Fascine Reprise

[Slapdragon]

Unit selections are one of the natural game elements included in almost all wargames since Panzer Leader, some method of choosing forces by points before a battle to create a "chess like" situation. Like Squad leader, most games just use this as a balancing mechanism for scenario design and as a work template for quick battles (as are included in CM).

So, in fact, this is a secondary aspect of the game. Unit selection is merely there to allow you to play chess with a larger variety of chessmen in a situation where no scenario is being used. In fact, QBs have an auto unit feature.

If we look at the dictionary for battle we get this as the definitions:

bat·tle n.

1.

a. An encounter between opposing forces

b. Armed fighting; combat:

2. A match between two combatants

Note that these two definitions, are both not time specific, so defining a battle by 1-a/b. is perfectly acceptable for CM. An encounter between two opposing forces that includes armed fighting is exactly what happens in a CM battle.

The original beta CM only had 60 minute battle, and this was discussed extensively when I was first on this board. It was agree dthen that a longer 2 hour battle would be nice for scenarios, and BTS put it in, but BTS very definately knew what they were doing when they limited the time of the battle. First, individual infantry engagements are usually over in a short time because both sides run out of ammo. Multiple engagements can and do happen, resulting in am operation, or a series of battles. Resupply is a tedious process that is hard to simulate, because it involves lots of waiting around, ammo moving to and fro, etc, so it was not in the scope of CM.

You have to remember here that CM started out as Squad Leader for the computer, and this was the same issue that Greenwood wrote about for why he limited scenarios to an hour or so. The infantry unit of fire in modern times is just to small for longer, and most struggles were fought in gasps and pushes. Rarely would infantry fight all out for more than two hours.

Another limitation in the game is size. Battalions were chosen as the biggest unit because polygon count was pushing the limits of the average system in a bad way.

Some argued that the push for an objective was an important enough type of action that BTS should increase game length. So BTS added in scenario design games of up to 120 turns in length. Guess what? People usually design 75 or 80 turns at the very longest, or went for operations. The reason was simple, lots of moving to contact is boring, ammo get expended in dog fights way faster, and many games tipping point will make it obvious who is going to win sooner. Playtesting made scenarios run short, which is why 120 minute ones are rare as heck.

[Slapdragon]

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

This has been a proposal of making many engineering assets screen deployable in place for operations.

[Battlefront.com]

Brian,

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

Mostly because it would have taken months to program in all that stuff And again, they were NOT common. There were exactly four airborne operations in the entire Western Theater. Three were carried out by the Allies, one by the Germans. The actual drops were done by something like 1/100th of the total troops available at that time, during the course of a couple of days. This is what I call "specialized". Other things I mentioned are also specialized in their own ways

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

Not true when you are talking about engineering stuff. Clearing mines generally did NOT take place during the same time as general combat. This is not Combat Engineer Mission, so we did not cater the game to having 60 turns dedicated to clearing a path through a minefield. It is therefore outside of CM's intended scope.

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

Which comes at aboslutely no cost to us from a programming standpoint. But what I was attempting to show is that you can only play with whatever units are assigned to you. There is NO choice once units have been selected. Meaning, you can no more get into a game and decide to call up some King Tigers than you could to call forward mine clearing tanks or enough a couple of tons of explosives to demolish a bridge.

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

Not while playing the game itself. You are stuck with whatever you get. And this is the main reason why we don't let players see maps before selecting forces. People can already tailor their forces too much already, so we are not in favor of making it easier. Personally, I almost always let the game select my forces or play historical scenarios. In the CMBB Beta I use Variable Rarity to further distance myself from tailoring my force.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, but the commander who sits back and designs a force structure for a particular operation does, does he not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... so now you are saying that since we have included one "gamey feature" that we should include another? Well, I thought you were arguing that what you were asking for was realistic. So I have been arguing against your examples based on that. If you are just asking for some more "fun" stuff which is NOT realistic, then your point is well taken. But we have no plans to deviate from our focus which is on general warfare and not specialized warfare.

