine carrier or a bridgelayer are nothing but AVREs as modeled in the game once they have dropped their load, you can say that they have been modeled as vehicles, albeit not with their special abilities.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why they were created - for their special abilities.

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

Open ground is not just open ground - in the background, the calculation takes into account shallows, ditches, etc. Not small streams, but I really don't know how important that is for the modeling in the game. I live in north-western Europe BTW, and I don't feel the game is artificial at all. Many maps are (particularly auto-generated), but with some knowledge of the terrain, and some abstractions in terms of cover, you can create realistic and good-looking maps. It is very easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't doubt it. My problem is that from my knowledge of NW Europe its criss-crossed with irrigation channels, canals, streams, rivers, you name it - water is a very dominant feature of the geography. In WWI, destruction of the ability to drain a large slice of the countryside rendered it impassable. Such waterways do make movement across country difficult and slow it considerably, yet CMBO seems to assume that only something 20+ metres wide will impede movement and then doesn't provide the means to actually execute a crossing of them...

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Most scenarios are US-centric, which I am not that interested in. An alternative is write my own, which is something I'm presently working on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd take another look; what type of scenarios/which forces were you looking for specifically? I have a handful of Brit/Canadian one at my two sites, with others in development as we speak by a variety of scenario authors. No funnies, though...

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

It is easy to drive 22 mph to an obstacle and lay a fascine on it when you are told where it is, rehearse it for a camera 10 times, then do it at full speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe so, IYO. IMO, the point being made was that this is how they intended to use it - it could be done. Even if the speed was below the 22 mph top speed of a Churchill, the point was that there would not have been the significant pause that I've seen assumed in so many wargames sets of rules. In battle its either the quick or the dead.

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

In combat, you get only one chance - usually with smoke drifting about, shells dropping on you, etc. And the only advance notice you have may be at the O Group the night before, with a rough pencil sketch of enemy positions, or a grease pencil mark on a 1:25000 map. Or, worse, the next day, when the troop sergeant radios you and says there is a ditch "over there, reference: red house - three fingers left!" Hard to motor over at full speed and do it with movie-like precision if you have only the vaguest idea where the bloody thing is....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless, as you are a key part of the assault plan, then you've been involved in a pre-attack recce as well as a full dress-rehearsal.

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

That is what I mean by front lines - as opposed to a rehearsed scene in a training film.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't look terribly "rehearsed" to me. Appeared more to be a case of "this is how we use this weapon" - there was more than sufficient smoke and explosions going off (this was, afterall, a battle range during war time - live ammunition was being utilised). The only advantage the driver might have been that he was familiar with the ground beforehand. That might have allowed a much higher speed than he'd use over unfamiliar ground but I think you're still missing the point - its an operation that was conducted as quickly as possible, not something which was conducted in a hesitant, slow manner.

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

Nothing in a battle goes according to plan, or training, - yes?

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But training ensures that you can adapt to changing circumstance - that they trained to use this at full-speed meant that they presented less of a target to the enemy who would percieve this as a major threat to the ability of their natural/prepared defences to channel/slow the advance of their enemy's forces - guess who they all start shooting at - its usually the funny machine which looks different. If I was inside, I would want to get it laid and out of the way ASAP - the film reflected that.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'd take another look; what type of scenarios/which forces were you looking for specifically? I have a handful of Brit/Canadian one at my two sites, with others in development as we speak by a variety of scenario authors. No funnies, though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said, "most" not "all". I've visited most of the various sites around, your's included, which host scenarios - apart from a lot of duplication (not a bad thing, in itself), most of the scenarios are US versus German.

As to what sort of scenarios I'm looking for, basically British versus Germans, preferrably non-elite (and no, I don't class the funnies as "elite" rather as "specialised"). I'd like to see more historical ones.

I'm presently working on a scenario about a small action I've read about on the western flank of the operations around Caen - where the British fought in the hedgerows.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I'm presently working on a scenario about a small action I've read about on the western flank of the operations around Caen - where the British fought in the hedgerows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you'll let us know when you're finished/require testing. I am always interested in new Commonwealth scenarios.

