An answer to Simon Fox

[Username]

I suspect that tero is just rooting about for another forum for his "tales of the great SMG in the woods" theories.

perhaps CM7 (Revenge of the Finns) will have a sleep state for Russian troops. This will allow the Finnish skiers of lore to swoop down and lay waste with SMGs on the fly. Each skier, as per historical facts, will move as an independant entity and with perfect synchronized skiing abilities with his patrollers. the russian troops will be hampered in using withdrawl because they will be tripping over their own weapons (which they dropped when they woke up).

I see this thread as a battle of fuzzy logic vs stale ideas. There is no common ground to people living in uber-worlds.

The game is at a certain scale and limited by technology. There are abstractions. The game system is trying to model MOST WWII battles. I dont think the scale is such that jungle battles (or deep woods) would be worthwhile or enjoyable. I mention these because thats where squads would not be the best discrete element for troops. A better level would be fire teams, individual leaders, etc.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

Tero, your argument is the same one you made before: that tactics should give pluses and minuses to units -- your own self named hiearchy placing Finns on the top, Germans somewhere below, and everyone else heaped near the bottom.

Tactics are the realm of the player.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Spook:

Well, in due respect, this is a BIG misunderstanding to what I mean about consistency.

I suspected that.

And "biased set of facts" does not enter into it by my own definition.

That remark referred to RL rather than CM universe. You have not read any history books that put forth a biased set of facts ? ALL (including Finnish) histories present the facts as seen from their respective POV. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased way of presenting a historical "fact".

Because I don't believe in applying national biases.

National biases are bad. Scientifically established, force specific patterns of behaviour are not.

Let me put it by example of how vehicles and infantry COULD be treated in a tactical CM-scale game.......and thus attacked by some arbitrary factor assigned to the infantry unit.

Why is the value arbitrary ? Why does the value have to be arbitrary ? Why can it not adhere to historically viable set of values ?

This is what I mean. Not "gameplay consistency" but rather game model consistency.

But that is different from historical consistency. And that makes the world of difference.

If one "historical" element of the game is given hyper-detail, while another fundamental element is given arbitrary treatment at best, then the game model is inconsistent. And historical consistency (& accuracy) is almost certain to also suffer.

Some say historical consistency is not met when it comes to frontal kills of Panthers and Tigers by 37mm guns. Or the higher than "normal" kill rates by Allied armour on the move. It can be argued these occurancies adhere to historical accuracy. Or not. In that light would you say this is a case of hyper detailing vs arbitary treatment of another factor ?

Many has been the wargame that was ultimately undermined by inconsistent elements, and even the hyper-detailed ASL series suffers a bit of this too.

Board games are easy in a way as you can alter the rules with pen and paper.

Abstractions are unavoidable in wargames, even in CM. But if the abstractions are properly balanced against the game scale, then the game model can maintain consistency and thus a relatively good "historical accuracy."

Yes. From the POV the design team has taken. My only major beef with abstractions in CM the universal soldier approach taken with infantry units. Men are created equal but the military training they receive is not equal nor uniform and consistent. This includes the doctrinal aspect of deployment of varios weapons that fall into the same category technically speaking.

"Accuracy through detail" is something you can take many levels beyond historical consistency, depending on how detailed you want the game model to get. But if you don't first have consistency, you're almost certain to never achieve historical accuracy, no matter how much detail is jammed into the model overall. Keep the game model focused, and keep it consistent. The pursuit of greater "accuracy" through increased detail must take care not to violate those rules in the process.

I quite agree. But which comes first, the details or the model ? In CM it seems that in the past every minute change in a detail created a cascading effect that requires a rebalancing of the entire system to get it working properly and consistently again. That would indicate that some of the most vital factors are hardcoded and to tamper with one aspect threw a monkey whrench into the system. Hence to go against the prime directives is virtually impossible without upsetting the balance of the universe.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Username:

I suspect that tero is just rooting about for another forum for his "tales of the great SMG in the woods" theories.

The tales were told and the theories concocted about 25 years before I was born and apart from the Finnish army at least the men responsible for the Red Army tactical and doctrinal development bought them to the extent that they had IIRC 5 million SMG's built and distributed to the Red Army troops during WWII. And they proceeded into taking part in the victory parade in Berlin some years later.

perhaps CM7 (Revenge of the Finns) will have a sleep state for Russian troops.

Whereas the Finns can go up to 105 days with little or minimal (virtually no at times) sleep without it affecting the performance of the Finnish army units.

This will allow the Finnish skiers of lore to swoop down and lay waste with SMGs on the fly. Each skier, as per historical facts, will move as an independant entity and with perfect synchronized skiing abilities with his patrollers.

You are forgetting the über reindeer.

the russian troops will be hampered in using withdrawl because they will be tripping over their own weapons (which they dropped when they woke up).

How can they trip over them if they are already dead ? Besides, the Finnish troops would have already examined and picked the best automatic arms for their own use.

I see this thread as a battle of fuzzy logic vs stale ideas. There is no common ground to people living in uber-worlds.

