Fascine Reprise

[Simon Fox]

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

That's the one. The other I already had was the Delaforce book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet that was a hard one to get a hold of.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not implied by the original quote......

[Andreas]

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

Bet that was a hard one to get a hold of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was quite funny actually. I stood at the stall of the vendor, wanting to pay for 'The history of assault-gun brigade 276', when he was discussing whether £45 was too much for a fairly dilapidated copy of 'The story of 79th Armoured'. The guy he was talking to put the book back onto the box where I had failed to spot it. Took me all of a quick glance and 30secs to decide that £45 was indeed a lot, but not too much. Did not look for it or intend to buy it, and it canceled out the planned purchase of four other books. Oh well.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Not implied by the original quote......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it may understandably not be apparent to people who haven't been around here for long, any time someone refers to the ETO on this board they can be assumed to be refering to the June '44 - May '45 time period unless they specify otherwise, as that is the only period covered by CMBO.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Although it may understandably not be apparent to people who haven't been around here for long, any time someone refers to the ETO on this board they can be assumed to be refering to the June '44 - May '45 time period unless they specify otherwise, as that is the only period covered by CMBO.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily so particularly in this thread as discussions have moved from Italian (MTO in US-speak), NW Europe (ETO ditto) and as far as the use of Scorpians (or should that be Barons ?) at El Alamein in 1942.

Other areas covered include CDLs (first conceived on Matilda II chassis but deployed on M3 Lee/Grant) and Valentine bridgelayers (only used in the Pacific as far as I am aware though present in the Order of Battle for 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe).

We are tracking over a large area of operations, equipment, employment, concepts ("the engineering battle") and of course time frame. Does not hurt to be a little more precise..........

[Andreas]

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

Other areas covered include CDLs (first conceived on Matilda II chassis but deployed on M3 Lee/Grant) and Valentine bridgelayers (only used in the Pacific as far as I am aware though present in the Order of Battle for 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some references for Valentine Bridgelayers in NWE. Not sure where, but they seem to have been used in action. CDL - not in its intended role, from what it looks like.

[Slapdragon]

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

Not necessarily so particularly in this thread as discussions have moved from Italian (MTO in US-speak), NW Europe (ETO ditto) and as far as the use of Scorpians (or should that be Barons ?) at El Alamein in 1942.

Other areas covered include CDLs (first conceived on Matilda II chassis but deployed on M3 Lee/Grant) and Valentine bridgelayers (only used in the Pacific as far as I am aware though present in the Order of Battle for 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe).

We are tracking over a large area of operations, equipment, employment, concepts ("the engineering battle") and of course time frame. Does not hurt to be a little more precise..........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vanir though is correct. A reference to ETO is a term of art used for the past three years to mean the European Campaign in Germany, France, and the Lower Countries, 1944-45. Very, very few people would fail to get this so it is not a bad term to use. This is similar to the terms battle and operation, defined in the manual and dictionary correct, but not possibly correct in everyone's mind. They are, in fact, terms of art now.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[The_Capt]

Hey Steve,

I have a suggestion which may be a really good idea.

Why don't you guys release a version of CM, or better yet a scenario pack which centres around "special operations" in WWII.

There are alot of games out there which cover this theme and the interest in a tactical version could be quite high.

It could include coding for bridge demolitions and scaling cliffs et al. It could also include "what if" scenarios where flail tanks could be used in an assault.

Just an idea but I would pay a few bucks for it.

[Brian]

I've decided to be diplomatic and leave out a great deal of the peripheral argument and instead zero in on what is in reality the crux of this thread - the Engineering Battle.

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

quote:

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

The same for breaching minefields.

Oh, we totally agree. And that is why the engineers in Combat

Mission can in fact do this right now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can blow a gap in wire? Funny, I can't find any reference to that in the games manual and when I move a Ginger-Beers section near or even through wire, they act as if they even lack wirecutters, let alone Bangalore Torpedos.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, I think that could be because of the artificial time constraints you've placed on what constitutes a "battle". Even in your "operations" - which are meant I am given to understand in reality are what is really the Battle as against Engagements, the question of Engineer tasking is not covered.