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

Hehe... man, is that about as far from the truth as one can get No, we didn't include it because for the most part it would be completely unrealistic to do so. And because such functions would require a lot of EXTRA programming, it is something that is very far down on our list of priorities.

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

The same for breaching minefields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, we totally agree. And that is why the engineers in Combat Mission can in fact do this right now. No, they can't use rare Funnies or the ultra rare mine rollers, but I don't recall seeing any battles where they were employed in a Combat Mission scope battle.

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

Sure, I never said this wasn't true. But CM Engineers DO have this ability already. I don't know why you don't think they do. It might be more abstracted than you would like, but we can't please everybody...

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

Whatever you like. The average high intensity engagement time was generally under an hour. For an active battle there would be several of these engagements during the day with various periods of other actions inbetween (all the way from nothing to full speed pursuit).

quote:

'cause they do prevent the normal levels of preparation and

planning which did get utilised in most assaults/defences.

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

Uhm... because most real life engagements (if that is what you want to call them) didn't last longer than this. See above description.

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

Nope, no problem there. The problem is that you want Combat Mission to be something that it never was, and never will be, designed to simulate. And that is low inensity, specalized warfare. If you really want to play out a longer engagement, try Operations. That is what they are made for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm merely interested in being able to utilise the end result, which I am prevented from doing because its simply not there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far you haven't pointed to anything that you are being realistically "prevented" from doing. You have argued for dispensing with realism and adding things in for "fun", but that is another line of reasoning that I have already answered with The_Capt's question.

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

Well, you aren't the first person to think that. But so far your line of reasoning hasn't impressed me that your point is valid. In some of the previous discussions we have had on this combat engineers were seen to agree with us. If you are interested in what these guys had to say, as well as the other parts of the discussions, give the Search feature a shot. "Engineers" might be the right word for that search.

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

Man... you really do have an insulting bite to your posts, don't you? No, they will not be IGNORED in the future, but they probably won't be simulated either. Reasons are all here in this thread and in others. If you care to disagree with our position... fine. That is of course your right to do so. However, we still think you are flat out wrong If we thought you were correct, then yes... we would put what you asked for in the game. But then again, if we thought you were right we would have put it in the game before we shipped version 1.0. It isn't like we didn't think about this stuff beforehand or in the months that followed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Slapdragon,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have to remember here that CM started out as Squad Leader for the computer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, for the first 2 weeks Charles started hashing out the game design. For the remaining 3 years it had no significant bearing

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and this was the same issue that Greenwood wrote about for why he limited scenarios to an hour or so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We just looked at our history books and noticed that combat actions (battles, firefights, whatever you want to call 'em) rarely remained "hot" for more than about an hour. Some never really stopped for several hours, but generally after 30-60 minutes both sides settled down for the reasons you mentioned. Fresh reserves might change this, which is why we extended the timeframe out to 120 minutes total. But as you say, I don't think anybody uses this. Too long from a gameplay standpoint.

Steve

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Michael,

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

Not more than it is worth, but more than the time we have available. When we rewrite the game engine after CMBB we are planning on scrapping pretty much everything from a coding standpoint. This will allow us to rebuild the game with all sorts of new flexibility that the old engine doens't currently have.

For example, we will most likely have primative Fuzzy Logic, If/Then victory condition scripts. In something like an Operation you could allow a side that has captured a "Crossing Point" location a random chance of establishing a bridge at that location based on length of time and other battlefield conditions. If this were a three day Operation, and the attacker got this location on the second of twelve battles, then it is a pretty good bet the bridge will be established. Other victory conditions could be "Knock out this Pillbox" or "Capture this Hill". All sorts of possiblities for the new engine.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon,

We just looked at our history books and noticed that combat actions (battles, firefights, whatever you want to call 'em) rarely remained "hot" for more than about an hour. Some never really stopped for several hours, but generally after this period of time both sides settled down for the reasons you mentioned. Fresh reserves might change this, which is why we extended the timeframe out to 120 minutes total. But as you say, I don't think anybody uses this. Too long from a gameplay standpoint.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, but in this case both Greenwood and you came to the same conclusion for the same reasons. And in may other cases you and Greenwood part company, since he was not as interested in the more rigid aspects of conflict modelling and more interested in "flavor aspects" even at the expense of historical accuracy. Greenwood was a genious, but he loved the whole urban legend thing.

