Fascine Reprise

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

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

Just the opposite. US troops in WW2 were specifically trained not to fire at anything they could not see. US commanders often commented on their troop's tendency to hold fire, even to a fault, rather than blazing away at everything in sight as some here seem to believe for reasons that escape me.

On the subject of ambushes in CM: As Simon and Argie point out this whole tangent seems to be based upon a misconception. Ambushes in CM are not at all difficult to set up and execute at the platoon level, and even the company level if terrain and circumstance permit. Battalion level is not feasable, but that's no biggie. It's not a perfect system and is a bit clumsy at times, but it works well in most situations most of the time once you learn the nuances of the Hide and Ambush commands.

The new "covered arc" command should make things smoother in CM2.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Andreas]

Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? Battalion level ambushes, based on something the Aussies did in Malaya (once? in the 1950s?) - come on. There are accounts of Finns using logs to disable T-26s. Can BTS please bring out a patch that gives me at least one log on a platoon level to disable light tanks? The game must be broken.

Disregarding the nationalistic slurs that have started flying here again, I would venture to guess that the failure to carry out an ambush in CM in a reasonably realistic fashion is due to a major PEBKAS interface failure (problem exists between keyboard and seat). IOW - the player is incompetent. Regardless of nationality.

Jesus Christ on a crutch.

[Vanir Ausf B]

LOL! I wish I could have said it as well

[Spook]

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

Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? Battalion level ambushes, based on something the Aussies did in Malaya (once? in the 1950s?) - come on. There are accounts of Finns using logs to disable T-26s. Can BTS please bring out a patch that gives me at least one log on a platoon level to disable light tanks? The game must be broken.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hard to say. Those asserting that something more is needed for "ambushes" has yet neither spelled out 1) what is specifically wrong with the present methods available in CM, and 2) a specific idea on how to improve over the present system.

It's a bit ironic that fire discipline is bantered around here, but "fire discipline" in terms of submitting posts is starting to fail. Rather, it's the old line of "BTS are US developers, so they obviously don't understand how we (insert nationality) fought in the war." Or in other words, bait with a nationality statement to expose on this board the presumed limited view of the game designers.

It's nearly two years that I've been reading this forum and seeing this oft-repeated tactic in use, which is little better than making a headlong charge into barbed wire, and without the wire cutters. (Oh wait, we already covered that ground in the earlier engineering topic... )

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

Disregarding the nationalistic slurs that have started flying here again, I would venture to guess that the failure to carry out an ambush in CM in a reasonably realistic fashion is due to a major PEBKAS interface failure (problem exists between keyboard and seat). IOW - the player is incompetent. Regardless of nationality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps an expectation of an incompetent player is that by selecting a certain nationality, this will guarantee that the subordinate cybertroops will always compensate, regardless of whatever god-awful situation the player puts them into.

[Andreas]

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

It's a bit ironic that fire discipline is bantered around here, but "fire discipline" in terms of submitting posts is starting to fail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Worked, did it, Simon?

It's always amusing to see how heated and tangential the posts get when it comes to Commonwealth stuff. Makes us feel so important, don't ya know!

I would still like an answer about how a battalion commander springs an ambush -

Better yet, how about if we define what "ambush" means - if we really feel the need to discuss it further. Simon is correct that the use of HIDE and AMBUSH etc. can allow for flexibility on the part of the player. Is the simple act of holding one's fire really an "ambush" in the technical sense?

And what does this have to do with fascines? Or anything, for that matter...

[Slapdragon]

Yes, a comment by Brian started all of this, with a small Nationalistic slur , that he wished he could control his men better, BTS do somefink, and I commented that the fact men are not automatons but do things that you, the commander, do not always like, is part of the game.

This is a big issue -- and I think a lot of people are using a few years of militia training to justify a perception that somehow all soldiers are perfect. Now, flame baiting by JonS and Triumvir aside (I love it that you guys cannot read a sentence I write without starting a war, it is a primary compliment of a historian) and looking away from 3 post Mulgal Hill, lets look at this serious.

1) Do soldiers perform each task perfectly? Has any active soldier seen a mistake in the field from a fellow soldier, or is the current contention that all soldiers perform all actions perfectly a valid contention?

2) Is it possible that you throw a PIAT launcher in some woods with no further orders, and a tank comes rumbling down, that they would fire without orders. How much inititaive would invidual teams show in that situation?