I've gotten a good topo map of the terrain around XANTEN which was fought over during Veritable, but decent OOBs for the Germans are hard to come by.

[offtaskagain]

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

I am not debating that they did not "get it pretty much right". What I am suggesting is that it requires a little bit more tweaking. As there appears to be little input from BTS itself in these forums, as far as I can tell, its a bit hard to determine if what is being discussed is being considered for inclusion in patches or new releases in the future.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch, you've stepped on a major land mine here. To date Madmatt has 3926 posts, Kwazydog has 1294 posts, and Steve has only a few more at 6668 posts. I'd say they're one of the most responsive game manufacturers ever. Have you ever considered they might be trying to get CM2 done?

Edited for one more bit. BTS has said no more patches for CMBO.

[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Ouch, you've stepped on a major land mine here. To date Madmatt has 3926 posts, Kwazydog has 1294 posts, and Steve has only a few more at 6668 posts. I'd say they're one of the most responsive game manufacturers ever. Have you ever considered they might be trying to get CM2 done?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet they appear not to take part in these discussions about Commonwealth weapons/equipment.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

[/qb]

Yet they appear not to take part in these discussions about Commonwealth weapons/equipment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ron Volstad gave me the perfect quote for situations like this: "Where were you when I needed you?"

Hopefully these topics will come to the fore again when the CMII engine is written and NW Europe is revisited. Until then, there is no point quibbling about Commonwealth stuff, since there will be no more changes to CMBO, and all energies are directed at CM2.

I still have serious issues about sergeants being in charge of Commonwealth infantry sections!

But, it is of course, time to move on. I wouldn't expect BTS to take part, and am in fact very pleased with the representation that Commonwealth forces have received in CM. How many other games have gotten the red ensign flag correct, or bothered with such nationalities as Free Polish or Free French?

These conversations also, quite frankly, never seem to solve anything. Looking at our funnies discussion, for example - it is clear both you and I resorted to talking out of our asses instead of actually consulting an actual reference or source regarding "how fast" a fascine tank could operate. Not very helpful to BTS even if they did show an interest in modelling funnies. So why should they waste their time, when CM2 is on the way?

I think the implication on your part (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the BTS design team is relatively unschooled re: Commonwealth stuff. The point is, the time for that discussion is long past, and we are stuck with what we've got. When NWE is revisited, or for that matter early war and desert Commonwealth stuff - perhaps discussions like these will have some relevance to them. I am willing to bet that when the time comes, they will in fact listen.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...Hopefully these topics will come to the fore again when the CMII engine is written and NW Europe is revisited...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or for CM3 (Merde Med - CMMM). Late war Italy has many similarities (including basically the same nationalities involved. Though no SS IIRC) with NWE.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I still have serious issues about sergeants being in charge of Commonwealth infantry sections!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole rank structure for the Commonwealth is out of whack - companies in theory should be commanded by a Major, and Battalions by a LtCol. I suppose you could rationalise it that enemy fire has killed or incapacitated every company and battalion commander, in every scenario and QB, and that the 2iC has taken over ...

Regards

JonS

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ron Volstad gave me the perfect quote for situations like this: "Where were you when I needed you?"

Hopefully these topics will come to the fore again when the CMII engine is written and NW Europe is revisited. Until then, there is no point quibbling about Commonwealth stuff, since there will be no more changes to CMBO, and all energies are directed at CM2.

I still have serious issues about sergeants being in charge of Commonwealth infantry sections!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unusual but typically American view of rank structure then.

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

But, it is of course, time to move on. I wouldn't expect BTS to take part, and am in fact very pleased with the representation that Commonwealth forces have received in CM. How many other games have gotten the red ensign flag correct, or bothered with such nationalities as Free Polish or Free French?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No idea. How do you tell the difference between a Polish Army unit and a British Army unit, apart from shoulder titles and language? Ditto for Free French and US units?

I'd be more worried if the assumption was (as usual, according to too many Americans) the US won the war and did all the fighting.

