Fascine Reprise

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately only in the US lexicon.

ETO was never a term used outside the US but because of the the all-pervading influence of US-speak has become understood elsewhere.

It is well to remember that:

- all here (and who play CM) are not necesarily US-based

- all are not necessarily speakers of English as a first language

- all who claim to speak English do so from different perspectives

THerefore it would do well for us all (and here I suffer occassionaly (at least) from the same fault) of not falling automatically into jargon/country-centric language without explaining the terms.

How would terms like "noahs", "joe blakes" "tray, ash, receiving", "A510", "AN/PRC9A", "Tank, Infantry, MkIII" or "Sdkfz 161" go in this forum or indeed places like TacOps ?

The need for precision in laguage dates back to at least the monk Abelard.....

(Oddly enough probably the most understood jargon used around here is German terminology !)

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Geez Jacko if your gonna do sarcasm at least make a better fist of it than that. In CM the player does not represent the battalion commander alone but in actuality a number of levels of command. Of course you knew that didn't you?

The correct answer is of course, as pointed out by a few others, the 'hide' command. With the new covered arcs and modifications to ambush in CMBB this should work even better.

[Slapdragon]

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

Unfortunately only in the US lexicon.

ETO was never a term used outside the US but because of the the all-pervading influence of US-speak has become understood elsewhere.

It is well to remember that:

- all here (and who play CM) are not necesarily US-based

- all are not necessarily speakers of English as a first language

- all who claim to speak English do so from different perspectives

THerefore it would do well for us all (and here I suffer occassionaly (at least) from the same fault) of not falling automatically into jargon/country-centric language without explaining the terms.

How would terms like "noahs", "joe blakes" "tray, ash, receiving", "A510", "AN/PRC9A", "Tank, Infantry, MkIII" or "Sdkfz 161" go in this forum or indeed places like TacOps ?

The need for precision in laguage dates back to at least the monk Abelard.....

(Oddly enough probably the most understood jargon used around here is German terminology !)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, as long defined terms of art, they are used universally by the board except in certain ver precise discussion, few of which appear here.

Basically, in language, you have to go with the common usage except when talking taxonimy. If 95% of the board accepts the terms now used, and you do not, the 95% win. Especially since in each case the Oxford Dictionary places a definition on the words that is compatible with the concepts.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

And remember in BritCom practice your "sergeant" would be a corporal.

In fact after extended battles (ie your "operations") many platoons would be commanded by corprals and companies by junior subalterns or even WOs or Senior NCOs.

Yes, lets make the men automatons that do not think for themselves.

My - fire discipline in the US Army in attack or defence must have been very slack.

In the defence - the first shot is vital.

It can cause an attacker to deploy and thereby delay (a longer range shot) or it can be used for destruction of the attacker (generally closer range - pracised particularly in close country/MOUT situations). Sheer survival would have taught the section/platoon commanders when to use it to achive the effect required (by the battalion and higher commanders).

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.

Actually I find it extremely unrealistic.

In this system how would a deliberate ambush be initited and when ? By the person at the start of the ambush or by the ambush commander ?

Would this mean an immeadite ambush is impossible ?

[Michael Dorosh]

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

[qb]

In this system how would a deliberate ambush be initited and when ? By the person at the start of the ambush or by the ambush commander ?

Would this mean an immeadite ambush is impossible ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was "ambush" actually in the lexicon of 1944-45? I know that there were Ambush Patrols in Vietnam, but have never heard of such a thing in WW II. I am open to correction.

[Slapdragon]

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

Was "ambush" actually in the lexicon of 1944-45? I know that there were Ambush Patrols in Vietnam, but have never heard of such a thing in WW II. I am open to correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely.

As for the automatons, you can believe a Battalion or Regimental commander (note that you are not in cahrge of the ambush, but more like the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the ambush as it were), while I must select the truth here.

In reality, your primary mistake is failing to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays. A commander at Regiment can do a lot to keep a company attack moving, but in almost every Army (perhaps this was not true with the Australian Army) the initiative and intelligence of the men was recquired to make plans work. It also resulted in human failings. In the US and all commonwealth Armies but seemingly the Australians, and in the German Army, localized commanders carried the tactical battle home. Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" but he could not remote control his men, so he usually relied on their training and initiative.

Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.

[JonS]

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

... but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken like a true vet. Which service were you in Slapper?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As has been pointed out, several times, the Commonwealth forces used a different rank structure. So, while the above may be true for the US it isn't for the CW.

[Spook]

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

My - fire discipline in the US Army in attack or defence must have been very slack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe Commonwealth army fire discipline, as touted here by some, was no better, only raised instead to BS mythological proportions over time.