Well, at least in my überworld the keybord can reproduce the umlauts with ease.

The game is at a certain scale and limited by technology. There are abstractions. The game system is trying to model MOST WWII battles. I dont think the scale is such that jungle battles (or deep woods) would be worthwhile or enjoyable.

Yet real battles in this scale were fought in the jungle and deep woods. You do not know what kind of fun you are missing out on.

If it pleases you we could take a mano-a-mano set in moderately hilly, heavily wooded rural terrain. I can take the British so there will be no room for foul play.

I mention these because thats where squads would not be the best discrete element for troops. A better level would be fire teams, individual leaders, etc.

Not exactly. What you need is a combination of proper squad combat drill suited to the terrain, proper over all tactics and a plan to work with. In CM splitting into half teams in low LOS terrain is suicide unless you know what you are doing.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Tero, your argument is the same one you made before: that tactics should give pluses and minuses to units

NonononononoNO

They would make them act differently under TacAI. They would not be getting gratuitious plusses or unwarranted minuses just because.

-- your own self named hiearchy placing Finns on the top, Germans somewhere below, and everyone else heaped near the bottom.

NonononononoNO

Each army had its strong points and weaknesses. How they play out is up to the circumstances and how well the prewar tactics and doctrine apply to it and how quickly they can be adabted in case they do not work.

Tactics are the realm of the player.

No they are not. The issuing of orders is the realm of the player. He can not affect the TacAI mechanics so it can be said the tactics are the realm of the player.

[Spook]

Sighhh.......

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

That remark referred to RL rather than CM universe. You have not read any history books that put forth a biased set of facts ? ALL (including Finnish) histories present the facts as seen from their respective POV. There is no such thing as a totally unbiased way of presenting a historical "fact".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course there are biased references on WWII and other military-related subjects. Heck, I've found some regarding the WWII strategic bombing campaign with some pretty obvious author's bias. Then it's up to a good historical wargame designer to cross-reference and seek out the more reliable, objective historical sources. Some such sources do actually exist out there.

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

Why is the value arbitrary ? Why does the value have to be arbitrary ? Why can it not adhere to historically viable set of values ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, I was posing an example. Please allow per my example that a game design MIGHT give some cut-rate treatment to a key wargame mechanic or unit type, while giving hyper-detail to others. If you've played the TalonSoft Campaign Series, then you'd might find some such examples of what I was talking about.

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

But that is different from historical consistency. And that makes the world of difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not per my definition. Historical wargames that have consistent game models are likely to be historically consistent too. CM is one such example (even allowing room for future improvement). Give me an example of an inconsistent wargame model that is still historically consistent.

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

Some say historical consistency is not met when it comes to frontal kills of Panthers and Tigers by 37mm guns. Or the higher than "normal" kill rates by Allied armour on the move. It can be argued these occurancies adhere to historical accuracy. Or not. In that light would you say this is a case of hyper detailing vs arbitary treatment of another factor ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, not quite valid examples. If the game scale (single-vehicle) is detailed enough such that 37mm guns CAN get an occasional kill against a German uber-tank, that by itself isn't inconsistent. What would be a valid example of inconsistency is if a 37mm-gunned tank, firing on the move at a Panther 2500 meters away (also moving), regularly scores kills under such conditions.

BTS recently took up the issue of "easy kills while firing on the move" in CM. BTS also tabulated its results here. My review of the tabulation didn't reveal (IMO) any gross inconsistencies, although later improvements are worth considering.

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

Yes. From the POV the design team has taken. My only major beef with abstractions in CM the universal soldier approach taken with infantry units. Men are created equal but the military training they receive is not equal nor uniform and consistent. This includes the doctrinal aspect of deployment of varios weapons that fall into the same category technically speaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then the typical accusation thus is often made that somehow BTS has some inherent "pro-US" bias.

I will tell you straight-out, tero. In my 27 years of wargaming, one WWII nationality has always been head-&-shoulders above all others in terms of favorably biased treatment---the Germans. ESPECIALLY in boardgames which had greater levels of abstraction. And yet, with CM, there suddenly rises up so much of this unsubstantiated claim of BTS's "pro-US" bias instead.

Tero, I know that you are pursuing to have "training" as an added unique qualifier to troops in future CM versions. Do I fault this pursued goal? No. It could be of some use.

But here's an example of abstraction, consistency, and proposed added detail: unit experience in CM. The manual states that prior training can be assumed to help define unit experience level. This is therefore an abstraction. But is it inconsistently applied in CM? That has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt so to get BTS to consider an added troop quality definer. Insofar, I don't think you've made your case strongly enough.

Case in point: a unit, highly drilled in peacetime tactics for about 1-2 years, runs into an enemy unit that is equal strength, with equivalent weapons, having only 1-2 months training in the very same tactics, but also experienced in combat for about 2-4 months. Which unit would you lay odds on?

