Fascine Reprise

[Battlefront.com]

Whoops... tired eyes. Original post by me was based on 1st page of discussion, not last.

Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. We have discussed bridging during a game many times in the past, but we still maintain that this isn't something we should divert attention away from the core issues to simulate.

Steve

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Whoops... tired eyes. Original post by me was based on 1st page of discussion, not last.

Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. We have discussed bridging during a game many times in the past, but we still maintain that this isn't something we should divert attention away from the core issues to simulate.

Steve

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would mean that according to BTS, much of the engineer battle does not pass muster by one of the six rules Simon simplified from my earlier discussion (do you have that link Spook?). Namely that coding effort is not equal to value in the game because it does not fit the generalized battles, which of course fits with the issue that some of the funnies did not show up in ones and twos at the front.

[Spook]

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

This would mean that according to BTS, much of the engineer battle does not pass muster by one of the six rules Simon simplified from my earlier discussion (do you have that link Spook?). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Wakes up, yawns, stretches, gargles with bourbon, yawns again, pulls a jaw muscle... )

Here's a link. The "guideline," and Simon's condensed format following after, are on page five of the late Beazley's little topic gem:

Where did all the Funnies Go?

I had already forgotten the topic name, but I remembered the end result (padlock) for search guidance.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

And now proceeding to move out further on a limb and saw it off behind me.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur with the given examples (though I suspect that quite a few CM fans will still clamor to see the beach landings & glider/paradrop actions someday). However, CM does broach the "specialized warfare" subject in some limited ways, like small boats allowing river crossings by infantry units. CMBB sewer movement for Stalingrad-based scenarios is allowing a specialized urban warfare. And even for the basic elements of minefields and obstacles, dealing with these sometimes required specialized units or methods.

Not all (or even most) of these engineering elements need be simulated "in-game," but per Andreas's earlier suggestion, an "engineering phase" between scenarios in CM operations could add more flexibility to these operations in the future.

[Slapdragon]

Thanks. Here is a reprise of Simon's restatement of my suggested criteria for entry into the game of new elements.

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

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 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what BTS has said about bridging, and other special elements of the game (including troops scaling cliffs, larger landing craft carrying troops, actual landings of airborne troops) is that they, in there opinion, fail test 6, if not other tests.

I do not think this is immediately fatal for any item, just that a really good case needs to be built for the easiest possible coding method for the funnies and engineering elements effected, and those elements need to be set for the other issues. It is good though to identify why these items were left out in the first place, at least better than "BTS hates the British" from the late lamented locked funny thread, and go about making funnies easy enough to add, even if off screen and behind the scenes for many, so that they can effect the CM battlefield realistically.

[RedOrDead]

Fascineating!

[Enoch]

I've been reading this topic from the sidelines as I am don't know that much about it. But, when the engine rewrite comes with CMII aren't the terrain tiles going to decrease in size to something like 5m x 5m? If that is the case then won't obstacles like anti-tank ditches become a part of the game? If so does BTS need a way to include a way for the attacker to overcome these obstacles?

I can see many arguements that say that funnies and other ways of overcoming AT obstacles are not needed. In fact, in CMBO there is no way for an attacker to move or clear a road block. The task of clearing roadblocks is something that takes a long period of time and is outside the tactical engagement scope of CMBO. I suppose BTS could take the same stance on AT ditches if they wanted and it might well be the case that crossing AT ditches and getting through Dragon's teeth is a seperate battle (the engineering battle as others have pointed out).

The question that many have seemed to ask yet gets danced around without and clear answer is whether funnies were deployed at the front in the attack. For example, would a company press an attack to an obstacle, call up a funny to breach the obstacle, and then continue with the attack.

Or was the breaching of the obsatcle a battle in and or itself?

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[The_Capt]

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

33 FES, actually - Reserve. (Are they part of 8 FER?)

My other buddy is Ed Storey in Ottawa; I believe he is mapping and charting now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael,

33 FES is an independent unit but whenever there is a Western Challenge or whatever the hell they call it now, they get rolled into 8 FER in Edmonton. Brent should still be out there, he's an ex-Reg and one hell of a snappy dresser.

I don't think I've ever run into the other guy you mentioned. I only know a couple of guys in Mapping and Curling as I spent all my time in field units.

