Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

[Jumbo]

I first of all want to apologize to Dr. Brian for screwing up his thread. Technically he is correct. I should've read his original post more closely and followed his rules to the letter. Too bad that he cannot be conacted off of the discussion boards. I'd then offer my apology in person.

So people can share their ideas regarding gamey tactics and the word "gamey" itself, I offer this thread. Only the already accepted discussion board rules apply.

We have to remember something very important. (We all hope at least) that there will be an increasing influx of Combat Mission players and hence an influx of members to this discussion board. Communicating about gamey tactics can only increase awareness and good sportsmanship.

Why did I ever do something gamey? I did it because I simply didn't know it was gamey and I wanted to win. I admit that I may yet have more to learn.

It is the responsibility of the senior members to educate the junior members. Were replacements ignored when they arrived from the US during WW II? Individually -maybe, but on an Army wide basis, they recieved various amounts of training. The better units put their replacements through rigorous training programs near the front lines.

This subject must continously be revisited for the sake of the newbies and for our own enjoyment when we play against them. Telling someone to do a search can alienate them. We as wargamers must stick together and not be divided. Technically, we are a dying "breed".

So, here is my idea as to why gamey tactics exist and my "therefore".

Playing to only win, win, win, win, & win. Sure its a game and someone has to win, but how you win is more important. This is hard to express and yet it is very profound. What kind of win is it if you use gamey tactics? Or search the game to find a tactic that never was used or even thought of during the war. BTS themselves say that this is more of a simulation than a game. Get deep into the part and really simulate WW II.

In all of the fighting were all the troops the best? Were all the tanks the best? Was victory always certain before an action even started? Test your limits and them improve upon them. Use all Regulars for a change and adapt to making it work. Most of all have fun.

Thank you for reading this.

Jumbo

[Guest Rob/1]

I most liky use Gamey tactics Hay I don't have a clue whast gamey and whats no. Other then buging the people who want guns in bildings.

[Jumbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1:

I most liky use Gamey tactics Hay I don't have a clue whast gamey and whats no. Other then buging the people who want guns in bildings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rob/1,

If you haven't already checked out Dr. Brian's thread about gamey tactics, please do so. There are some classical ones listed there and the list is growing -thanks to Dr. Brian.

Jumbo

[wie201]

I agree that the "win at all costs" attitude is the primary cause of gamey play. Ladder games, in particular, get the competitive spirits going, and when you see someone steaming along with a dozen victories in a row, you just want to be the one to break the streak.

In non-ladder games I have found the tactics used to be more genuine, although some people, including myself, will experiment with tactics that they would not use in a ladder game. I think that this is fine, as history is replete with failed tactics and, unfortunately, sometimes the only way one could be sure whether they would work or not was against a live enemy.

Compared to other PBEM games I have been involved in, however, I think that even the ability to use gamey tactics in CM is much less likely than other programs. I have not seen a gamey tactic listed yet that would be the sole or even the primary cause of losing a battle, extremely annoying as they are.

[Bruno Weiss]

The "why", is because everyone has a different idea or opinion as to what constitutes gamey. The "therefore", is to negotiated as much as possible a mutual level of expectation with your opponent to be, before launching into something that neither of you have a clear understanding of what it is you do or do not agree upon.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Jackal]

Gamey Tactics. . . .Personally, I create an image of my opponent and then tell myself that I plan to destroy "x" percentage of his forces under "A" and "B" situations and apply the necessary tactics accordingly.

I have a military history and understand tactical concepts, but look at the assortment of players on the board. . . do they understand tactical concepts using infantry, armor, and arty???

Who knows.

[Forever Babra]

This is probably a good spot to interject with a definition of gamey.

Gamey is something, anything, which takes advantage of a weakness or limitation of a game, to secure an advantage. Such gamey tactics are almost always ahistorical, but ahistoricity is not the criterium for gaminess.

For (an extreme) example, let's say some genius invents a radical new method of attack, never before envisaged by strategists or tacticians in all history. It's quite likely his opponents will cry "gamey". But if the new tactic is as applicable in "real life" as in the game, then it's not taking advantage of any limitations of the game engine.

Just something to keep in mind when your opponent does things differently than you.

------------------

Is "patheti-sad" a word?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to add to Babra's definition...

"Gamey" tactics can be found in ANY style of game out there, not just wargames. In Quake, for example, guys that hid in dark corners and only killed a lone wanderer (i.e. nobody left to fight back) simply to increase "frags" are looked down upon by many Quake gamers. In Command and Conquer (all forms of it) the famous "tank rush" is looked upon by many as being "lame" simply because it is SO easy to do. Etc., etc.

wie201 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree that the "win at all costs" attitude is the primary cause of gamey play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree. However, there is one thing to note here. The "win at all costs" aspect assumes working within the rules of the game. If a new rule is made which eliminates a certain tactic (say... fixing a bug which allowed 5 squads to be in a HT) it does not reduce the competitive nature of the game. It merely removes one particular possibility to "win at all costs".

Let me put this another way...

Combat Mission is competitive as it is right now. Right? Right If we added the ability for a Company HQ to cast a Spell of Disembowelment, which does something rather obvious to enemy soldiers within 60m of the unit, does this make CM more competitive? No, but it does break with reality and allow players to do things that are unquestionably unrealistic.

OK, so if adding unrealistic behavior does not ADD to competitive play, then removing unrealistic behavior won't reduce competitive play. In a recent thread, which no doubt sparked this one, the discussion was about ahistorical use of crews. By "removing" the ability to use cerws in ahistorical ways, competitive aspects remain unchanged but realism levels go up.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Moon]

Frankly said, I hate "gamey" play. If I want to play "gamey", I'd play a Sci-Fi strategy game, Command&Conquer or something. You can do anything the game allows you to do without feeling bad, simply because there is no "realistic" reference. The game defines its own reality, in a sense.

But I play a WWII tactical simulation. Why the heck would I care about accurate representation of WWII combat when all I wanted to do is play "gamey"? Seems like a waste of time to me. Unless, of course, you're a bad loser...

End of rant.

------------------

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[Ksak]

I am new to this forum and to CM so I cannot speak from the same experience but this concept of "gamey" tactics seems like a red-herring.

First, CM is after all, a game. It is obvious that the creators have put out a "classic" at birth and for that they must be congratulated. But who is to say which of the rules are "gamey" and which are "realistic." I dare say that nobody in this forum engaged in small unit combat in WWII, but even if they did - even if we all did - none of us could speak to the tens of millions of individual, very real, moments experienced by the tens of millions of other participants. How can any computer simulation hope to capture every foible of human behaviour?

I am not comfortable with a concept that lablels a person as unsportsmanlike for understanding, and employing, the nuances of the game. If the rules leave you no choice but to wreck a malfunctioning halftrack to use its crew as infantry - why is that wrong? Why is that not a perfectly acceptable abstraction?

My playing experience is limited to the demo but that's all you need to recognize that two features that make CM so unique (and so playable) are also two of its most "unrealistic" features: the ability to zoom in on enemy troops to check their status, and (the biggest of all) the ability to rotate the screen and see your own positions from the enemy's point of view. I can assure you that neither of those situations ever occurred in real combat.

I would not be opposed to signing on to a "good sportsmanship" list of well defined oddities or whatever to voluntarily avoid, but until that list is created and widely endorsed by this forum, the bad sportsman is the accuser not the player.

[Lorak]

Ksak,

There are plenty of people that feel the way you do. I for one do not.

I try to play the game as realistic as possible. For me a win really isn't important as the learning and the fun involved(yes I am one of the few that even can enjoy losing).

Personaly I don't have a problem with people that play gamey. I just chose not to play those people. If I do play them and noticed it, I usually mention it to them and see what the deal is. Then based on the discussion I will or won't play them again.

The biggest problem is what is gamey at what time. Some things are gamey no matter when they happen. Others that might be gamey are logical depending on situation.

Example: using crews in combat is gamey. I would normaly agree. But in one game I had 2 german scout cars and a jagdpanzer IV in the same area. The two scout cars were taken out by a sherman but the crews were ok. Several turns later in the game (this area had no infantry fighting) 1 or 2 bazooka teams started stalking my Jagdpanzer. My crews who were fine and were hiding next to thier burning wrecks were only 20-40 meters away.

So I moved my crews to hide in the woods between the approching Zook teams and my panzer. This was not to go on the attack and kill the zooks. but was a defensive move to allow my panzer time to escape.

Now some might consider this gamey. I on the other hand see it as two AFV crews moving over to protect one of thier own.(without taking to much risk).

What do you guys think?

As a side note: you'll notice that the crews were where thier wrecks still were. Normally my crews stay hidden by thier wrecks or retreat off board, depending on safety issues.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

Combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX

[Priest]

I also had a thread about gamey tactics a while ago and explored the idea that gamey tactics don't really exist. There is unrealistic tactics and cheating. And there is limitations on the engine (which i understand is just another way of saying take advantage of the game thus "gamey"). My point is that until CM can out you in the field of the ETO and warp time then there is going to be some limits (for the above we are looking at CM4 right Steve and Charles). CM is the best damn game out right now and CMMC operations like Fionn/Bailey's and Rob's only enhance the experience. Lastly in regards to how i like to play, if some idiot wants to rush jeeps at me or attack me with a bunch of crews great I would love the easy kills!

------------------

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Ksak]

Geez. How is employing the crew of a wrecked vehicle considered gamey? If Gen Patton were standing next to a Sherman crew that just lost their track would he say to them "War's over boys, get comfortable and then head back to the States." EVERY soldier in the US Army has a secondary MOS - it's called infantry. If you lose your track or your kitchen pot you're expected to pick up your rifle and hit the line. Even if a crew acted only as a decoy to draw fire away from a more valuable unit - is that wrong? Were the Allies gamey for creating a fictitious army in England prior to the Invasion?

Maybe there are some bright line situations that almost everybody would agree seemed contrary to the spirit of the game, but every simulation is imperfect and requires some abstraction.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ksak,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe there are some bright line situations that almost everybody would agree seemed contrary to the spirit of the game, but every simulation is imperfect and requires some abstraction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite true. It is also quite true that these "bright line situations" are not always easy to pin down. Some of them have involved 500 post threads in one shot. However, there are certainly things that CAN be done in CM that were NOT done, at least in the correct context, in WWII.

Some of these situations/tactics are unavoidable as they are a fundamental part of the game (i.e. Borg like control of all your units) so to use them is not "gamey" but a straight out limiation that can not be worked around. In other words, no point making a big deal out of it more than to aknowledge that it exists.

However... some limitations CAN in fact be worked around by simply not doing them. For example, buying Jeeps for the explicit purpose of "recon by suicide". Even though there are simulation limitations that can make this a usefull tactic (although we have made this questionable), the player must specifically plan and execute such a tactic instead of others which are far more realistic (i.e. not "gamey")

One thing that annoys the "anti-gamey" players is that some "gamey" tactics can only be countered, or rivialed in effectiveness, by equally "gamey" play. So even if the other player doesn't opt to use these tactics, he is still yanked out of the "reality" of the game's battlefield. To some, like Moon, this runs contrary to the reasons he plays the game in the first place.

One of the hottest "gamey" topics right now (and at least once a month ) is the ahistorical use of crews. You made some statements (seen many times before) which might at first appear to be standard proceedure for any Army, but in fact is not supported by military docrtrin, sound planning, or even human nature when looked at in the context in which they are used. Sure, crews were thrown into the front lines, but NOT in the context or manner that the tactic is most commonly used in. For more on this it would be best to move over to this thread:

[url="http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014314.html

[Ksak]

I will play (happily) with whatever rules you decide to implement...but as far as your so-called ahistorical use of vehicle crews as infantry, it's BS. I did not participate in the Big One but I did spend some time with a cavalry unit in a not so little one and armored vehicle crews absolutely, positively engaged as infantry if their track was lost and they were capable. Whatever the TOE, every tank and PC crewman was armed to the teeth with everything from store bought .357s to WWII burp guns.

[OGSF]

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

I will play (happily) with whatever rules you decide to implement...but as far as your so-called ahistorical use of vehicle crews as infantry, it's BS. I did not participate in the Big One but I did spend some time with a cavalry unit in a not so little one and armored vehicle crews absolutely, positively engaged as infantry if their track was lost and they were capable. Whatever the TOE, every tank and PC crewman was armed to the teeth with everything from store bought .357s to WWII burp guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ksak, were they armed to the teeth so that they could defend themselves if obliged to abandon their AFV, or so that they could continue to participate in the assault as infantry?

I genuinely don't know, but it would seem to me that a store bought magnum handgun would not be an ideal offensive weapon for personnel which were intended to operate as infantry in an organized manner. Aircrews were armed with side arms, but if they were forced to bale, their priority was to return to their lines, not assault the enemy.

I had thought that tank crews were similarly armed and operated under a similar motivation.

If pressed they could defend themselves, but would not likely set off on autonomous recon missions or join up with regular infantry assaulting enemy positions.

As I said, I don't know, I wasn't there. But I know that trained tank crews very quickly became scarce in the ETO and find it difficult to believe that in that theatre at least, crews were deliberately used to supplement infantry when they were far more valuable as crews for replacement tanks / vehicles.

Having said that, if my opponent wants to run lighlty armed crews at my regular troops, I will happily take the points.

OberGruppenStompinFuhrer

[Treeburst155]

Many "gamey" tactics can be avoided by simply thinking about what you are actually ordering your people to do. Would you give that order in real life while looking your troopers in the eye? Do a little role playing in your games. Try to avoid unnecessary casualties while still accomplishing your mission. These are your boys! They rely on you to get them through. You have to write the letters home if they die and you have to live with your decisions. Even if you don't know anything about tactics (I didn't before CM) you will eventually learn good tactics if you maintain a high regard for every little cyber-soldier, IMO. You have a job to do and you will most likely lose people doing it, but don't send men to certain death. That's gamey if you KNOW they are going to die before you give the order.

And now my rant. Crews are shell shocked, concussed, burned, shrapnel filled, dazed, confused, panicked, useless individuals for at least several minutes after they get their vehicle shot out from under them. They are tending to their wounds and thanking God in Heaven that they are still alive. I wait 5 minutes before I even give them orders to retreat. If they get fired on they will run for cover. I never move crews more than 40 meters from their wrecked vehicle unless I'm ordering a retreat. No forward or lateral movement more than 40 meters, EVER. Sure if General Patton stumbled on a shell shocked crew he might be able to motivate them to attack but I don't see a General Patton unit in CM and you ain't him either.

I understand some to think that ANY ahistorical tactics are gamey. This is not necessarily true. They are probably just bad tactics that will get people killed. As long as they aren't knowing, deliberate suicide orders and/or orders designed to take advantage of the game's limitations they're OK, IMO. Gee, I feel good now.

Treeburst155

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I do not consider myself a gamey player but I once used this tactic under ver. 1.03 simply because I felt I had no other option based on the skewed pre-designed scenario I was playing.

In my instance I was the attacker with an American force consisting of 4 short 75mm Shermans, a couple of Stuarts, a Priest & a Greyhound plus 1 81mm spotter & 1 105mm spotter and only 1 company of standard infantry. Furthermore I was attacking on a very long & narrow map so the opportunity to go wide to try & obtain flanking shots was extremely limited. When I realised what I was up against, eg. 2 Nashorns, Jagdpanther, Wirbelwind, Stuf III, 2 quad 20mm flak AFV's, 1 37 mm flak AFV, 88mm Pillbox, Pak 75mm ATG a full company of Infantry, 4 HMG's, 150 mm Inf. gun plus, as it turns out 2 81 mm spotters and a 105mm spotter... I felt fully justified in resorting to this gamey tactic as I simply didn't have enough stuff in the outset to possibly try & capture the one objective right at the rear of the German position with the limited amount of assets, especially the limited amount of Infantry.

Was it gamey... I suppose so but when you consider how stacked the odds were from the outset I felt justified in resorting to them. Yes, I did receive re-inforcements down the track consisting of another Stuart, a platoon of infantry and, at last, a 76mm armed Sherman plus 2 more bog standard Shermans, but then so did the Germans! This time a Tiger, a StuH 105 and 2 20mm armed Armoured Cars.

As it turns out, I only had about 300 points more in force value (approx. 3750 total) to the defenders total and yet I was in an Attack scenario on a very narrow map! So what I'm trying to say is that in normal circumstances I don't use "gamey" tactics but when the game has been set up from the outset in a "gamey" manner for one side then yes I did resort to them. I'm not blaming my opponent BTW, he simply found this scenario & we gave it a try but in my case the circumstances IMHO justified the use of crews. Clearly in the case of a Quick Battle when you know the odds are relatively even I do not resort to this nor when playing well designed scenarios by people you know can produce balanced games.

As a footnote, it didn't really work as I simply ended up with a whole bunch of dead & captured crews which no doubt contributed handsomely to the Germans end score, a tactical victory to the Axis. In hindsight therefore, it probably isn't worth doing no matter what the circumstances but the best way to learn is from your mistakes.

Regards

Jim R.

[Ksak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have to write the letters home if they die and you have to live with your decisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you send those letters would you also make inquiry about the whereabouts of some files that recently disappeared from my hard drive?

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many "gamey" tactics can be avoided by simply thinking about what you areactually ordering your people to do. Would you give that order in real life while looking your troopers in the eye?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely.

One of the 'limitations' of the game in its current guise are that your electronic men always try to do what you tell them irrespective of how foolhardy it might be. Furthermore they always recieve your orders and you instantly see what they do. Personally I would like to see some creeping inertia in mauled sides and units especially on the attack and a bucketload more FOW hehe.

[Dr. Brian]

Jumbo,

Thanks. It's such a decisive issue, that I can see why it happens. In fact, I can be very emphatic about "gamey" play, just like the many other members of the discussion group. In fact, I'll drop my $0.02 in later in this thread.

(Oh, thanks for considering to write offline. By not including my e-mail address, I am protecting myself from spam'ers, as well as the immature people that if you disagree with their opinion, they put you on junk mail lists, and you get flooded with porn spam, etc. I hope you understand).

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Dr. Brian]

"Gamey?" It's already been defined.

Steve (of BTS) has said in another thread that CM is more than a game. In fact, it is not a game, but a simulation. He, as well as others, firmly believes that. I'm going to therefore group them into:

"CM is a simulation that can also be a game" category.

On the other hand, there are the:

"CM is a game that is also a simulation of WWII combat" category.

That is the fundamental difference in beliefs, and why everyone is so vehement about them. Take a second to read each one again, and think about it. Simulation first, then a game. Or, a game, that is then a simulation.

The "CM is a game crowd" get upset when they are told they are "not playing the 'simulation' right." They then say, "who on earth are you to tell me how to play the game? (not simulation) I'm not breaking any rules. In fact, I'm doing a lot of great, innovative stuff, to win."

It is clearly clear that I am in the "CM is a game crowd." However, I also realize it simulates WWII combat, but, it's not an accurate representation (admitted by everyone here). Borg control, LOS for each unit, etc., that is why it is a game to me, the perhaps the rest of "the CM is a game crowd."

Jumbo stated that:

"Playing to only win, win, win, win, & win. Sure its a game and someone has to win, but how you win is more important."

Jumbo, you make this sound like a "bad" thing. Since I'm in the "CM is a game" crowd, the whole object is to win against your opponent. I'm trying to out think and out smart my opponent, and that means to use the game engine, and exploit whatever you can to win. I'm playing against "Mike" not against the "Germans."

I'm sure this is viewed the almost the opposite from the "CM is a simulation crowd" and why to you, it is the simulation that drives your game style of play.

Now, let me just say, if BTS changes the game engine that in some way takes away my 18 th level Wizard Platoon HQ (i.e., makes it simulate WWII better), then I will find another way to exploit the "game I call CM" to win.

If BTS removes "crew" rushes somehow, I'm not going to cry, or even tell them to stop. In fact, I wholly support making CM more of a true WWII simulation. I'll be the first to say, "Hey, that never happened in WWII." However, to me, it is still a "game" where I play to win, just like in "real life." You fight to win.

Win or lose, I enjoy CM immensely. It is a game (to me) during a period in history I love to immerse myself in.

I will play anyone, even the "simulation" crowd. The only thing that I would need from them, is that if I can't use the game engine to the fullest, then I would need to know beforehand. Remember, I'm out to pummel you, to win. Any "limitation" doesn't matter to me. It's still a game first, and a simulation second.

If you've read this far, thanks for reading. If we can agree to disagree, then there is hope.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I will play (happily) with whatever rules you decide to implement...but as far as your so-called ahistorical use of vehicle crews as infantry, it's BS. I did not participate in the Big One but I did spend some time with a cavalry unit in a not so little one and armored vehicle crews absolutely, positively engaged as infantry if their track was lost and they were capable. Whatever the TOE, every tank and PC crewman was armed to the teeth with everything from store bought .357s to WWII burp guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting bit of first-hand info. Now go and read up on what happened in the Big One, see if it chimes with your experience, and then come back and tell me that BTS' treatment of crews is BS again.

Have a nice day.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Ksak]

Point number one. I never said that the BTS treatment of crews was BS. My BS comment was toward the supposed ahistorical use of crews as infantry. I am very impressed with CM and particularly the way that fire and movement have been simulated. If BTS chooses to provide the crews of abandoned vehicles with the ability to shoot and move after losing their vehicle then it is fair tactics to employ them that way. If at some time in the future BTS chooses otherwise, that will be OK too.

Point number two. I neither need nor want you or anybody else to preach to me as The High Priest of History. There were certainly hundreds of thousands of individual armored vehicle engagements in WWII, perhaps many millions. Your cranium is rectally inverted if you think that you can make a simple pronouncement about what "they" did and turn it into truth.

This whole concept of gamey tactics is utter nonsense. CM does not simulate history. It simulates certain actions of a defined number of small combat units in WWII - and does it admirably. I say let BTS be the final arbiter of what is allowed and what it is not allowed by the way they implement the game engine.

Absent a revision in the game engine, I would be willing to sign on to a Code of Conduct to never use certain tactics but only if those tactics were first very clearly defined and thoroughly debated. I do not and will not accept any other limitations from the self-anointed High Priests of History.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Point number two. I neither need nor want you or anybody else to preach to me as The High Priest of History. There were certainly hundreds of thousands of individual armored vehicle engagements in WWII, perhaps many millions. Your cranium is rectally inverted if you think that you can make a simple pronouncement about what "they" did and turn it into truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With that kind of reasoning you throw out all sorts of qualitative and historical research. Of course we can never know the 'Truth' but we can get a pretty good indication after reading up on first-hand experiences. Obviously you would rather not do that but have me accept your one-person experience as proof. I know what I would rather go for.

For the record - BTS have repeatedly stated that they are concerned about the 'ahistorical' use of dismounted crews as infantry and they have done so again in this thread. They have gone to great length to code away the possibility of that use, while still leaving crews in for simulation of operations. If you don't believe me, do a search. You have said that this concern of theirs is BS. I would contend that your stance regarding this matter and historical research is in effect BS.

Why are you so afraid of reading up on the matter? Because it does not chime with your little experience?

Have a nice day.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.