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

I quite agree. But which comes first, the details or the model ? In CM it seems that in the past every minute change in a detail created a cascading effect that requires a rebalancing of the entire system to get it working properly and consistently again. That would indicate that some of the most vital factors are hardcoded and to tamper with one aspect threw a monkey whrench into the system. Hence to go against the prime directives is virtually impossible without upsetting the balance of the universe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer to the first question is a no-brainer. The model comes first in game design planning. Establish your game concept, game turn mechanics, game scales, etc. With those in hand, then one can determine how much detail is appropriate to apply.

Adding more details later on can indeed cause possible cascading effects. But not always so. That's the point of testing something first before throwing it out to the public.

So---getting back to the issue of creating squad BOF weapons as separate teams---this is recognized to be requested as an added detail. Would it be inconsistent in application? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it first has to be argued in a compelling way for BTS to consider making some added effort to include it. Then it has to be tested to see how well it works in the CM model before the revision "goes public."

If the concept happens to fail either criteria, are you then prepared to move on?

[Username]

tero, not that I am saying that I would like you to go somewhere else, but it really sounds that maybe a CC type game could suit you best. Have you put forth your ideas to them?

[Tero]

Of course there are biased references on WWII and other military-related subjects. Heck, I've found some regarding the WWII strategic bombing campaign with some pretty obvious author's bias. Then it's up to a good historical wargame designer to cross-reference and seek out the more reliable, objective historical sources. Some such sources do actually exist out there.

Yes. But I think the term "historical consistency" should not be used in this context. How do you reconcile historical facts pertaining technical aspects of hardware and historical facts that carry moral connotations ? What is the scale in which these separate spheres influence the facts being examined. The term "historically consistent" carries inherent writer/reader dependant biases even if they are not perceived to be biases. They may be such factors that the writer/reader take for granted because their frame of reference conditions them to bypass them without questioning them.

Tero, I was posing an example.

Yes. However the example was incomplete when you failed to mention why that one aspect was treated arbitrarily. The why is as important as the what. That infantry close assulting the armour is one of the most "mistreated" aspects in wargames in general.

If you've played the TalonSoft Campaign Series, then you'd might find some such examples of what I was talking about.

BoB and the Over the Reich (?) are the only games by them I have played.

Not per my definition. Historical wargames that have consistent game models are likely to be historically consistent too. CM is one such example (even allowing room for future improvement). Give me an example of an inconsistent wargame model that is still historically consistent.

In your 27 years of war gaming how many time have you seen the Finnish forces depicted and of these how many would you say are accurate depictions ? Historical consistency was not met in SP for example where the AI would pick 30 FT tanks for the Finns when playing a QB style battle with AI purchased forces.

This is why I dislike the term. If a game system works on principles of historical consistency then it should also work for the lesser known participants who historically used tactics and doctrine dissimilar to the tactics and doctrine the game system was built to depict. Historically consistent model made to depict the battles in France may not work 1:1 when transferred to the Eastern Front and applied to armies which differe from eachother AND the western armies.

Sorry, not quite valid examples. If the game scale (single-vehicle) is detailed enough such that 37mm guns CAN get an occasional kill against a German uber-tank, that by itself isn't inconsistent.

I agree the ability to kill is not inconsistent. However the frequency with which it occurs in the game is. But I think that is more a statistical anomaly/inconsistency than a historical inconsistency. But it is still an anomaly/inconsistency.

What would be a valid example of inconsistency is if a 37mm-gunned tank, firing on the move at a Panther 2500 meters away (also moving), regularly scores kills under such conditions.

Well, the term being debated is historical consistency. When we take a sample of stories and historical documents about Allied AFV's armed with the 37mm gun can you honestly say you find regular, consistent remarks about how they killed the German heavies (any tank really as all they encountered were Tigers) ? Technically they had a 1 in a 100/1000 (depending if it was a PzKw-IV or a Tiger) chance of actually killing one but how often did they duke it out with them and how many did they actually kill, according to historical records ? Just because the German 37mm AA gun has a reputation of being a potent tank killer does not warrant the uncanny, consistent ability to kill the heavies by Allied AFV's armed with 37mm gun.

BTS recently took up the issue of "easy kills while firing on the move" in CM. BTS also tabulated its results here. My review of the tabulation didn't reveal (IMO) any gross inconsistencies, although later improvements are worth considering.

Can you point me to the tread ?

And then the typical accusation thus is often made that somehow BTS has some inherent "pro-US" bias.

While I think there are some aspects that are iffy (stabilizers for example) and some of the (mass)modelings that seem to have been done according to the US military doctrine in a way that does not reflect the ways the other armies went about things I have not seen any clearly pro-US biases. Then again combinations of such aspects as cross section targeting, stabilizers, first shot hit propabilities, AT guns picking any damn target they please, pillboxes/bunkers being classes as vehicles etc seem to lean towards the Allies in certain tactical situations. Nothing clear, nothing obvious but sometimes I do get a feeling the home team got a helping hand from the referees.

I will tell you straight-out, tero. In my 27 years of wargaming, one WWII nationality has always been head-&-shoulders above all others in terms of favorably biased treatment---the Germans. ESPECIALLY in boardgames which had greater levels of abstraction. And yet, with CM, there suddenly rises up so much of this unsubstantiated claim of BTS's "pro-US" bias instead.