[The_Capt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Whoops... tired eyes. Original post by me was based on 1st page of discussion, not last.

Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. We have discussed bridging during a game many times in the past, but we still maintain that this isn't something we should divert attention away from the core issues to simulate.

Steve

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much what most people here are saying. However I do think one Engineer specific Operation can be put into the current game..The Reserve Demolition Guard. This is a very interesting situation where a bridge is set-up for demolition and an enemy force tries to take it. It becomes a race against the clock to blow the bridge or hold it until reinforcements show up.

I think it would be very cool but I might be in the minority.

[Michael Emrys]

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

However I do think one Engineer specific Operation can be put into the current game..The Reserve Demolition Guard. This is a very interesting situation where a bridge is set-up for demolition and an enemy force tries to take it. It becomes a race against the clock to blow the bridge or hold it until reinforcements show up.

I think it would be very cool but I might be in the minority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will be happy to join your minority, Capt. Doesn't sound too hard to code (but then, what do I know?) and would add an interesting dimension to the game. Might want to expand it to other things besides bridges even, like crucial buildings that would provide the enemy observation posts over important terrain.

Which reminds me, what's the likelihood of including booby traps, i.e. unidentified mines in buildings?

Michael

[Slapdragon]

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

Pretty much what most people here are saying. However I do think one Engineer specific Operation can be put into the current game..The Reserve Demolition Guard. This is a very interesting situation where a bridge is set-up for demolition and an enemy force tries to take it. It becomes a race against the clock to blow the bridge or hold it until reinforcements show up.

I think it would be very cool but I might be in the minority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a way to design a scenario now that works like this, just no boom from the bridge.

[Battlefront.com]

Spook wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, CM does broach the "specialized warfare" subject in some limited ways, like small boats allowing river crossings by infantry units. CMBB sewer movement for Stalingrad-based scenarios is allowing a specialized urban warfare. And even for the basic elements of minefields and obstacles, dealing with these sometimes required specialized units or methods.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. These elements were added because the do pass a lot of Simon's tests (we have a similar list of tests ), especially the most important one. And that is they were conducted along with other generalized combat within a fairly confined space and timeframe. In other words, we aren't talking about a 30 turn scenario where you crawl engineers out at dark and try to make some paths.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not all (or even most) of these engineering elements need be simulated "in-game," but per Andreas's earlier suggestion, an "engineering phase" between scenarios in CM operations could add more flexibility to these operations in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is on the drawing board. But looking at the schedule now... looks like CM engine rewrite time for this.

Enoch,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or was the breaching of the obsatcle a battle in and or itself?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Often it was a battle all by itself. But generally what would happen is combat forces would feel their way through or around the problem and establish a protective ring around the area to be cleared. Then the engineers and others could move in and get things cleared up. This could take days, even weeks, but nearly always at least hours.

What people often confuse here is that combat engineers are not usually clearing mines and stuff while being shot at by organized defences. Usually they are under fire from artillery/mortars and harrasing small arms. This is not a very exciting thing to make a battle about

The_Capt,

Delaying actions with bridge blowings right under the enemy's nose fail two critical tests. First, very few of these incidents happened. The few that did became the stuff of legand, but in reality thousands of bridges were crossed, or not crossed, without this sort of thing happening, while only what... maybe a half dozen?... did.

The other reason is that within a small timeframe, like 30 turns, what would realistically happen is that the defender would see the enemy coming and blow the bridge before they actually got there. This would be, in CM terms, BEFORE the game started or within the first couple of turns. Then, after seeing that their avenue of advance was destroyed, the attacker would most likely sit around and have a good think about what to do next. The few examples of bridge demoing DURING a battle are the exceptions to the rules, and therefore are the stuff of legands

Oh... and put me in the "minority" as well I do think it would be cool, even if a bit out there, but it is certainly lower priority to doing things like simulating better C&C, movement, etc.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

you can also use a wooden bridge and give the defender a reinforcement in the form of an über-caliber arty FO appearing at the desired turn, plus give hgim a fixed TRP on the bridge.

[The_Capt]

I hear ya Steve but I have a few counter points.

There were what? 10 JagTiger produced and you modeled those, so very rare but "fun" elements are included with the game.

Most "bridge snaps" are suppose to occur at night. I do not think this happened in WWII but how it works is like this.