Now, is that a valid generalization? No, of course not. But it would be as simplistic as the earlier one on the US Army, in which fire discipline, over the war's course, could vary widely due to any one US Army unit's specific leadership, prior training, experience, and experience loss from attrition. And I think those factors played with any other nationality too (although in different ways), so let's not pretend otherwise, shall we?

Now, going to the more tangible comments:

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

In the defence - the first shot is vital.

It can cause an attacker to deploy and thereby delay (a longer range shot) or it can be used for destruction of the attacker (generally closer range - pracised particularly in close country/MOUT situations). Sheer survival would have taught the section/platoon commanders when to use it to achive the effect required (by the battalion and higher commanders).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, although presuming that all section/squad leaders in a WWII setting, fully understanding the battalion-level "intent" on a regular basis, is a bit of a stretch. Section leaders guided to platoon leader "intent," platoon leaders guided to company HQ intent, etc. Otherwise, why bother with all the heirarchy?

And the "sheer survival" comment infers that units with more experience/training, better leadership, or both, will be better able to know when to open up.

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

Actually I find it extremely unrealistic.

In this system how would a deliberate ambush be initited and when ? By the person at the start of the ambush or by the ambush commander ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A "deliberate ambush" is done through a combination of the "hide" and "ambush" commands. The platoon CO & subordinate units are given a "hide" order, then an ambush point is dragged off from the platoon CO unit.

Perhaps the concern of yours is that squads require being in platoon command to stage an ambush, as they are presently not able to specify an ambush point if "out of command." The ability for such a squad to set its own ambush point could be argued for, though I think again that unit experience (veteran-level or better) would need to be an added criteria.

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

Would this mean an immeadite ambush is impossible ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean here by "immediate ambush."

I am curious to see the tweaks that CMBB will bring to ambush methods, as noted earlier by Simon. But the basic mechanic for an ambush is already on hand.

[Slapdragon]

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

As has been pointed out, several times, the Commonwealth forces used a different rank structure. So, while the above may be true for the US it isn't for the CW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheriff's department. Please avoid starting more flame wars, there is no need. My status of being active, reserve, or other at this moment means nothing to this discussion.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Was "ambush" actually in the lexicon of 1944-45? I know that there were Ambush Patrols in Vietnam, but have never heard of such a thing in WW II. I am open to correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From WWI pams (Oz admitedly) on warfare - yes it was.

Look up the "Art of Peaceful Penetration" as practiced from 1917 at least by I and II Anzac Corps on the Western Front (and by the Canadian Corps), by the Australians in the Tobruk perimeter in 1941, et al.

One of the tenets of the infantry is domination of the battlefield to allow recce (and deny the enemy the same), to engender good morale in ones own troops (and the converse to the enemy) and to allow prepartion for and possible siezure of ground short of formal offensive operations.

An ambush patrol is a fighting patrol (up to platoon or even company size) with a particular task (rather than just "spoiling for a fight".

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually not just possible - how about a battalion sized ambush ?

I suggest you read of the actions at the Muar River, Malaya 1941 by the 2/19 Bn 2nd AIF.

Involved a delaying action which resulted in the destruction of 10 tanks and infantry of approximately battalion size in one large ambush.....

The question is not wether they can or cannot open fire but rather should they.

Average troops (ie those who are not new to battle and have also recieved adequate training and are led by average leaders (from the section commander upwards), can fire when directed, at places they are directed to ....

If they do not, they end up dead, demoted and/or sent for "refresher training" along with their troops. The "boys" soon sort out the "wheat from the chaff".....

As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

I'm not sure what you mean here by "immediate ambush."

I am curious to see the tweaks that CMBB will bring to ambush methods, as noted earlier by Simon. But the basic mechanic for an ambush is already on hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Immeadite ambush is defined as almost a "target of opportunity" ie not planned, rehearsed and prepared for by the troops concerned.

Typical scenario may be a platoon on a fighting patrol (or a section as part of a larger fighting patrol - generally not despatched at less than a platoon) may encounter a small group moving through close country. The 'friendlies" decided that the ground and enemy size is favourable for an ambush and so set one immeaditely (hence the name !)...

[Simon Fox]

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

Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely.

As for the automatons, you can believe a Battalion or Regimental commander (note that you are not in cahrge of the ambush, but more like the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the ambush as it were), while I must select the truth here.

In reality, your primary mistake is failing to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays. A commander at Regiment can do a lot to keep a company attack moving, but in almost every Army (perhaps this was not true with the Australian Army) the initiative and intelligence of the men was recquired to make plans work. It also resulted in human failings. In the US and all commonwealth Armies but seemingly the Australians, and in the German Army, localized commanders carried the tactical battle home. Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" but he could not remote control his men, so he usually relied on their training and initiative.

Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you're getting a bit out of your depth here Jacko. Ambush not likely in WWII? Is that what you mean? Then why is it in the game?

As for the rest, the player now has far more control of the minutae of what his units do than any regimental commander (though I suspect you mean Bn since I have yet to come across a brigade/regiment sized CM game). Since you keep harping on about regimental and battalion commanders then you obviously haven't comprehended my previous point. The player in CM wears many hats not merely that of the Bn commander. I would suggest that it is you who fail to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays.

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

I call it that because, as a player, you wear many hats. You're the company commander. You're also the platoon commanders. And the sergeants. And even, to an extent, the corporals and privates!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

So basically the player *is* the platoon, company, or battalion commander. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm familiar with fighting patrols (as distinct from recce patrols, contact patrols, etc.) - generally platoon sized, and with the intent of causing a ruckus. I'm still not convinced "ambush" patrols were done to the degree they are practiced today. The WW I example seems a little unconvincing.

But even if they were, what does that have to do with CM? We are discussing company/battalion tactics.

JonS - Slapdragon's description seems pretty accurate - except for the Sergeant/Corporal thing, I would accept his description as ok.

The platoon commanders' roles in CM are also taken by the player (battalion commander) so I would agree with Simon on that point.

[Triumvir]

Now now, John; let's not be too nasty to Slapdragon. He has a legitimate excuse -- never having served in a Commonwealth pattern army, he has no idea how utterly bloody stingy such armies are with ammo.

In training, we'd usually go through two or three contacts on our basic contact rate (120 rds, for those counting.) I may not have been infantry, but the infantry wasn't much more prolific in ammo usage.

Suppressive fire was only done with single aimed shots; and with MILES gear, proved to be surprisingly effective.

(Although I'm quite surprised that he can talk about avoiding flame wars given that he said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Left-handed quasi-disavowals aren't particularly impressive coming from a peacemaker. Perhaps, like so many Americans[1], he can give but not take?)

But then again, I'm biased, having been quite utterly disgusted with his behaviour during my debut on this board. Take my words with as much salt as you please.

[1] Nota bene: This obviously is not a slam on Americans, but on that set of Americans who can't take criticism.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I think you're getting a bit out of your depth here Jacko. Ambush not likely in WWII? Is that what you mean? Then why is it in the game?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simply a command with a convenient name - to get troops not to fire until someone else reaches a certain point. Not necessarily an "ambush" in the same manner we think of it after watching Platoon.

As for fire discipline - I've participated in live fire defensive exercises, including as a rifleman in an infantry section. I agree that Commonwealth sections in WW II (and today) have very strict fire control. (Lest you think my experience irrelevant, compare the 1982 and 1937 Infantry Manuals, esepcially the parts on fire control, etc. Nearly identical). Individual riflemen did not fire until ordered to do so by their section commanders - in theory. That is how I practiced it on the range, anyway.

[Spook]

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

[/qb]

The question is not wether they can or cannot open fire but rather should they.

Average troops (ie those who are not new to battle and have also recieved adequate training and are led by average leaders (from the section commander upwards), can fire when directed, at places they are directed to ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they can. But consistently so? And in all cases or circumstances? One must move beyond citing anecdotes to make the case here.

The cited example of the Australian battalion ambush is noteworthy. But are all factors being related here, such as prior drill & preparation at the ambush location? Was the leadership of this battalion only "average" in CM terms? If you wish to simulate the effects of good leadership in CM to help set larger ambushes, it's within scenario design bounds to do so.

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

If they do not, they end up dead, demoted and/or sent for "refresher training" along with their troops. The "boys" soon sort out the "wheat from the chaff".....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Therefore, it is recognized as possible that "chaff" may exist within the ranks of a unit in its initial actions?

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

As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably was so for most inexperienced US Army units in WWII. Or were you just slinging an all-encompassing generalization that has basically zero weight here?

That's not a very inspired way as to make a case to BTS for your desired outlook to "high-level ambushes," considering that CMBO covers also Commonwealth & Germans beyond just US forces. For starters, why not try to articulate as to what you think should be changed in CM to handle larger ambushes, beyond the means presently available in CM?

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Sheriff's department. Please avoid starting more flame wars, there is no need. My status of being active, reserve, or other at this moment means nothing to this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it can have a big bearing IF you hold out to be the arbiter of what did/did not happen in the real (military) world (and you most certainly do).

There was a theme on military history list that basically said that if you had not served extensively you could not write good military history. Others disagreed - they wanted a military historian to have "smelled the grape shot".

I don't agree with either school necessarily but there are advantages to have had an appreciation of "what the hell was going on" through at least some form of military service (rather than paramilitary).

Some here have studied military history for a good many years. some here may have created it, some hope to their diety(ies) that they don't have to ....

But do not discard them because they seem not to fit in your concept of the world of the military........