I think such claims are the counterproduct of the histories telling you how the Germans were better and their arms were better. Now that CM took a more statistical look at things the tables turned. While these statistical facts are startling they are maybe too "purely" presented in CM (the case in point being the 37mm tank gun).

But is it inconsistently applied in CM?

In CM ? No. But that is because the participants are basically chips off the same block.

That has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt so to get BTS to consider an added troop quality definer. Insofar, I don't think you've made your case strongly enough.

That is because I am still compiling the data.

Case in point: a unit, highly drilled in peacetime tactics for about 1-2 years, runs into an enemy unit that is equal strength, with equivalent weapons, having only 1-2 months training in the very same tactics, but also experienced in combat for about 2-4 months.

One minor flaw in your example: how many opposing armies are you aware of that were training in the very same tactics ? I know none.

I do not if that one can slide.

Which unit would you lay odds on?

I have a hard time swallowing the very same tactics bit. I need more data: what about the terrain, is it comparable or totally different for these forces have trained in ? Is the terrain they fight comparable to terrain either of the trained or is it unfamiliar to both of them ? Which unit is the attacker, the rookies or the pros ? What are their respective missions ? What kind of casualties have the rookies sustained so far ?

So---getting back to the issue of creating squad BOF weapons as separate teams

That was one heck of a detour.

this is recognized to be requested as an added detail. Would it be inconsistent in application? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it first has to be argued in a compelling way for BTS to consider making some added effort to include it. Then it has to be tested to see how well it works in the CM model before the revision "goes public."

CM is "lost" but CM2 is still salvageable.

If the concept happens to fail either criteria, are you then prepared to move on?

What else is there to do ?

But I just can not see how it could fail. BOF is a RL concept well tested and tried, even more importantly more or less universally used in one form or another. If the CM model is done properly the concept should be easy to implement.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Username:

tero, not that I am saying that I would like you to go somewhere else

Then what are saying ?

but it really sounds that maybe a CC type game could suit you best. Have you put forth your ideas to them?

[Spook]

Well, this topic is truly talked out without much new being revealed. If BTS thought the issue important enough, Steve et al would've responded by now. But one more try to explain things with you, tero:

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

Yes. But I think the term "historical consistency" should not be used in this context. How do you reconcile historical facts pertaining technical aspects of hardware and historical facts that carry moral connotations ? What is the scale in which these separate spheres influence the facts being examined. The term "historically consistent" carries inherent writer/reader dependant biases even if they are not perceived to be biases. They may be such factors that the writer/reader take for granted because their frame of reference conditions them to bypass them without questioning them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tero, you are the only one assigning bias as a qualifier to "consistency." Even with historical references, consistency isn't bias. That's absurd. Consistency in historical references is to treat ALL relevant factors of an historical event at the appropriate level for which they contributed to that event. And from the most objective viewpoint possible, with minimal linkage to national bias.

Now, take by example the recent CM forum discussion on Enfield rifles and aimed-fire training. Some posters argued that aimed fire, as a doctrine, defined the effectiveness of UK/Commonwealth armies. To me, that's historical inconsistency to arrive at "army effectiveness" by aimed fire alone. It ignores the contributions of artillery, armor, combined arms, logistics, attritional capabilities, etc. which all probably had relatively greater impact on UK army effectiveness.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes. However the example was incomplete when you failed to mention why that one aspect was treated arbitrarily. The why is as important as the what. That infantry close assulting the armour is one of the most "mistreated" aspects in wargames in general.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't necessary for the example. The point of the example is that it is very easy for game designs, even wargames, to take shortcuts with some game elements that wargamers might consider critical in treatment. A more common example is "command & control" if that helps you recognize an example as just that.

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

In your 27 years of war gaming how many time have you seen the Finnish forces depicted and of these how many would you say are accurate depictions ? Historical consistency was not met in SP for example where the AI would pick 30 FT tanks for the Finns when playing a QB style battle with AI purchased forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never played SP, but played the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader series. As infantry, the Finns were treated like relative battlefield gods in that game system.

Was that model right or wrong? I couldn't say, because study of the Russo-Finn wars in WWII weren't focal to me. But I believe that the ASL game designers rated the Finns as they felt most appropriate to the ASL models for morale & experience. The comparable CM models, however, rendered ASL treatment of morale as obsolete to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is why I dislike the term. If a game system works on principles of historical consistency then it should also work for the lesser known participants who historically used tactics and doctrine dissimilar to the tactics and doctrine the game system was built to depict. Historically consistent model made to depict the battles in France may not work 1:1 when transferred to the Eastern Front and applied to armies which differe from eachother AND the western armies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're confusing "consistent" with "generic." I wouldn't expect a straight face-lift of CMBO to translate into CMBB. That's why some aspects are getting more detailed treatment, like armor platoon C&C, artillery fire control flexibility, etc. In this case, some added detail or revision is needed to preserve consistency.