Bridges are wired to different states depending on the location of the enemy. State 1 (well in NATO) is to have the charges placed and Det cord laid out but not linked up and no intiation sets in place. To go from State 1 to 2 (ready to blow) can take 20-30 mins (especially under fire) if the Guard is caught with their pants down. So this is well in the scope of CM.

What we are talking about is a SF action behind enemy lines probably done by Airborne Forces who will take the bridge at night before it can be wired. Armoured follow up is usually done PDQ after that.

Did it happen...don't know actually. Could it have happened in WWII..definitely. Is it in the scope of CM..yes. Is it worth the time...not my place to say, but it would make one hell of a scenario.

Just an idea.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi there Capt!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There were what? 10 JagTiger produced and you modeled those, so very rare but "fun" elements are included with the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct about the fun thing. We do include stuff that is more "fun", but we don't include "fun" stuff that has a big up front cost in time and an ongoing one in terms of play testing, play balancing, bug fixing, etc.

There were something like 78 Jagdtigers made, most deployed on the Western Front. You are thinking about the Sturmtiger. And we did *not* include it in CMBO because of limited development time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most "bridge snaps" are suppose to occur at night. I do not think this happened in WWII but how it works is like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. The Germans blew up whatever they needed to whenever they needed to. Due to the rapid advance of Allied forces they had to do a lot of this stuff during the day. Generally they would try and hold the bridge until night, withdraw the last rearguard over it, and then blow the thing at the first sign of someone not wearing fieldgray

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What we are talking about is a SF action behind enemy lines probably done by Airborne Forces who will take the bridge at night before it can be wired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If no wiring is involved, then I don't see why it can't be done right now But the number of these ops during the 10 or so months of fighting on the Western Front could be counted on one hand. Yes, they happened, but lots of oddball (and FUN) stuff can pulled out from such a large and dynamic campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it in the scope of CM..yes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, yes. But CM's scope was never designed to simulate special ops and certain types of specialized warfare. Therefore, such stuff doesn't fit into CM's scope as laid out by our focus and vision for the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it worth the time...not my place to say, but it would make one hell of a scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would indeed, but seriously... how many of these scenarios would you actually want to play? If you say one or two... then it isn't worth the time to do it. If you say a ton... then we also don't want to do it because it warps the reality of the game. We already have enough problems with people overusing things like King Tigers, we don't need every other game to be about taking a bridge before it blows up

Steve

P.S. I think the German heavy tank centric players are going to be playing CMBB with a lot of realism options turned off

[Slapdragon]

As long as you peckerwoods at BTS don't mess with the Sdkfz. 199/B-1(d) Landfahrradkreuzermitgrossenverfluchtengewehren then no problems with me. (Can I say Peckerwood on the forum?) Even though a pseudogit like Gerbilboy will deny it, I think they are essential to realistic modelling of the Eastern Front..

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Some not too much reliable sources I have say that flsils were deployed in platoons of 4 or 5 vehicles. 2 or 3 flails in line do the clearing, with another 2 in reserve, as was expected that some flails were lost by the obstacles or enemy fire (an obsctace not covered by fire is not an obstacle ).

Usually were deployed in a way to allow to open two lines for Battalion. That gives us an estimate of 2 Platoons (8 to 10 vehicles) for Battalion in an assault operation.

I will look if I can found a table I saw somewhere on how effective is this kind of breaching, but with modern mine rollers, though <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then as they were British equipment (in the timframe of BO)let us talk in troops, squadrons and regiments and banish this US-speak...........

(though the RTR did use a battalion in lieu of the regiment as ther was only one RTR !)

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Basically... CM was never designed to be a simulation of specialized warfare. Fortress battles, mountain combat, airborne assaults, beach landings, and bridge building all fall into this catagory. We have discussed bridging during a game many times in the past, but we still maintain that this isn't something we should divert attention away from the core issues to simulate.

Steve

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the definition of "specialised warfare" interesting, if even a bit inexplicable.

I'd suggest that these were, for the most part, with the exception of the "mountain combat" pretty much non-specialised forms of warfare which were in reality the bread-and-butter of warfare in NW Europe in the period in question.

Afterall, aren't most, merely variations on the assualt? Different equipment, perhaps but still an assault.