Also, Greenwood, in later renditions of SL, could use funnies because they were so easy for him fo code. One paragraph in the rule rule book, and one counter in the mix, and he had it going.

Of course, even he stopped short of modelling the full engineering battle. He did not have tactical bridging, fortification construction, nor a number of other lengthy engineering tasks.

[Andreas]

I just wanted to let you lot know that I despise you all because today I shelled out £45 for the original 1945 print history of the 79th AD, only because of this discussion (okay, it has pwetty pitchers too). I swear if I find anything about this discussion and the use of funnies in it whatsoever, I'll be damned if I tell you. So there.

Great day out at the Tank Museum, including a chat with a troop commander in East Riding Yeomanry! Yeah!

[Andreas]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flails were just an example to at least come to discuss a species of funnies instead of the total array, which had vastly different purposes.

I have read the other thread - and I have read Tout and other stuff on Totalize. I am not sure from my memory that the flail were used in the CM type battle of that operation. IIRC they were used in the approach march. If someone has Tank! lying about, they could quickly clear that up, and I will check my sources.

Now Red Army mine-rollers seem to be a whole different kettle of fish.

[Andreas]

From 'The story of 79th Armoured Division', 1945. Chapter VI - The Channel Ports p.306-7:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This [the bombing] was followed by a heavy artillery programme, and at 5.45 the tanks went in. [...].

In the centre of 56th Brigade front, the minefield lay in front of the ditch and two troops of Crabs (one from each 'A' and 'B' Squadrons, 22 Dragoons) started flailing on either side of the road, as shown on the map. In forty minutes the right troop had cleared a 24-feet breach to the ditch and a 1915 hours 222 Squadron RE brought up an S.B.G. bridge. It was hit, and so was a "Snake" which exploded. The reserve bridge was brought up, hit about 500 yards from the ditch and fell. For 20 minutes sappers worked under fire to winch it into position. By 2055 hours it was ready.

[...]The two breaches on the left, marked 'C' on the map, met with qual trouble. In the first, three crabs were knocked out by mines in the space of a few minutes: the lane was abandoned, an dhte surviving Crab (Cpl. Agnew, 22 Dragoons) made a second gap. This was completed to 24 feet by 1905 hours and down it went the infantry with two troops of 'A' Squadron 141 RAC and a troop of 617 Squadron.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do we learn from this:

a) The engineering battle lasted 3hrs10mins on the right, and 1hr20mins on the left

The infantry waited with moving in until the engineering battle was over

c) S.B.G. bridges and other fancy stuff are very vulnerable

d) Flailing in this case took 40 mins when no problem was encountered.

What does it mean for CM II?

Basically, you would have a separate battle, in which the UK commander attempts to do his stuff, and the German commander gets pillboxes and guns and shoots at him. In order to make it succeed, all the Germans have to start the scenario demoralised, and not shoot at the UK troops too much, based on an appreciation later in the narrative about the likelyhood of success if the German defenders had made an effort.

BTW - the narrative for Totalize talks about the Crabs leading the columns to their objectives, not more not less. It also states that no mines were encountered.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I just wanted to let you lot know that I despise you all because today I shelled out £45 for the original 1945 print history of the 79th AD, only because of this discussion (okay, it has pwetty pitchers too). I swear if I find anything about this discussion and the use of funnies in it whatsoever, I'll be damned if I tell you. So there.

Great day out at the Tank Museum, including a chat with a troop commander in East Riding Yeomanry! Yeah!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just got the scoop from someone who already owns that history - see my British and Canadian messageboard.

Shame. You should have asked me first.

[argie]

The "Snake" was one of those fabric tubes filled with explosives they used to clear paths in minefields, ala aerial bangalore torpedo?

[Andreas]

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

I just got the scoop from someone who already owns that history - see my British and Canadian messageboard.