Tero, you may have a problem with the term, but the fact of the matter remains in that consistency IS a criteria to wargame design. If it's inconsistent, then it'll never approach relative historical realism, no matter how many minute little details are added in here & there. Bottom line. Strive for consistency first, and then worry about what details to apply while maintaining a consistent model. The other way around is putting the cart before the horse, and is a poor design process.

Try this as an analogy. If I want to fasten some hardware down onto a surface, do I first worry about bolt thread pitch and threads/inch? No, because first-off, bolts might not even be the right fastener type. First establish the appropriate fastener, its length & diameter. Then worry about thread pitch if you are using some bolt or screw.

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

I agree the ability to kill is not inconsistent. However the frequency with which it occurs in the game is. But I think that is more a statistical anomaly/inconsistency than a historical inconsistency. But it is still an anomaly/inconsistency.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You state it as if proven. Very well, then, run various tests and tabulate your results, then run it by BTS. But the statement above doesn't cut the mustard by itself.

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

Can you point me to the tread ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Search doesn't work for me now. Look for something like "Tanks firing on the move" (or firing in fast-move) if you have the druthers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While I think there are some aspects that are iffy (stabilizers for example) and some of the (mass)modelings that seem to have been done according to the US military doctrine in a way that does not reflect the ways the other armies went about things I have not seen any clearly pro-US biases. Then again combinations of such aspects as cross section targeting, stabilizers, first shot hit propabilities, AT guns picking any damn target they please, pillboxes/bunkers being classes as vehicles etc seem to lean towards the Allies in certain tactical situations. Nothing clear, nothing obvious but sometimes I do get a feeling the home team got a helping hand from the referees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That last statement verifies again your belief that BTS sought a "pro-US bias" through subtleties in the game model. Duly noted, then. Now prove it in a compelling way.

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

I think such claims are the counterproduct of the histories telling you how the Germans were better and their arms were better. Now that CM took a more statistical look at things the tables turned. While these statistical facts are startling they are maybe too "purely" presented in CM (the case in point being the 37mm tank gun).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's again left to you to prove the last statement that the game model translation was intended by design to favor the US side. Or at least argue it in a compelling way. "Warm fuzzy feelings" aren't enough for me here.

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

That is because I am still compiling the data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compile on as you wish. But do allow the possibility that BTS may still ultimately reject your findings.

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

One minor flaw in your example: how many opposing armies are you aware of that were training in the very same tactics ? I know none.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The American Civil War, for starters. I posed the case as an example, tero, a theoretical example. Allow completely theoretical examples as possible comparison points. If you don't, then your process of analysis is too inflexible.

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

I have a hard time swallowing the very same tactics bit. I need more data: what about the terrain, is it comparable or totally different for these forces have trained in ? Is the terrain they fight comparable to terrain either of the trained or is it unfamiliar to both of them ? Which unit is the attacker, the rookies or the pros ? What are their respective missions ? What kind of casualties have the rookies sustained so far ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some things for a theoretical example, like who's attacking and who's defending, are useful as qualifiers. But for other things like terrain or prior losses, try to be flexible enough to consider "all other things being equal." Otherwise, you lose focus.

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

CM is "lost" but CM2 is still salvageable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somehow, I get the impression that CMBB will be "lost" to you too. We shall see, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I just can not see how it could fail. BOF is a RL concept well tested and tried, even more importantly more or less universally used in one form or another. If the CM model is done properly the concept should be easy to implement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you state it as fact, while not privy to the extent of the CM code & code structure. Calling something "easy to implement" might be a little presumptuous. Perhaps it might indeed be easy to apply. But after all of the discussion here, it hasn't been established in a compelling way how such a revision will really add to the CM model. It will add detail, but will it be consistent in application? And is it so important as to merit BTS's time & effort relative to other design problems & issues?

Hard questions, tero, and no easy answers. But wishing thinking alone, and unsubstantiated claims of national bias, won't be enough for BTS.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[killa in manilla]

just checking my signature

[Brian]

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

Originally posted by Triumvir:

[qb]Calling any recent involvement with professional forces against guerillas an arsekicking for the professionals seems somewhat... shaded.

Perhaps. But we must not forget that these days more than ever the use of military force is governed by political considerations more than purely military ones. And that these political considerations a valid only as long as the attention span of the western TV viewer holds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QB]

Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best?

Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones.

They might not be good ones but they are there.

I'm also somewhat amuse by Slappy's insistence in classifying the Bren as an Automatic Rifle. The doctrine and employment of the two sorts of weapons AR's versus LMG's are very different and the Bren very much sits squarely in the latter camp.

I'll also backup triumvar's point - you do not fire 20 round bursts. Indeed, I'd be ver y surprised the Germans did as well. Apart from cooling problems (and praytell, Slappy, why would a weapon which has a cooling jacket around its barrel cool better than one which doesn't?), you have problems with barrel wear.

[Slapdragon]

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

[/QB]

silly comments snipped....

and praytell, Slappy, why would a weapon which has a cooling jacket around its barrel cool better than one which doesn't? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts, and you would never believe me about the science involved. Lets just say that a barrel shroud such as the MG42 had, or radial fins, can increase cooling effectiveness by an order of magnitude, allowing more bullets to pass by in less time without weapon failure. Heavier barrels have more heat sink ability, so more bursts can be fired.