However, lets leave that aside for the moment - I'm much more interested in this idea of what constitutes in your mind "normal" warfare, as against "specialised" warfare.

I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period.

While I agree that some aspects of that can be handled in an abstract pre-battle phase, some cannot IMO. Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required. The same for breaching minefields.

I find the artificial time constraints, the arbritrary "30 turns" of Slappy, very annoying - purely 'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences.

I'm hoping that you as BTS's representative a taking note of this discussion.

[Andreas]

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

I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the level of command we are talking about in CMBO (regardless of time constraint), it really was not the local commanders decision to blow the bridge or not (e.g. the bridge in Nijmegen which the local commander wanted to see blown, while Model stopped him, because it was needed for potential counterattacks).. While I grant you the gap blown in wire (which is simulated to some degree, if you have not noticed, because your men can actually get through it), I would really be interested in a range of cases where the flails were used in a battle, as opposed to before a battle, as seems to have been the case in Astonia, for example. Mines in the El Alamein defenses were also cleared the night before the attack.

How do you intend to use the flails? Have them roll in front, and the infantry and other tanks follow close? Why do you think it is up to a local battalion commander to decide if a bridge is blown? I would say that is up to higher level of command.

[Slapdragon]

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

I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now, I am sure many commanders at lower echelons felt the same way. "Here is a minefield that killed two of my men" a company or troop commander says, "I wish I had a flail troop to clear this sucker."

Or, "Here is this bridge, and I am getting my ass kicked off it. I wish the Yankees had not come so fast that we never got it wired." (I omit British here, because can anyone ever see them moving fast enough to take a bridge without it getting wired and blown? )

This sort of though is likely common, and indeed you find hundreds of instances of lower echelon commanders, who have not been issued higher echelon assets, bitching because it would have been nice to have in battle. The literature is filled with this.

Of course, when faced with major obstacles, like the barrier in front of Metz or the West Wall, troops usually took and held a beach head in these places, or failed to, without special help. The battle would stall while the problem was breahced or went around, and then the fight started again.

With minor obstacles they just had to be gotten around because the Army did not have the support assets to hand out flail troops to every company that found a few shoo mines. They did have enough AVREs and Dozer blades to hand those out, so those are what got handed around.

But when clearing a real road block represents 3 hours of work, the battle would just bypass it and leave it to follow up engineers. Just like our battle bypasses it and leaves it to sims which the game will never need to see or simulate.

[Battlefront.com]

Brian,

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

I'd suggest that these were, for the most part, with the exception of the "mountain combat" pretty much non-specialised forms of warfare which were in reality the bread-and-butter of warfare in NW Europe in the period in question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand how you can think this. The units necessary to do the actions I listed above are absolutely "specailly trained" units, and therefore the actions that they are trained to perform are by definition "specialized". Otherwise, why would an army need "specialists" if any Joe Schmo coming out of basic training can scale cliffs, jump out of an airplane, clear out a fortress with a 100 man garrison, utilize a GHQ vehicle such as a landing craft, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Afterall, aren't most, merely variations on the assualt? Different equipment, perhaps but still an assault.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are specialized assaults Most of the things I mentioned were done only after painstakingly difficult and time consuming planning and execution. They were NOT done on the fly. Some even were done in multiple phases, and only after enemy resistance had been broken or at least diminished.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... or call up a platoon of King Tigers, or call in 8" artillery, etc. etc. What you are talking about is game theory vs. battlefield reality. In the game you are a lowly commander with little to no influence over what you have, when you have it, or how to employ it strategically. That is about as real as it gets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which troops? You mean every lowly Infantry Company had a section of assault boats or several TONS of explosives and the engineers to know how to use them? Poppycock

In CM you are just a peeon commander, like the vast majority of commanders in WWII. You don't have the ability or authorization to do such things. Yes, in rare cases you would, but I point you back to my definition of "specialized warfare" and earlier comments about how rare such stuff was in the first place.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required. The same for breaching minefields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Find me an example where all this AND the general inf/armd attack was done in 30-60 minutes while under frontline enemy fire. Then find a couple hundred more, then we will talk

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find the artificial time constraints, the arbritrary "30 turns" of Slappy, very annoying - purely<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not "arbitrary" in our book, since that was what we designed the game to center around. So when you see him say that, know that there is a very good reason for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally disagree. Again, find me an example of a regular old assault through prepared enemy defences, which included "specialized" actions, which took even 60 minutes to do, from start to finish. I know of none.