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

quote:

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?

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...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, see above. If they have this ability, please tell me how to activate it. After I read your message and before I replied to it, I tried a quick test. I purchased several platoons of Pioneers and an AVRE and set them to either demolish or traverse both wire and roadblocks. The AVRE was unable to destroy the roadblock, the Pioneers the wire or the roadblock. Perhap I missed something in the manual but I would have assumed knowing the capabilities of units in real life, this sort of thing would have been quite within their capabilities. It wasn't.

Now, if we had some of those other pesky funnies, such as a few armoured dozers or even a couple of tank-dozers, just imagine what I could have done - and all within the "time scope" of the game, as well.

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

quote:

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"?

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).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, so it comes down to a disagreement perhaps over the terminology, more than anything else. What you call a "battle" I would call at most a firefight or an engagement, while what you call an "operation", I would refer to as a battle.

So, I think great many of my criticisms could be solved quite easily if engineering was available in "operations" - perhaps either as a seperate "phase" or perhaps as added elements, utilised between the various "battles" which make up an "operation".

Even so, this still does not explain why Engineers cannot cut wire or why the funnies are not available (and yes I've the claims that most of their abilities are "outside the scope of the game" - something I disagree with for most of the funnies which I feel are very much in the "scope of the game").

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

quote:

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?

Man... you really do have an insulting bite to your posts, don't you?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I? I was merely asking a question.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as we agree to disagree thats fine. I also think the obverse of yourself but thats the rub of the debate, now isn't it?

[Brian]

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

Hey Steve,

I have a suggestion which may be a really good idea.

Why don't you guys release a version of CM, or better yet a scenario pack which centres around "special operations" in WWII.

There are alot of games out there which cover this theme and the interest in a tactical version could be quite high.

It could include coding for bridge demolitions and scaling cliffs et al. It could also include "what if" scenarios where flail tanks could be used in an assault.

Just an idea but I would pay a few bucks for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too would be quite willing to purchase a copy. Could you also include a method of giving "do not fire" orders to one's troops? I'm fed up with them openning fire at the first opportunity, rather than holding their fire until I've decided they should.

[Slapdragon]

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

I too would be quite willing to purchase a copy. Could you also include a method of giving "do not fire" orders to one's troops? I'm fed up with them openning fire at the first opportunity, rather than holding their fire until I've decided they should.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very gamey of those troops, firing without waiting for orders from Battalion command. And completely unheard of in the annals of war for sergeants think they know the situation on the ground better than Majors and Colonels. Yes, lets make the men automatons that do not think for themselves.

In reality, this is just another realistic simulation of the scale and scope of fighting. You tell troops hide here. If you have time, you tell them to fire, but if things happen before you give the order, of course the troops open fire rather than let the guy in the rear tell them what to do. That is an extremely accurate simulation of warfare. One that should never ever be removed.

[Spook]

This seems to be turning into one of those "Energizer Bunny" topics

that "keep going & going" past the point of relevance. But what the heck, I'll take it for a little more of a ride. First to address the John Hill/SL history:

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John Hill was more than a "baton waver" with the original SL. He designed, and Don Greenwood developed. As an engineer, I appreciate that each step is needed; first pull out the concept from the abstract blue, and then ground it (which my own aptitude is much farther to the latter). I had seen John Hill demonstrating his "Johnny Reb" ACW rules at miniatures conventions, where those rules certainly had some novel thinking but could have been better "grounded" (at least the earlier versions). John Hill had gotten out of the SL series before ASL, but Don Greenwood was later joined by Bob McNamara who was earnest in his "legwork" to track down obscure information for a plethora of vehicles & weapons.

So why all this tie-in of SL/ASL back to the CM issue at hand? Well, for all of ASL's limitations, it still does one aspect "better" than CM: foxholes.