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

These conversations also, quite frankly, never seem to solve anything. Looking at our funnies discussion, for example - it is clear both you and I resorted to talking out of our asses instead of actually consulting an actual reference or source regarding "how fast" a fascine tank could operate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has someone provided a better reference than the movie which I saw? I haven't read one, thus far. I didn't attempt to give a speed, I merely stated, "at speed" - they definitly weren't crawling, in fact the speed was what surprised me, more than anything else - I'd never realised the Churchill was actually that sprightly, nor when carrying a bloody great roll of branches on its front. Its that sort of thing which something like this training film conveys, so much more than simply reading in a book, "the top speed of the Churchill was...".

Reminds me of a different film I once saw on the Centurion - it demonstrated that a Centurion could climb, quite happily a slope that a man walking alongside had trouble keeping up with it on. Yet, all the books would merely have stated, "Maximum Incline - xx degrees" - how does that translate to real life though?

Yet, it appears that many here would prefer to resort to their tabulated data rather than see the experience of how these vehicles operated, as related through the medium of film.

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

I think the implication on your part (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the BTS design team is relatively unschooled re: Commonwealth stuff.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have said that was also the implication on your part, as well. I think its obvious they know something about the subject but not everything. I would suggested that they know, at a guess, shall we say 90% about American, 85% about Germans, 75% about British matters - if we were to use a linear scale.

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

The point is, the time for that discussion is long past, and we are stuck with what we've got. When NWE is revisited, or for that matter early war and desert Commonwealth stuff - perhaps discussions like these will have some relevance to them. I am willing to bet that when the time comes, they will in fact listen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. I will bide my time, then.

Indeed, I look forward with keen anticipation the chance to actually play earlier periods in WWII. I lost interest in late war WWII in Europe a long time ago. CMBO has rekindled it a little but I'm still much more interested in the early period and the SW Pacific and Burma than I am in NW Europe.

[Slapdragon]

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

[/qb]

Yet they appear not to take part in these discussions about Commonwealth weapons/equipment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this is for two major reasons. First, they are actually making the next game, and according to the lastest public post from Madmatt, they have gotten quite far in the design process.

Second, there are so many "this nationality gets treated unfair because of x" threads that have so little substance, that they would all need to read full-time to keep up with the threads, and if they changed the game each time a thread went up they would forever be playing wack-a-mole as each special interest lobbied for its own advantageous change to the game. Steve, Charles, Matt, and Dawg have always been very neutral parties, so when debates either start with the obscure and rare (for example, Micheal Dorosh mentioned how rare the Bren tripod was, someone else wants the Mause that never made it into the war even) or with a set of arguments that is basically couched in nationalism rather than historical debate, they usually seem to stay out except to answer the worst / best of the questions.

Take the funnies. They may well have a criteria in mind on which ones to add in later games. For example, tp add the game the funnies may need to be useable in less 15 minutes of action (leaving out the ark) and must be tactically deployable (bye bye Sherman bomb roller) and have been tactically employed. Many funnies simply are not deployable in the average scenario length.

In addition, each funnies needs special coding and animation, so the designer needs to ask how much work is it versus how common was it. This is very important because maybe it is much more important to improve the simulation of ambush than to build a funny that was rarely used in tactical combat.

Finally as a side note, the funnies that were very common including the AVRE did indeed make it into the game, despite requiring that extra coding.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Second, there are so many "this nationality gets treated unfair because of x" threads that have so little substance,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was wondering when you'd put in an appearance, Slapdragon. Why is that you interpret criticism such as "this is inaccurate" to "this nationality gets treated unfairly"?

Why does a desire for accurate portrayal become in your mind a desire for advantage in the game?

Thus far, we have - the 25 Pdr, the Bren, the universal carrier, rank structures, the funnies and I'm sure a few others that I've missed. In each and every case, where people have pointed the inaccuracies, you've leapt in, confusing the issue and utilising ad hominem to try and divert attention from the real issues which are being raised.

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

Take the funnies. They may well have a criteria in mind on which ones to add in later games. For example, tp add the game the funnies may need to be useable in less 15 minutes of action (leaving out the ark) and must be tactically deployable (bye bye Sherman bomb roller) and have been tactically employed. Many funnies simply are not deployable in the average scenario length.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm unaware of any funnies which could not be deployed within the average length scenario, given that they are usually readied before a battle would commence. You seem to believe preparation for use is the same as the length of time taken to deploy a particular vehicle.

The Ark took some time to prepare but in actual use all that was required was for it to drive into the ditch/crater/etc and for a few explosive squibs to be blown which deployed the ramps. If anything, its faster than the Churchill bridgelayer which took about 3-5 minutes to deploy - which is why it was used. The Assault Bridge was just as fast (but much clumsier to use), while the skid-bailey bridge would depend on how far back it needed to be assembled (which would occur before the battle started.

Even the Great Eastern was deployed in under 3 minutes (quite impressive, even perhaps alarming to watch, with its multiple ramps deploying via rockets).

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

In addition, each funnies needs special coding and animation, so the designer needs to ask how much work is it versus how common was it. This is very important because maybe it is much more important to improve the simulation of ambush than to build a funny that was rarely used in tactical combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be so but if we are discussing historical accuracy, then we must discuss that these vehicles were available and then by extension ask why they weren't available in the game.

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

Finally as a side note, the funnies that were very common including the AVRE did indeed make it into the game, despite requiring that extra coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet they didn't make it the most common variant of the AVRE but rather the least - based on the Mk.VII Churchill - indeed, you have the Mk.VIII included in the game, perhaps the rarest of all Churchill variants to have ever been produced.

I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added. However, I'd also agree with you that perhaps the designers decided they wanted to place more emphasis elsewhere in the game, like modelling the Lynx or the Jumbo Sherman...

[M Hofbauer]

hey KB MP Ma,

I called you on your original presumptous statement; I think you had better come up with a production figure for Hobart funnies in excess of three thousand per type before you wander off to new preposterous claims (and btw, in case you hadn't noticed - there is no Ferdinand/Elephant in CMBO) or other unwarranted statements about BTS etc.

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

how common were Ferdinands/Elephants/Tiger(p) in NW Europe?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

hey KB MP Ma,

I called you on your original presumptous statement; I think you had better come up with a production figure for Hobart funnies in excess of three thousand per type before you wander off to new preposterous claims (and btw, in case you hadn't noticed - there is no Ferdinand/Elephant in CMBO) or other unwarranted statements about BTS etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to have a civility implant.

You also seem to equate "production numbers" with "numbers issued".

All the sources I have state that the Puppchen was not widely issued or used - indeed most refer to the point that becuase it was mounted on wheels/skids it was not considered a proper infantry weapon.

Now, I'm always willing to be corrected, if its done in civil manner and you provide some references.

The Funnies were not produced in large numbers but they were widely used, being attached to even US Army units because the Americans were either unable or unwilling to produce their own equivalent vehicles.

BTW, I used the example of the Elephant/Ferdinand as a vehicle which was extremely rare, and unless you served on the Eastern Front at Kursk or in Italy, you'd never even have known of its existence, not that it was included in CMBO.

[M Hofbauer]

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

I think you need to have a civility implant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

says who??? looks like you were the one coming in here like the proverbial disgruntled ex-US postal worker revisiting his former workplace.

tu quoque, Mr Beazley!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You also seem to equate "production numbers" with "numbers issued".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can you not read? the final figure I gave was that of actual field strength, not of production or arsenal stock.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the sources I have<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

which don't seem to be a lot

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> state that the Puppchen was not widely issued or used - indeed most refer to the point that becuase it was mounted on wheels/skids it was not considered a proper infantry weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well no ****, I guess that's why it was discontinued in February 1944?

now guess what, even given it's suboptimal characteristics, given the chronic shortage of AT measures in the german army all during ww II, if you were put to the alternative of having an imperfect weapon or none at all, what would you choose?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I'm always willing to be corrected, if its done in civil manner and you provide some references.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tu quoque. You were the one coming in here, and I still haven't seen you elaborate on exact figures or combat reports from reliable official sources for your claim to Funnies. You are the onme making the claim, so it is your first turn to base it on respective evidence which you still haven't done. Instead, you are talking "out of your ass" (to quote your fellow commonwealther Mike) about things where you clearly have no clue. When confronted, you take evasive action and shift to new preposterous claims.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Funnies were not produced in large numbers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but they were widely used, being attached to even US Army units because the Americans were either unable or unwilling to produce their own equivalent vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know about this use *in general*. But still you are not giving any concrete evidence on combat use.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, I used the example of the Elephant/Ferdinand as a vehicle which was extremely rare, and unless you served on the Eastern Front at Kursk or in Italy, you'd never even have known of its existence, not that it was included in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well then how does that have anything to do with your whining about CMBO modeling oh-so-rare vehicles while leaving out those british specialty tanks? It does not further your argument the least bit.