The mistake you are making is that of compaction. What generally took hours, days, or sometimes even weeks you want to have done in 30-60 minutes. It just didn't work that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm hoping that you as BTS's representative a taking note of this discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I also was 1/2 of the design team, so I always take note I also took note of the dozen or so discussions that came before this. Which, I might add, had input from some combat engineers who strongly favored our side of the argument. I also remember quoting from an Engineer's manual I have here about the time, materials, specialized equipment, and skills needed to do some of the things you talking about. Honestly, you are woefully underestimating all of this.

Steve

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Tero]

I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire,

... or call up a platoon of King Tigers, or call in 8" artillery, etc. etc. What you are talking about is game theory vs. battlefield reality. In the game you are a lowly commander with little to no influence over what you have, when you have it, or how to employ it strategically. That is about as real as it gets.

With regards to bridge blowing: any chance of getting the FO's do a single gun precision stitch firing to hit point targets like bridges ? With applicable LOS restrictions of course.

[Brian]

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

I don't understand how you can think this. The units necessary to do the actions I listed above are absolutely "specailly trained" units, and therefore the actions that they are trained to perform are by

definition "specialized". Otherwise, why would an army need "specialists" if any Joe Schmo coming out of basic training can scale

cliffs, jump out of an airplane, clear out a fortress with a 100 man garrison, utilize a GHQ vehicle such as a landing craft, etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB]

Perhaps the point is that in reality you have already provided for virtually all those operations, the troops if not the means to undertake those operations. I think what you misunderstanding here is that not that training is needed but rather the technical means. You have provided mountain troops, airborne troops, etc. but they do not have the means, the technical means to undertake those sorts of operations.

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

quote:

Afterall, aren't most, merely variations on the assualt?

Different equipment, perhaps but still an assault.

They are specialized assaults Most of the things I mentioned were

done only after painstakingly difficult and time consuming planning

and execution. They were NOT done on the fly. Some even were

done in multiple phases, and only after enemy resistance had been

broken or at least diminished.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I'd have said, as I already have, that they are merely variations on the single form - assaults. Planning might take longer but execution in most cases, occurs in basically the same time frame.

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

quote:

I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order

a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in

wire,

... or call up a platoon of King Tigers, or call in 8" artillery, etc. etc.

What you are talking about is game theory vs. battlefield reality. In

the game you are a lowly commander with little to no influence over

what you have, when you have it, or how to employ it strategically.

That is about as real as it gets.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, as has been pointed out, suddenly we do have the ability to "call up a platoon of King Tigers, or clal in 8" artillery" - you appear to have forgotten that we have this marvellous system for purchasing equipment, men and units.

That, elevates the player suddenly from the level of the "lowly commander with little to no influence over what he has, when he has it or how to employ it strategically" to that of the much higher commander.

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

quote:

when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of

the troops in the period.

Which troops? You mean every lowly Infantry Company had a section

of assault boats or several TONS of explosives and the engineers to

know how to use them? Poppycock

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but the commander who sits back and designs a force structure for a particular operation does, does he not?

You have provided the ability of the "lowly Infantry Company" commander to suddenly determine what sort of company he will have, what sort of support equipment he can utilise - except it appears to be focussed exclusively on, what I will call for, want of a better word, "the pretty stuff" rather than the more mundane, such as engineering equipment.

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

In CM you are just a peeon commander, like the vast majority of

commanders in WWII. You don't have the ability or authorization to

do such things. Yes, in rare cases you would, but I point you back to

my definition of "specialized warfare" and earlier comments about

how rare such stuff was in the first place.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.

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

quote:

Indeed, the blowing a gap in wire was done as required.

The same for breaching minefields.

Find me an example where all this AND the general inf/armd attack

was done in 30-60 minutes while under frontline enemy fire. Then

find a couple hundred more, then we will talk

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, Bangalore Torpedoes didn't exist then? They were not carried as part of the standard establishment of most Engineer Troops? They were not utilised to blow gaps in wire?