[Spook]

With updated review, I see you've provided one expansion to an earlier question:

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

Typical scenario may be a platoon on a fighting patrol (or a section as part of a larger fighting patrol - generally not despatched at less than a platoon) may encounter a small group moving through close country. The 'friendlies" decided that the ground and enemy size is favourable for an ambush and so set one immeaditely (hence the name !)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically, "ambush on the fly." OK, a reasonable concept. (Unless it's the enemy who just happens to be in the good terrain first, and waiting in ambush instead.)

Now how would you want this implemented in CM? Take note that if setting up an "immediate ambush" could take up to a minute or more, then it might be incumbent on the player to apply the ambush orders manually....

Maybe the new "move to contact" in CMBB will help to mollify pushing onwards when fired on, and for units to seek available cover quicker.

[Mulga Bill]

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

[/qb]

As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may have been. I suspect the problem is not in how the US Army did things but rather in Mr.Slapdragons rather strange conceptualisation of how military units operate and in particular how British/Commonwealth units operate.

This is a problem caused more by his never having served in the military (by his own admission I believe in another thread) and his inability to counterance any other viewpoint but his own, based as it usually is upon viewing history through what appears to be in the case of those who have served, a distorted lense.

[Mulga Bill]

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

Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. The entire basis of Australian jungle warfare is constant patrolling with ambush and counter-ambush being prepared.

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

As for the automatons, you can believe a Battalion or Regimental commander (note that you are not in cahrge of the ambush, but more like the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the ambush as it were), while I must select the truth here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your inexperience is betraying you, yet again, Mr.Slapdragon - battalion commanders have, as in the example from Malaya, controlled ambushes. All that is required is a phone and a line.

Heaven help any subcommander who allows his men to open fire before the order is given - is my experience of the matter.

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

In reality, your primary mistake is failing to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays. A commander at Regiment can do a lot to keep a company attack moving, but in almost every Army (perhaps this was not true with the Australian Army) the initiative and intelligence of the men was recquired to make plans work. It also resulted in human failings. In the US and all commonwealth Armies but seemingly the Australians, and in the German Army, localized commanders carried the tactical battle home. Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" but he could not remote control his men, so he usually relied on their training and initiative.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Others have noted the American-centricity of your thought patterns, Mr.Slapdragon, so I won't belabour the point.

I will note that you appear to misunderstand discipline as against initiative. I am unsure about the US Army but the British/Commonwealth ones prided themselves on their discipline in battle - they were not a bunch of yahooing hooligans who blazed away at any potential target in sight.

At the same time, personal initiative was prized, particularly in the Commonwealth Armies - soldiers and NCO's were allowed, within the confines of the discipline imposed upon them, to think for themselves and to act on those considerations but they were well aware that there was a line over which they did not step. Perhaps the US Army didn't have that sort of conceptualisation?

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

Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest, Mr.Slapdragon that this paragraph alone betrays your anglophobia, more than anything else. You have obviously never studied any Australian military history if you believe that!

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

Your inexperience is betraying you, yet again, Mr.Slapdragon - battalion commanders have, as in the example from Malaya, controlled ambushes. All that is required is a phone and a line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The battalion commander gives the word to fire over the phone from down the trail and over the hill? You're joking, right?

[argie]

I really don't understand the point here, except maybe for the name calling

I don't remember the time in CM in which my troops fired AGAINST my orders.

If you wants to have fire discipline, just put an ambush marker away from the enemy troops, and they will not fire until under fire themselves. If you forget to do that, then is like if you didn't give the appropiate orders. Just that simple. There is nothing wrong with that in CM. Plus,you have a very good TacAI to make better decisions than you in targeting: they knos which markers are juicy targets before you

[Simon Fox]

You are entirely correct argie. The original point/question regarding fire discipline is readily answered within the game as you rightly point out it is possible through judicious use of the ambush and hide commands to both set ambushes and impose fire discipline. I think it was Brian who brought it up and maybe he wasn't aware of that capability within the game or at least how to use it properly. The answer is of course that yes ambushes can be set within the game and fire discipline imposed and the effectiveness depends upon the troop and leader quality.

The current brouhaha has little to do with that and more to do with Slappy using an entirely spurious line of reasoning. Now there are two possible explanations for this, either:

1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls

OR

2) he hasn't got a clue.

Personally I favour the first option.

Now Mulga Bill, pull your head in. I know of the famous ambush you cite and wasn't it a beauty, an entire elite force wiped out. But battalion size ambushes could hardly be said to be typical. Platoon or company size ambushes are perfectly doable at the moment.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

The current brouhaha has little to do with that and more to do with Slappy using an entirely spurious line of reasoning. Now there are two possible explanations for this, either:

1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls

OR

2) he hasn't got a clue.

Personally I favour the first option.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you are too generous to all parties !