Actually, by pointing out that you do not understand these two basic prinicpals of weapons design, in addition to your silly comment about the squad automatic Bren being squarely in the same camp as the higher firepower, higher ROF, more capable MG42, just shows how little you know about firearms.

[Spook]

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

Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts, and you would never believe me about the science involved. Lets just say that a barrel shroud such as the MG42 had, or radial fins, can increase cooling effectiveness by an order of magnitude, allowing more bullets to pass by in less time without weapon failure. Heavier barrels have more heat sink ability, so more bursts can be fired.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adding to this point is to also recognize the primary mechanic of how heat is transferred off of the barrel. Two primary methods are convection (fluid flow over a heated surface) and conduction. Convection is not to be counted on as significant for MG barrel surfaces, unless a gale-force wind is blowing across the barrel surface. Thus conduction is the primary heat transfer mechanic to assume in weapons design as this.

And air is a LOUSY conductor of heat (0.026 Watts per meter-deg.K) as compared to various steels (20-70). So as Slap has noted, a heat-sink capability is helpful. Further given that steel has higher specific heat and much higher density, guess which makes a better heat sink?

Of course, these weapons have to be carried around. So for a few WWII HMG's, that's why liquid coolant barrel jackets (water or otherwise) would find application as a trade-off against weight.

[Username]

Oh oh Slappys taking off his mitts.

For those interested, see the JasonC MG thread about MG42 ammo and also the Brian use of MMG threads.

I am really surprised that BTS would not have some input into these threads. Just from the standpoint of what all this hulabaloo is about could be part of CMBB.

I think that tero and Brian as well as Aitkens stance about the American slant is way off base. BTS is taking a modern view of all the weapon systems and fitting them into a game system.

I doubt anyone in this forum has much real infantry battle experience in terrain similar to CM. Theres a mix of vets and gun fans and historians and casual gamers, etc.

So tero thinks that Finns are great and Brian thinks that Vickers were on par with nothing made before or after. Its to be expected. But dont try and play the anti-american card. It wont go anywhere.

Lewis

[Username]

From another thread...

The MG42 should not get a high rate of fire after awhile.

The weapons firepower hinges on its high rate of fire and quick change barrels. The weapon sytem might have 3 barrels, 1 on the gun and two in the holder.

The weapon would then display a surge capability. That is, when firing from a cold state, it could put out a tremendous amount of firepower. It would rapidly heatup the first barrel and then be swapped a new cold one, again the drill is repeated till the third barrel is hot.

The weapon would then be back to the first barrel. It would have decreased in temp but not back to an ambient condition.

If it kept firing at the initial rate, the barrels would have to be swapped more regurlay. This would decrease the rate of fire. Eventually the 3 barrels would reach a steady state and the gun would be limited.

It is beyond the scale of the game to model this exactly but maybe an abstraction can be made.

In real life, since the germans always thought they would be attacking, a drill could work around this. They could support an attack, get hot, pack up, move to another position, allowing cooling, and fire again. In fixed defensive positions, perhaps a bucket of water would be handy.

So the german system is really built on surge. The watercooled weapons are built on 'continuous' 'slow' machinegun fire.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Somehow, I get the impression that CMBB will be "lost" to you too. We shall see, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, I think that's a given. The game Tero wants CM to be is something like Close Combat, but with the players only giving general commands to their forces and then watching the TacAI try to execute them using official training methods for the respective armies (i.e. the game plays itself). Just look at my sig for an example of what CM would be like with Tero as Lead Designer :eek:

The funny thing will be that in CMBB Tero won't be able to accuse BTS of rooting for the home team

[JonS]

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

Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Brians point was that the shroud around the MG34/42 barrel, like the one around parts of the C9/M249 barrel doesn't really help the barrel to cool, but does give the user a degree of safety by making it more difficult to inadvertently touch a piping hot barrel (As McDonalds have on the wrapping of their apple pies, "Caution, contents may be hot")

[Brian]

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

Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts, and you would never believe me about the science involved.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, I am very well aware of the differences in surface area versus mass for heat absorption/disipation. However, I am also well aware of the need for airflow. A cooling jacket restricts the flow of air. Therefore a weapon which has one, versus one which does not, which is identical will cool slower, if all other factors between the two are the same.

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

Lets just say that a barrel shroud such as the MG42 had, or radial fins, can increase cooling effectiveness by an order of magnitude, allowing more bullets to pass by in less time without weapon failure. Heavier barrels have more heat sink ability, so more bursts can be fired.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Effectively, just what I said, except a "barrel shroud" as you incorrectly call a cooling jacket will actually slow the cooling of the barrel. Its trade-off though, as to whether or not you want your soldiers to be able to handle the weapon without fear of burning themselves.