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

quote:

I find the artificial time constraints, the arbritrary "30

turns" of Slappy, very annoying - purely

It is not "arbitrary" in our book, since that was what we designed the

game to center around. So when you see him say that, know that

there is a very good reason for it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you'd care to point to the many battles which lasted 30 minutes or less or should we be utilising the less specific term "engagement"?

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

quote:

'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and

planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences.

Totally disagree. Again, find me an example of a regular old assault

through prepared enemy defences, which included "specialized"

actions, which took even 60 minutes to do, from start to finish. I

know of none.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[QB]

Funny, there is that "60 minutes" time limit again. Why only 60 minutes? By your own admission, most real life battles took far longer than 60 minutes to complete, yet you've decided, arbitrarily to limit the game to that period. Forgive me if I'm new to the board and ask the obvious question which I don't doubt has been answered before but - why? Why limit the game length to 60 minutes?

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

The mistake you are making is that of compaction. What generally

took hours, days, or sometimes even weeks you want to have done

in 30-60 minutes. It just didn't work that way.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I believe I'm saying I don't want it compacted into 60 minutes, not the other way 'round, which is what you're arguing. The problem is the 60 minutes time length. Even so, you appear to think that the preparation time for a great deal of this work has to be included in the game, whereas I'm merely interested in being able to utilise the end result, which I am prevented from doing because its simply not there.

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

quote:

I'm hoping that you as BTS's representative a taking note

of this discussion.

Well, I also was 1/2 of the design team, so I always take note I

also took note of the dozen or so discussions that came before this.

Which, I might add, had input from some combat engineers who

strongly favored our side of the argument. I also remember quoting

from an Engineer's manual I have here about the time, materials,

specialized equipment, and skills needed to do some of the things

you talking about. Honestly, you are woefully underestimating all of

this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good. Thats all I'm asking. I believe you've come to the wrong conclusions by not including them but I admit it was your choice.

Will they be included in future releases or will they be merely ignored, as it appears they have in this one, as being merely "inconvenient" to how you view the how a battle should be simulated?

[Brian]

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

At the level of command we are talking about in CMBO (regardless of time constraint), it really was not the local commanders decision to blow the bridge or not (e.g. the bridge in Nijmegen which the local commander wanted to see blown, while Model stopped him, because it was needed for potential counterattacks)..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To a certain degree I agree, although, the point I'm making is, it is possible to blow a bridge. I merely desire the ability - obviously constrained by the scenario but still an ability which is missing from the game.

There are other cases, where bridges BTW were blown early or on the initiative of the local commander. Two which spring to mind are the Corinth Canal bridge (and now I'd like to see how the game would model that situation :eek: ) or the Sittang, where it was blown against the wishes of the theatre commander through panic (again, a difficult situation to model).

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

While I grant you the gap blown in wire (which is simulated to some degree, if you have not noticed, because your men can actually get through it), I would really be interested in a range of cases where the flails were used in a battle, as opposed to before a battle, as seems to have been the case in Astonia, for example. Mines in the El Alamein defenses were also cleared the night before the attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually, the Scorpions used at El Alamein were used to lead the advance, and we've had mention in the other thread of Totalise.

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

How do you intend to use the flails? Have them roll in front, and the infantry and other tanks follow close? Why do you think it is up to a local battalion commander to decide if a bridge is blown? I would say that is up to higher level of command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why the emphasis on flails? I did not mention them in my last message at all. There are other ways and means. Yes, the thread is about the "funnies" so, I'm quite willing to accept that you thought I was talking about flails but my comments were directed more towards the general use of engineer assets, than anything else.

I just find it rather disconcerting that the only means to achieve some things are engineer sections, when there were other means available, in the period under discussion.

[Michael Emrys]

The thing about the 30-60 minute time limit on QBs and scenarios is that that is roughly the amount of time a firefight (a much better term, BTW, to describe what occurs in CM than either 'battle' or 'engagement' which to my mind belong respectively to the strategic and operational level) could last before one side or the other (or both) would require resupply. As such, it comprises a fairly natural time limit on the kind of action CM attempts to portray.

I think there should be some wiggle room in here somewhere to include the engineering aspects of battle, including some of the funnies, though I too believe that most of the engineering tasks should be delegated to occur during some between-action hiatus of campaigns. That is always of course provided that the difficulties of coding them do not prove more hassle than they are worth.

Michael

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]