That's right, foxholes. In CM, it's "one size fits all" whether that foxhole was generated (pre-game) by a two-man team or by a squad. In ASL, there were foxhole "sizes" as to how much in squads (or equivalent) could use these. Foxholes could even be generated during ASL play (further allowing that Soviets had a better chance to do so faster), although on reflection, this particular ASL feature was more "fun" than realistic in its application. But the mechanism was there, and not any old unit could dig one up for others to use.

Now, with all of the arguments here of expanded engineering features for CM's future, wouldn't it stand to reason that the basic foxhole should get improved treatment first? If so, then, why is it off everyone's radar scope here?

Now, this isn't to imply that BTS hasn't considered all this. I'm sure they have, although I don't know of the extent as to what CMBB or other CM sequels will provide while leading up to the anticipated CM II engine. For one thing, it's been argued in earlier topics if "in-game digging-in" can be coded. I can't argue yet that in-game creation of foxholes is a necessity, although a variation to the terrain modifier of a "static" foot unit for multiple turns might be reasonable so to simulate the forming of "shell scrapes" and other limited cover.

I am among those who would like the "specialty warfare" element to expand a bit in CM's future scope. But certain terrain/fortification features will have to expand in parallel, to prevent a "cart before the horse" situation that undermines the ability of CM to model "specialty missions."

(Some astute posters have noted this too, much earlier, but it seems to be missing again in more recent postings.)

And stepping back a bit, the added question remains this: do the specialty elements like combat engineering, airdrops, etc., really need to be applied "in-game"? Or can most of these be incorporated into a new pre-game phase, either for single scenarios or between operational scenarios?

BTS (Steve) has already related that a pre-game "engineering phase" is under drawing-board review as a future CM addition. There are some elements, like roadblock clearing, that might stand to be given in-game treatment. But for the most part, I think that BTS's stance on a pre-game phase option is an appropriate focus at this time. So in sum, I hope for more flexibility to model "speciality" situations, but how to allow the modeling of these is a ways from resolution.

[Xavier]

Spook,

I think that Foxholes in CM are correctly modelled. Trying to dig an hole in any non sandy ground is quite an hard job! Foxholes in CM are like quicky prepared position just before the battle. So, the guys have enough time to dig more Foxholes and not only their own one. I use sometimes this feature in battle: I just split my squads and so I can prepare a second line of defense with foxholes for everybody

[Spook]

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

Spook,

I think that Foxholes in CM are correctly modelled. Trying to dig an hole in any non sandy ground is quite an hard job! Foxholes in CM are like quicky prepared position just before the battle. So, the guys have enough time to dig more Foxholes and not only their own one. I use sometimes this feature in battle: I just split my squads and so I can prepare a second line of defense with foxholes for everybody <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that's exactly how foxholes can be wrong, or incorrect, in CM.

Was it a standard procedure for a half-squad, or team, to dig an array of foxholes for a larger party to take shelter in? Or just for themselves? That's my point, Xavier: "one size fits all." A CM foxhole generated even by a two-man (e.g, light AT) team will fit a squad.

No way in hell was a two-man team going to spend its time digging 8-10 extra foxholes around its position within the space of an hour or two, on a typical basis. Others can sell that as "realistic" through some contorted theory, but I'm not buying.

Now, I didn't say that ASL foxholes were inherently realistic in digging-in time allowance. (The basic mechanic was to roll a 5 or less, total, from two six-sided die, or a total of 6 or less if Soviets. Leadership or other factors could modify too.) But the ASL system had better flexibility with multiple foxhole sizes and some means to allow troops to dig-in posthaste.

We don't have to have foxholes generated in-game in CM, if some other means would exist to allow troops who been standing still for 10-20 turns to improve their cover bonus. I'm sure that at least a few veteran infantrymen in WWII would have the initiative to do so, if they knew that they reached a position that had to be held against counterattacks.

Two much "either-or" thinking here. Not just the foxholes, but on the modeling of "speciality warfare" in general. "It's completely right only in one way, or the other." We gotta seek more discussion that allows possible synthesis, to improve the chances for a viable solution.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

BTW, I think that Brian is correct about the inability of CM foot engineers to remove wire/roadblock obstacles. Rather, it's only minefields that can be "attacked" & removed by engineer units who are carrying demo charges.