Shame. You should have asked me first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, not sure that is the same, if you refer to the Ed Storey post on your forum. His maybe a more scientific assessment of the operations of the division. Would be interesting to compare.

But to be honest, I actually wanted to have that book myself, and there are some great pictures and very good maps in there too.

Argie - maybe. I have to look at it more closely. I thought that explosive mine-clearing device was called a Conger.

[JonS]

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

The "Snake" was one of those fabric tubes filled with explosives they used to clear paths in minefields, ala aerial bangalore torpedo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The snake was rigid pipe sections (similar to bangalores), while the conger was a fabric pipe deployed empty, then filled with explosive liquid, hten fired.

[argie]

Thanks!

I just found the same

Plus the Taperworm: a flexible tube, like the Conger, but already filled with explosives, like the Snake and Bangalore.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

There were exactly four airborne operations in the entire Western Theater. Three were carried out by the Allies, one by the Germans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I can count the following:

Eben Emal and the assult on the Rhine Bridges (German 1940)

??? Viaduct, Sicily (British 1941)

Bruneval Raid France (British 1942)

Corinth Bridges Greece (German 1941)

Crete (German 1941)

North African Landings (Torch followon) (US/British 1942)

Sicily (US/British 1943)

Rescue of Mussolini (German 1943)

Normandy (British/US 1944)

"Market Garden" (British/US 1944)

Rhine crossings (British/US 1945)

Does not count Eastern Front or Pacific.

Missed any ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Gran Sasso - does that count? It was entirely gliderborne, no?

Are we counting only assaults that included paratroops?

Good point about Bruneval, but I think Eben Emael would be left out, too.

Though I don't think glider ops should be discounted.

[Michael Dorosh]

Oh, and did you mention the raid on Tito in Yugoslavia?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Oh, and did you mention the raid on Tito in Yugoslavia?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks missed te operation against Tito BUT glider and parachute landings were generally intermixed even though individual "enagements" may have been one or the other. For example Eban Emal was glider assult but was part of and concurrent with the parachute drops on the Rhine Brigdes.

(as was "Pegasus Bridge", Merville Battery and the parachute drops).

Grand Sasso was rare - only glider borne.

Were there parachute drops asssociated with "Dragoon" ?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Thanks missed te operation against Tito BUT glider and parachute landings were generally intermixed even though individual "enagements" may have been one or the other. For example Eban Emal was glider assult but was part of and concurrent with the parachute drops on the Rhine Brigdes.

(as was "Pegasus Bridge", Merville Battery and the parachute drops).

Grand Sasso was rare - only glider borne.

Were there parachute drops asssociated with "Dragoon" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the way this gives me twelve individual operations "...in the entire Western Theatre of operations....". A few more than originally quoted ?????

By the way - did not count the drop(s) by the SAS in their first ops in the WD. After all that is where their name came from....

[Michael Emrys]

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

And in may other cases you and Greenwood part company, since he was not as interested in the more rigid aspects of conflict modelling and more interested in "flavor aspects" even at the expense of historical accuracy. Greenwood was a genious, but he loved the whole urban legend thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be more or less true about Greenwood, but my impression is different. It was John Hill (the original designer of SL) who was big on "designing for effect" and the numbers go to hell. Greenwood took over the development of the subsequent sequels and brought the the game closer to reality IMO.

All this applies only to SL and the gamettes. I stopped at GI: Anvil of Victory and never got into ASL, and so have no opinion regarding it. But in the early game, Greenwood made an effort to justify design decisions by resort to research and math.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Actually I can count the following...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem. I think Steve was referring to the post-Overlord period, which is after all what CM covers and would be relevant to.

Michael

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Slapdragon]

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

That may be more or less true about Greenwood, but my impression is different. It was John Hill (the original designer of SL) who was big on "designing for effect" and the numbers go to hell. Greenwood took over the development of the subsequent sequels and brought the the game closer to reality IMO.