3) Is it possible that a platoon of soldiers, placed in an "ambush" without clear orders to initiate a contact at a certian location (ie. an ambush mark) that a threat off access may cause a squad leader to go "screw this" and start firing? Or would that squad leader choose to throw his men away and die to allow the ambush to stay in place.

In other words, nationalistic talk and all that crap aside, flames put back into the flame bucket, and personal attacks against me (fun fun fun!!!) left for the school yard or the Peng Thread, the issue is how much like real human beings do we want these sims to act like?

My proposal is that being in a a practice ambush in training is great, I did that when I was 17 in the FNG. The little targets pop, you all shot on command, ande then walk home. But what if those little targets had popped to the rear, or what if three guys in the end think they hear the PL fire, or whatever.

As for military service needed to be a historian, the famous historian Barbara Tuchman said, "I know of few who served in the trenches of World War One, or at the Battle of Agincourt, so I guess we can no longer write about it?

My question to those who want this is how many years of combat service did they get in WW2, and in what theaters?

[Slapdragon]

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

This is a problem caused more by his never having served in the military (by his own admission I believe in another thread) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would you know what I said in another thread six months ago?

Ammended: Sorry -- Mulga Hill is the banned Kim Beazley.

Kim Beazley uses new Mulga Hill account to prove point.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Slapdragon - I think you are slipping in and out of the general and the specific, as tero pointed out another poster was doing in the tank thread.

You talk about a lone PIAT team posted in the woods. They would be under orders to fire in specific circumstances - or even under orders to fire "at their discretion."

I think we were talking mostly about formed platoons and companies - fire discipline is easier to maintain in those situations.

In my personal example - I opened fire a couple of times without orders - and my trench partner had to chastise me for it, reminding me that the section commander had to give the order. That was in peacetime (but of course, I had very little experience in a rifle section, too).

To discuss this anything near intelligently, let's define "ambush", or at least settle on a situation - are we talking two men posted in the woods, or an entire battalion facing a human wave attack?

In general, we can tell you that fire discipline - as taught - was high.

So what situations are we discussing where it was not so high?

[Andreas]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bollocks. So only if you served are you allowed to think about this? Here's news for you - I have been commanded by men in the German military for whom breathing was a mental challenge, let alone think about how anything above section level operates. Having served does not give you a higher IQ or deeper understanding than that of someone who has studied the topics in question.

You probably believe that Jack Ryan is a real person too.

[Michael Dorosh]

The world's most acclaimed military historians have never served a day in their lives -

Bercuson, Keegan, Ambrose, etc. Let's put that one to bed right now. Military service is not a prerequisite to being a military historian. Period.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon - I think you are slipping in and out of the general and the specific, as tero pointed out another poster was doing in the tank thread.

You talk about a lone PIAT team posted in the woods. They would be under orders to fire in specific circumstances - or even under orders to fire "at their discretion."

I think we were talking mostly about formed platoons and companies - fire discipline is easier to maintain in those situations.

In my personal example - I opened fire a couple of times without orders - and my trench partner had to chastise me for it, reminding me that the section commander had to give the order. That was in peacetime (but of course, I had very little experience in a rifle section, too).

To discuss this anything near intelligently, let's define "ambush", or at least settle on a situation - are we talking two men posted in the woods, or an entire battalion facing a human wave attack?

In general, we can tell you that fire discipline - as taught - was high.

So what situations are we discussing where it was not so high?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike, my point here is that this is a general complaint: My Piat did / did not attack when I wanted it to -- not a specific complain, since it was in response to the original "I want my men to do what I want them to". Just that, the game allows detailed commands, but if you don't use them and your men do stupid things, or if you do use them and they still do something stupid, is this not sorta like real life? I can control a platoon real well in the game with a targetting point and hide command, but if I don't set that point down then I am in trouble.

[Brian]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the point I was making, Simon was that as soon as you move your men they start shooting at all and sundry, rather than maintaining their fire discipline. The thread then became sidetracked into discussion about ambushes, something I never intended talking about.

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

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>

I concur, simply because he's shown just how clumsy he is at it. Rather like watching a bull in a china shop.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Brian]

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

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

In think you'll find that if a battalion is conducting an ambush, the battalion commander would tend to be in a position where he could observe and give the command to fire, from.

Battalion ambushes are the exception, rather than the rule but I think the one at Gemas in 1942 was brought up, more as an example of how big an ambush can be, rather than necessarily an example of what could be considered the norm.

[Spook]

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

I think the point I was making, Simon was that as soon as you move your men they start shooting at all and sundry, rather than maintaining their fire discipline.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, then, a little more clarity here.