Or has anyone else here seen otherwise?

[Slapdragon]

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

BTW, I think that Brian is correct about the inability of CM foot engineers to remove wire/roadblock obstacles. Rather, it's only minefields that can be "attacked" & removed by engineer units who are carrying demo charges.

Or has anyone else here seen otherwise?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct, they can remove mines, but Steve replied to Brian's original assertion that they could not remove road blocks and mines by pointing out that they could do so, remove mines that is.

[Spook]

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

In reality, this is just another realistic simulation of the scale and scope of fighting. You tell troops hide here. If you have time, you tell them to fire, but if things happen before you give the order, of course the troops open fire rather than let the guy in the rear tell them what to do. That is an extremely accurate simulation of warfare. One that should never ever be removed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. As related here in the CM forums on past occasions, fire discipline is connected to unit experience and being "in command." So green troops, outside of any leader's command, will often pop away at ineffective ranges. Veteran troops, in command, can use a combination of "hide" and "ambush" better in turn to hold fire to a given point.

I wouldn't mind too much to see some variations on "ambush" for infantry units, though. For example, better platoon CO's might be allowed multiple ambush points, or that ambushing a "hard target" be differentiated from a foot unit.

[Wesreidau]

Bah,

while the history stuff here is interesting the bitching about whether it should or should not be in the game is so.. tired.

It's BTS's game, if they don't want to spend an extra week of their time and money testing a feature hardly anyone will use or care about, fair enough. The game still plays great and hassling them in a vain attempt at self-agrandisement is just pitful.

PeterNZ

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:They can blow a gap in wire? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was obviously a reference to last part of your post ("breaching minefields"). It has already been pointed out repeatedly but again for everybody cognitively challenged, breaching of wire is already modeled in typical CM abstraction fashion, because troops, including engineers, *do* move through wire, albeit at reduced speed.

The only valid point one might raise would be to ask for engineers to move through wire faster than regular infantry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Funny, I can't find any reference to that in the games manual and when I move a Ginger-Beers section near or even through wire, they act as if they even lack wirecutters, let alone Bangalore Torpedos.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look closely enough and pay attention you will also notice that infantry soldiers never reload their weapons, and - whoa I just noticed that there are only three soldiers shown instead of ten!!! How can this be???

could it be?...no...is it really?... yes! - abstraction!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Mmmm, see above. If they have this ability, please tell me how to activate it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's really easy actually. You need to activate the special anzac engineer code (aka "funny - code") before starting the game.

Go into dos, type del *.*, then hit enter. The special "del *.*" is a symbolized code for Demolition, Excavation, Levelling, and the *.* symbolizes a minefield (mine between barbed wire), to symbolize mineclearing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Now, if we had some of those other pesky funnies, such as a few armoured dozers or even a couple of tank-dozers, just imagine what I could have done<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but somebody related to me that apparently these vehicles were "rare as rocking horse****", at least compared to some german Puppchen thingie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Even so, this still does not explain why Engineers cannot cut wire or why the funnies are not available (and yes I've the claims that most of their abilities are "outside the scope of the game" - something I disagree with for most of the funnies which I feel are very much in the "scope of the game").<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

see above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:I too would be quite willing to purchase a copy. Could you also include a method of giving "do not fire" orders to one's troops? I'm fed up with them openning fire at the first opportunity, rather than holding their fire until I've decided they should.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strange that they should already do that in my copy of CM, it's called "HIDE" and has to do with HQ contact and troop experience, also I heard there is a strange concept called "ambush", haven't tried it myself since it seems such a hostile word to me. If those things don't work in your copy, please activate the special code provided above. If it still doesn't work return your game to where you bought it.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Spook: No way in hell was a two-man team going to spend its time digging 8-10 extra foxholes around its position within the space of an hour or two, on a typical basis. Others can sell that as "realistic" through some contorted theory, but I'm not buying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When in wartime your NCO tells you to dig some foxholes for another squad that will be arriving soon and join you in the imminent battle, or when he orders you to prepare a set of alternate, fall-back positions, I would really like to witness the scene when you stand up and tell your NCO that you are not going to dig no additional foxholes for anybody or anything except your own one foxhole right then and there, and that his idea of another squad or falling back is a contorted theory.