All this applies only to SL and the gamettes. I stopped at GI: Anvil of Victory and never got into ASL, and so have no opinion regarding it. But in the early game, Greenwood made an effort to justify design decisions by resort to research and math.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding was that Hill waved the baton more than designed SL. Greenwood indeed tried to push more science into the turgid SL, but until ASL still clutched to some of the original assumptions of SL. I course, by ASL the game had becoem nearly unplayable in some aspects, but it was neat to own.

[Simon Fox]

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

I just wanted to let you lot know that I despise you all because today I shelled out £45 for the original 1945 print history of the 79th AD, only because of this discussion (okay, it has pwetty pitchers too). I swear if I find anything about this discussion and the use of funnies in it whatsoever, I'll be damned if I tell you. So there.

Great day out at the Tank Museum, including a chat with a troop commander in East Riding Yeomanry! Yeah!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thought you already had that? Or was that the Delaforce book? Is that the one printed in Germany in 1945? With lots of maps and bulls head on the front cover? If so, that's the one I have.

Lots of flail action in that one plus details of which organisations various 79th armoured units were attached to at various times. Do you think having your AVRE with SBG hit by a faust qualifies as "bridging under fire"? hehe I always like the story of a couple of Siegfreid line pillboxes being treated to 18 "dustbins" upon which the garrison surrendered much the the dismay of the waiting Croc troop who were next in line to do their thing.

The "Crabs" were operated mainly by the Westminister Dragoons. They seem to have been parcelled out as squadron sized units to higher formations, how they were tactically allocated is difficult to say precisely and seemed to vary depending on whether assaults or more mobile operations were occuring. The US 9th Army frequently had support from various funnies including Crabs.

In a squadron, there were four troops, each of 5 Crabs. A troop was to be allotted to each of the usual three breaches on a battalion front, with one troop in reserve providing fire support. Of the five Crabs in each troop, three would fail a gap 24' wide through the minefields, while the other two were reserves or provided fire support.

Crab gunners were a cut above the norm in their gunnery skills being very highly trained expert marksmen who were expected to "post" their 75mm rounds through the slots of bunkers.

The purpose of Crabs were the clearance of minefields under fire. I very much doubt that they were used to clear other minefields out of action. More traditional methods were used for that. The Crabs did on occasions "miss" mines upon which they or some other vehicle might be blown up and using them for "routine " mine clearance would be a grossly inefficient way of doing it.

If there were any argument against the applicability of Crabs it would be a time related one. Although I would suggest that the Le Havre example is a rather extreme one because of the extent of those minefields. The Crabs were often included in mobile columns along with other funnies especially later in the war. On many occasions Crabs were used as gun tanks which suggests they were up there rather than languishing back waiting for a minefield.

The point made by Steve about various vehicles being "on call" has it's counterpoint. CM currently encompasses a range of tactical situations some of which include the use of various fortifications including pillboxes, bunkers, mines and wire. In reality when a commander encounters such obstacles and he has the technical means at his disposal to deal with them even if it means waiting a while then he would probably do so. Of course CMBO doesn't really reward you for being sensible in such circumstances since there is no "held up by minefield, consolidate and call for sappers/crab support" I would welcome a "Crab" in my current pbem against a certain gamey swine BTS employee who has blocked the openings in a June '44 bocage map with minefields I should also note that said swine seems to have an intimate knowledge of the deficiencies of bocage as 'cover'. Now if only I could get my AVRE to blast a hole in said bocage then I would be OK

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

[/qb]

Missed any ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - The drops associated with Wacht Am Rhein.

I think the four Steve referred to were Overlord, Market Garden, Varsity, and Wacht Am Rhein.

IIRC, there was a smallish drop (one bde (UK) and one regt (US)) associated with Dragoon, so that would give a total of five in the period covered by CM.

Given that CM models both airborne (glider) and para squads, I think the distinction between ops involving only one, or both is moot.

Regards

JonS

P.S. Si - where's me damn turn? Bleedin' loafing dingos...

[Andreas]

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

Thought you already had that? Or was that the Delaforce book? Is that the one printed in Germany in 1945? With lots of maps and bulls head on the front cover? If so, that's the one I have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the one. The other I already had was the Delaforce book.