M.Hofbauer, Hfw cd iur WA KA

[M Hofbauer]

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

I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not how the game works, using 20x20m tiles etc. (see other posts before).

Look, others said it repeatedly before, let me say it again: your comments, however justified or not, are moot, because BTS is now working on CMBB - eastern front. I am sure not even you are lobbying for an inclusion of Hobarts funnies there.

They have stated repeatedly that CMBO is *done*. No more patches, and surely no re-writing of code.

Your energy is ill-spent on this.

[Andreas]

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

Most scenarios are US-centric, which I am not that interested in. An alternative is write my own, which is something I'm presently working on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go to Der Kessel (in my sig-line) and have a look at the following by me:

49th Recce (Brits)

To the last man (Canucks)

Into the East (Poles)

Trun (Canucks)

Raid across the Rhine (AI) (Canucks)

These are five of the seven scenarios I have published so far. The first three of the above list are in Big Dog's 'Top 10 with at least 3 reviews at the Depot list' (I think). Except for the last, they can be played either side (a TCP version for that one is forthcoming). I have four more with Commonwealth forces forthcoming, one of these a historical battle of 5th DCLI (at Les Plessis Grimault) and none with US. I have a historical battle of Maltot (A Sqdr. 9th RTR and 7th Hamps on 9th July 1944) on my HD that I will not publish because it does not work as well as I want it to, but I would be happy to send it to you, maybe you have an idea about it.

Michael Dorosh has done a lot of Commonwealth scenarios, IIRC. If you can not find good Commonwealth stuff, I think you have been looking in the wrong places.

Now, just to lay this other idea of me being against reinforcing the Commonwealth to rest: the three vehicles I miss most in this game (not in the Commonwealth vehicle list) are in order of yearning:

Buffalo (for the Scheldt battles)

Crusader AA tank

Churchill III w/6-pdr

Regarding the tripod-mounted Bren. I saw the picture. What I meant are pictures in action. I have seen a lot of pictures of ordinary Brens in action, but I have never seen one of the 2,500 that JonS talks about in NWE. Maybe they hid them when the photographers came around, maybe my collection of Commonwealth literature is just not good enough, but somehow I wonder if it could be that they just weren't deployed that often.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

well then how does that have anything to do with your whining about CMBO modeling oh-so-rare vehicles while leaving out those british specialty tanks? It does not further your argument the least bit.

M.Hofbauer, Hfw cd iur WA KA<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am presently at work. My books are at home. When I return home this evening, have fed, watered, bathed and bedded the kids and have a few moments to myself I will consult them.

Your figures were for numbers produced and numbers held, if memory serves me correctly. That does not necessarily equate to numbers issued.

As to its utility, the German army was, as Richard Overy pointed out, rather technologically "fastidious" - they often refused the workable in favour of the gold-plated - witness the Panther.

As to why you think the Germans were badly off for AT weapons I have no idea. Mid-war perhaps, before the deployment of the Panzerfaust and Panzershrek but late war they were more than adequately served IMO.

[Andreas]

M Hofbauer, funnies were widely used. 79th AD had about 1,500 or thereabouts AFVs at the end of the campaign. There were special liaison officers at every Commonwealth division GHQ (and maybe 9th US Army as well, since it was part of 21st AG) to ensure that they were used correctly, and not lost because the infantry officers did not know what they could and could not do. They were also parcelled out - the Crocodile was AFAIK the only Commonwealth AFV that had the half-troop as smallest tactical unit (presumably because four of them were overkill in most situations). Deployment for funnies was out of proportion to total numbers.