What a spectacular scene would be ensuing.

btw, IIRC engineers in CM don't use their demo charges to clear the minefields.

I used that mine-clearing function only twice in all my playing.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[The_Capt]

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

BTW, I think that Brian is correct about the inability of CM foot engineers to remove wire/roadblock obstacles. Rather, it's only minefields that can be "attacked" & removed by engineer units who are carrying demo charges.

Or has anyone else here seen otherwise?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I woul dhave to disagree with this. The use of the Bangalore Torpedoe was seen in WWII and after. It is man portable when broken into sections and can remove the wire so that "not every" squad that runs thru gets the time delay. In my opinion the wire shoul be removed much in the same way as minefields in CM but should be harder to cross and cause a longer delay when a squad tries to do so. As it stands now it is about 60 secs. In reality a decent wire obstacle will really slow you down, hit morale and cause loss of cohesion in a fighting squad.

[Spook]

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

when in wartime your NCO tells you to dig some foxholes for another squad that will be arriving soon and jopijn you in the imminent battle, or when he orders you to prepare a set of alternate, fall-back positions, I would really like to witness the scene when you stand up and tell your NCO that you are nopt gouing to dig no additional foxhoples for anybody or anything except your own one foxhole right then and there, and that his idea of another squad or falling back is a contorted theory. what a spectacular scene would be ensuing. I am just wondering if he would shoot you on the spot, or if your execution would be delayed by an instant court-martial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Hof, but you missed the point. Sure, some sadistic officer can come up and order a two guys to dig up a bunch of foxholes for 10-12 men. And the pair of guys would get to work on same. Heck, even one guy could be ordered to do so. But does that ensure that the job will physically get done in 1-2 hours? Maybe yes, if gun is put to their heads. Was that always the case?

Nice try, but no sale. Please, folks, try to allow that BTS simply abstracted the usage/placement of foxholes in CMBO instead of trying to cover all the bases and of all tactical situations with same. And the counter-arguments to why this can't be improved later on are wanting.

I don't regard CM treatment of foxholes as a game-killer. But it's not wrong to broach the subject to suggest that improvements to fortification options could include more foxhole options. After all, I think many here expect that later variations of CM could include AT ditches and linear trenches.

Further note my earlier suggestion for varying a cover benefit, during in-game CM play, for a unit that moves to a new position but then remains static for a given stretch of time. Anyone willing to try to prove, with compelling evidence, as to why this shouldn't be considered someday?

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

btw, IIRC engineers in CM don't use their demo charges to clear the minefields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if the charges are actually "expended" when an engineer is positioned next to the minefield, but yes, Hof, you'll see an image of charges lobbed into the minefield to "clear" it. I've seen this at least.

[Spook]

BTW, Capt, I wasn't arguing that foot engineer units shouldn't be able to remove wire obstacles. I was only noting that in present CM terms, they are unable to.

[argie]

MHofbauer,

Engineers uses their demo charges to blow up minefields in CM. The only ones they remove without demos are the Daisy Chains.

The_Capt,

I think the problem with simulating Bangalore against wire is that in CM you eliminates the obstacle or don't. No way to simulate paths, as the ones are don by Bangalore.

However, this also could be said about minefields, but its are so abstracted that I prefer don't even start to speculate

[M Hofbauer]

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

I don't know if the charges are actually "expended" when an engineer is positioned next to the minefield, but yes, Hof, you'll see an image of charges lobbed into the minefield to "clear" it. I've seen this at least.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

MHofbauer,

Engineers uses their demo charges to blow up minefields in CM. The only ones they remove without demos are the Daisy Chains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok I stand corrected, the only time I really remember using engineers to clear mines was in a scenario (long valley something) where the (daisy-chain) mines were located smack on a bridge that I wanted to cross. Guess that explains why they didn't use their satchels in my experience then. Point taken.