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

Actually, by pointing out that you do not understand these two basic prinicpals of weapons design, in addition to your silly comment about the squad automatic Bren being squarely in the same camp as the higher firepower, higher ROF, more capable MG42, just shows how little you know about firearms.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, you make some very big assumptions, not backed by reality. Your pointless efforts to patronise, your use ad hominem debating tactics and your inability to grasp the points I've been making, simply indicate to me that you've lost the debate even before it begins.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy, you make some very big assumptions, not backed by reality. Your pointless efforts to patronise, your use ad hominem debating tactics and your inability to grasp the points I've been making, simply indicate to me that you've lost the debate even before it begins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, as I said, you still do not understand how MG cooling works, nor do you understand how an MG42 works, and as I said, I and others could explain it over and over without success.

Take apart an MG42 and you have a 9 pound barrel, a bolt, big recoil spring, a butt plate, the cover plate, and a really big and long receiver. Air flow has like zero cooling power directly on the barrel. Insteasd, the barrel and the front of the reciever group together act as the heat sink, while give a very large two-part heat sink. The thing over the barrel is not a shroud since people do not touch it in firing at all, the only point for a hand is under the sight.

The Bren and MG42 people are trying to throw into the same group taxonomically (and thus operationally) are different: The Bren barrel is 4 pound lighter and does not have a forward reciever to increase surface area (which also increases the mass of the weapon that acts as a sink). The MG-42 can fire many more rounds than a Bren in the same period of time without needing a barrel change.

I will repeat one issue though to you. Air movement across a dry barrel means almost nothing to the cooling of a weapon in combat unless you can get it moving a couple hundred miles an hour.

So, I grasp the points you have been making, and believe them to be strictly political and not based on any understanding of how weapons operate on the ground. You want a Bren to be a support weapon in the face of historical and physical usage. Great -- but it wont be unless archeologist uncover a heavy barrel belt-fed or drum fed Brens in the hands of the ground pounders, we uncover top secret evidence that hundreds of Bren teams free-lanced, or perhaps the laws of physics change to meet your version of the universe.

[Spook]

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

I will repeat one issue though to you. Air movement across a dry barrel means almost nothing to the cooling of a weapon in combat unless you can get it moving a couple hundred miles an hour.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is also what I stated above about "gale-force winds" blowing across a barrel.

Brian, cooling by means of a fluid (liquid or gas) moving over a heated surface is convection. And an automatic weapon designed to count mainly on convective air cooling, further counting on ambient conditions to supply the air flow, is a poor design. Conduction to a heat sink is more appropriate a cooling method to design for in the case of an LMG.

This doesn't mean that the heat sink won't reach the critical peak temperature. With enough "heat input" (sustained firing) over a long enough timeframe, the heat sink can get too hot too. But the time to reach this, versus reaching the critical temperature for an uncooled barrel, is longer.

Relatively speaking, the open barrel will cool slower than for one with a heat sink, because when comparing conduction properties (the k-value & material density) between just air & iron, air is a relative "insulator." Air cooling can be effective with strong enough convective flow, but in ambient conditions, will that always be available?

It's basic heat transfer principles. Of which most engineers will encounter in training or practice sooner or later.

[Slapdragon]

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

That is also what I stated above about "gale-force winds" blowing across a barrel.

Brian, cooling by means of a fluid (liquid or gas) moving over a heated surface is convection. And an automatic weapon designed to count mainly on convective air cooling, further counting on ambient conditions to supply the air flow, is a poor design. Conduction to a heat sink is more appropriate a cooling method to design for in the case of an LMG.

This doesn't mean that the heat sink won't reach the critical peak temperature. With enough "heat input" (sustained firing) over a long enough timeframe, the heat sink can get too hot too. But the time to reach this, versus reaching the critical temperature for an uncooled barrel, is longer.

Relatively speaking, the open barrel will cool slower than for one with a heat sink, because when comparing conduction properties (the k-value & material density) between just air & iron, air is a relative "insulator." Air cooling can be effective with strong enough convective flow, but in ambient conditions, will that always be available?

It's basic heat transfer principles. Of which most engineers will encounter in training or practice sooner or later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The excellent MG42 design takes advantage of what Spook says by having a heavier barrel than the Bren, but also but using a heavy metal extension to the receiver wrapped around and in contact with the barrel. This is not to protect the gunners hands, it is not a hand guard. It is a chunk of metal to soak up heat.

It does maximise surface area to allow radiant cooling to occur faster, and this is not unimportant, it is just that the Bren design, changed from its 1924 incarnation with its change in function from LMG to squad automatic, is not designed for the type of fire that the 42 can do.

[Username]

The reciever components pictured here also act as a heat dissapation sink. The barrel guard will soak up heat generated in the gun and the heat will run from the barrel to all metal components in contact with one another, and maximize surface area. a design goal would be to have maximum surface area all over the weapon.

As I posted in another thread, MGs are like motors. Forced air cooling on a motor (electric motor) can get you continuous torque about 10 percent above normal rating. Water cooled can get you more but you need some kind of chiller (heat exchange) to get a 20-30 percent improvement. If the elaborate water cooling scheme breaks down, you fry the motor.

Water cooled MGs basically bathe the barrel in water at a boiling point temp after awhile. The water usually does not go through a chiller because it would be impossible to carry. It is usually ejected in the form of steam and vented into a can so that when it gets liquid you can reuse it (or make tea).

Water cooled MGs usually do not fire at high automatic rates. I read of US troops experimenting with this (upping the rate of fire through bolt lightening) because in the pacific, the HMG 30s would be facing down suicidal charges at very short range, ie, they would never live to overheat due to terrain restrictions but would rather mow down japanese point blank while they could. Some claimed the HMGs would fire smoothly at this high rate, like a car engine smooths out at higher RPM. Anyway, the marine corp was serious about its defensive MG power.

Theres no governor on MGs. Many stories about glowing guns come about because immediate danger overcomes any thought about fighting later. Most positions are given up because of lack of ammo instead of concern for a gun.

[Slapdragon]

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

The reciever components pictured here also act as a heat dissapation sink. The barrel guard will soak up heat generated in the gun and the heat will run from the barrel to all metal components in contact with one another, and maximize surface area. a design goal would be to have maximum surface area all over the weapon.

As I posted in another thread, MGs are like motors. Forced air cooling on a motor (electric motor) can get you continuous torque about 10 percent above normal rating. Water cooled can get you more but you need some kind of chiller (heat exchange) to get a 20-30 percent improvement. If the elaborate water cooling scheme breaks down, you fry the motor.

Water cooled MGs basically bathe the barrel in water at a boiling point temp after awhile. The water usually does not go through a chiller because it would be impossible to carry. It is usually ejected in the form of steam and vented into a can so that when it gets liquid you can reuse it (or make tea).

Water cooled MGs usually do not fire at high automatic rates. I read of US troops experimenting with this (upping the rate of fire through bolt lightening) because in the pacific, the HMG 30s would be facing down suicidal charges at very short range, ie, they would never live to overheat due to terrain restrictions but would rather mow down japanese point blank while they could. Some claimed the HMGs would fire smoothly at this high rate, like a car engine smooths out at higher RPM. Anyway, the marine corp was serious about its defensive MG power.

Theres no governor on MGs. Many stories about glowing guns come about because immediate danger overcomes any thought about fighting later. Most positions are given up because of lack of ammo instead of concern for a gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This illustrates my point, except you also have to pick up the damn things to tell how different the Bren and MG42 is. The Bren Barrel is a single peice, the MG42 is designed to allow the reciever to soak up heat, and the reciever is heavy. Not like the hand guards on an M60 which you could replace with a small piece of dowel rod if you wanted to, they are designed to dissapate heat.

[Username]

I again ask the question to Bren users:

How long does it take to change the barrel? How many barrels would a 'Heavy' Bren team carry?

The Bren was not that light a weapon. Its accroutements were not light either. The tripod was 30 pounds also. The US 1919 ACMG was only 41 pounds for the gun and tripod.

I really think the whole squad automatic/LMG thing is hinged on ammo. The full powered cartridge was the design problem. It was either try to lighten the weapon and lose firepower or make it heavy and lose mobility. This was not solved till either using a kurtz type round or a 5.56mm type round.

Lewis

(i) To strip.

1. See that the moving parts are forward.

2. Push body locking-pin out to the right as far as it will go. (This pin is in the top of the body just under the aperture of the backsight).

3. With left hand holding the backsight drum, pull back the butt group as far as possible with the right hand. The return spring rod will then be seen protruding forwards from the butt through the buffer.

4. Holding the return spring-rod to the left with the thumb of the left hand, pull the cocking-handle backwards sharply. This will slide the piston and breech-block out of the back of the body. These can then be grasped and removed together from the gun.

5. Slide the breech-block to the rear until the claws at the front of it disengage from the grooves on the piston.

6. On the left of the gun, just in front of the magazine opening, will be seen the lever of the barrel nut. Press the spring catch on the underside of this and raise the lever as far as possible. This frees the barrel which may now be removed by moving it forward until clear.

7. The raising of the barrel nut lever also allows the butt group to be pulled father back and removed from the body.

8. To remove the bipod from the body lift the front of the body with the right hand, and with the left hand pull the left leg of the bipod towards you as far as possible and then slide the bipod sleeve off the front end of the gas cylinder. (Note. The bipod of the Mark II cannot be removed.)

9. To remove the barrel nut, lift the lever as far as it will go and depress the small stud just in front of the magazine opening cover. (This may be done by easing the magazine opening cover forward so that it just covers the stud). The barrel nut may then be lifted out vertically. To replace push the barrel nut down into place with the lever as high as possible. It is usually necessary to press down the stud when replacing the barrel nut.

This is from the Bren site. It really makes me think that the 'quick-change' barrel was not a Bren combat procedure but rather a nice maintence prodedure.

Its time for another 'auto-analogy'. Two vehicles have spare tires. Mine, has a full sized spare on the rear of the vehicle ready to be taken down (I own a 4x4). Yours, is a donut sub-sized barely inflated factory dry-rotted orb, buried under tools and boxes and a cheap floor board inside your trunk. Who can change faster?

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]