I am just not sure that they were used in the CMBO part of the battle. When I get the time I check my copies of UK divisional histories for that.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

I have a historical battle of Maltot (A Sqdr. 9th RTR and 7th Hamps on 9th July 1944) on my HD that I will not publish because it does not work as well as I want it to, but I would be happy to send it to you, maybe you have an idea about it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be more than happy to look at it.

What I'm saying is that, not that there are no Commonwealth scenarios but rather that there are not as many as I'd hoped. That is changing I note, as it seems more are written, which is a good situation, I agree.

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

Now, just to lay this other idea of me being against reinforcing the Commonwealth to rest: the three vehicles I miss most in this game (not in the Commonwealth vehicle list) are in order of yearning:

Buffalo (for the Scheldt battles)

Crusader AA tank

Churchill III w/6-pdr

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the Buffalo is sorely missed. I miss the earlier marks of Churchill, whether 75mm or 6 Pdr armed - as the early marks were the ones that were most often remanufactured into AVRE's.

What I miss most are perhaps the landingcraft, gliders and so on. I know its possible to "abstract" their presence but I actually want to be able to bring a landingcraft ashore or land a glider and get the men/vehicles out and onto their objectives.

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

Regarding the tripod-mounted Bren. I saw the picture. What I meant are pictures in action. I have seen a lot of pictures of ordinary Brens in action, but I have never seen one of the 2,500 that JonS talks about in NWE. Maybe they hid them when the photographers came around, maybe my collection of Commonwealth literature is just not good enough, but somehow I wonder if it could be that they just weren't deployed that often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen, over the years, several pictures of them in use. I'll have to think though, where. It was more than likely in some book borrowed from a library, rather than necessarily in my collection.

I don't think the point is how often they were deployed but rather whether they were available. As they are listed in the weapon's CES I'd expect to see them on issue. As to whether or not the soldiers decided it was worthwhile pulling them out and using them is another matter. I was personally surprised to see the picture of them being still used in Korea. My understanding was that they'd virtually disappeared after the war.

[Simon Fox]

OK where to start?

Settle down Hofbauer! I have gleaned one pearl of wisdom amongst all your "ill-spent energy"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They have stated repeatedly that CMBO is *done*. No more patches, and surely no re-writing of code.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too true. Still it doesn't stop one from discussing them generally nor attempting a reasonable explanation as to why they are not in, does it?

My impression is that because of the time and difficulty of including specialised engineering vehicles and the obstacles they were intended to deal with, they were not put in the game. It was purely and simply an issue of resource allocation I would think. As has been observed the game treats engineers in a fairly cursory fashion for this reason. Maybe sometime down the track it will be possible for BTS to put in the effort (which will be not inconsiderable I fancy) to include this interesting aspect in a future version of the game.

As for the funnies I would suggest that most of the "in combat" uses that would appear in CMBO would utilise various capabilities of the ARVE (bridges and fascines etc) rather than the other vehicles based on the Churchill chassis (ie ARKs). Although these are not present currently neither are the terrain types they dealt with. Therefore the point is largely moot. Personally I think the ARVE is a bit of a waste of time in the game, I would have much rather seen some of those vehicles on Germanboy's list (Buffaloes would've been great!). I've encountered a few situations where I would've loved a few flails as well.

Just a couple of specific points "Kim"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet they didn't make it the most common variant of the AVRE but rather the least - based on the Mk.VII Churchill - indeed, you have the Mk.VIII included in the game, perhaps the rarest of all Churchill variants to have ever been produced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you say that? Going by the stats, the ARVE is based on the Mk3/4. In the game it has the same armour as the Mk6 which is basically a Mk4 with a 75mm gun. In fact it's armour is undermodelled since the ARVEs were uparmoured at the time of conversion, but that's another story. As for the other marks it would be best to consider the Mk7 in the game as representing both itself and the Mk10. The same applies to the Mk8 and the Mk11. Most of the earlier Mk3-5 were uparmoured over time to a similar level to the Mk7 or converted to other vehicles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would suggest that the extra coding to add a bundle of tree branches which would then allow tanks to cross narrow waterways/ditches could be added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, but to do that they would have had to put in narrow waterways/ditches. Which they didn't for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here because they are quite complex but do not include a conviction that such terrain features did not exist