This might be changed somewhat in behavior with the addition of the "assault" command in CMBB. Or if you want your moving men to stop before firing, then the "move to contact" also slated for CMBB could be of help.

But if you are wanting for your moving units to hold fire unless they are within a certain range of enemy units, then that's something more along the lines of asking for a "standard operating procedure" or SOP.

Arguing for SOP options to be added to a unit's order menu is reasonable to do. I found them to be of help in games like TacOps, Brigade Combat Team, or Steel Beasts. But arguments for SOP's in CM have been made in the past, and those earlier arguments didn't quite cut the mustard. So, any new SOP argument needs to be formatted along the lines of the Slapdragon/Simon Fox guideline reposted in this thread.

How shall we title this recent new guideline? "SlapSimon" or "DragonFox"?

[Spook]

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

Ammended: Sorry -- Mulga Hill is the banned Kim Beazley.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, "Mulga" did include "annoying" in his profile as his interest. Seems to be acting true to form then.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I think the point I was making, Simon was that as soon as you move your men they start shooting at all and sundry, rather than maintaining their fire discipline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if you know how to do it. You move them while they are targeting an ambush point. Yes, you can do this, and they will continue to target that ambush point even if it becomes outside LOS. They will only fire if fired upon first, at which point the gig is up anyway.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

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

How shall we title this recent new guideline? "SlapSimon" or "DragonFox"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we need to call them the Dragonfox guidelines. I remember the old SOP discussion, and it was not a bad idea, but the current AI is not setup to handle it. What would be more useful would be a fuzzy logic AI in the core of the game with modifications to the probabilities of action representing SOP, so units could be given freedom of action SOP level, or a stickiness to command SOP level. But that is for the AI rewrite.

[Slapdragon]

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

Not if you know how to do it. You move them while they are targeting an ambush point. Yes, you can do this, and they will continue to target that ambush point even if it becames outside LOS. They will only fire if fired upon first, at which point the gig is up anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the case, but depends on how experienced they are.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

This is the case, but depends on how experienced they are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure, but I think experience only matters for the hide command. In all the time I've been playing CM I do not recall ever seeing a squad targeting an ambush marker open fire unless the ambush is sprung or the squad is fired upon (includes being hit by arty, ect.)

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Brian]

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

OK, then, a little more clarity here.

This might be changed somewhat in behavior with the addition of the "assault" command in CMBB. Or if you want your moving men to stop before firing, then the "move to contact" also slated for CMBB could be of help.

But if you are wanting for your moving units to hold fire unless they are within a certain range of enemy units, then that's something more along the lines of asking for a "standard operating procedure" or SOP.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what I am seeking is for them to be able to be redeployed without them suddenly popping up and openning fire. If I've given them hide orders, I expect them not to fire, even if I move them.

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

Arguing for SOP options to be added to a unit's order menu is reasonable to do. I found them to be of help in games like TacOps, Brigade Combat Team, or Steel Beasts. But arguments for SOP's in CM have been made in the past, and those earlier arguments didn't quite cut the mustard. So, any new SOP argument needs to be formatted along the lines of the Slapdragon/Simon Fox guideline reposted in this thread.

How shall we title this recent new guideline? "SlapSimon" or "DragonFox"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SOP's sound like a useful feature but I can see problems associated with them as well.

As I said, I'm seeking is for me to tell my troops not to fire. I would be more than willing to accept a chance that my order will be disobeyed but I'd still like to tell them to not fire, if I so desire.

[Andreas]

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

As I said, I'm seeking is for me to tell my troops not to fire. I would be more than willing to accept a chance that my order will be disobeyed but I'd still like to tell them to not fire, if I so desire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you tried the ambush function Vanir talks about? That should work.

[Brian]

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

Have you tried the ambush function Vanir talks about? That should work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit, no. I was unaware it was possible. Still seems like a clumsy work around to me, whereas I simply desire them not to fire unless ordered to.

[Andreas]

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

I admit, no. I was unaware it was possible. Still seems like a clumsy work around to me, whereas I simply desire them not to fire unless ordered to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite sure it works. Whether it is clumsy or not *shrug* - if you want to make sure they don't fire you have to use hide and the ambush function anyway, so if you then break cover, the ambush point will be there.

[tabpub]

I thought the "sneak" command covered the "don't fire til you're done moving, unless the bad guys spot you and then fire back routine".

Back to the ozone... :cool: