Clarity

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Snipers we are talking about now would not normally be found anywhere near the kind of firefight that CM models. They would be in a quiet area (perhaps bahind enemy lines) where no-one would be expecting much in the way of danger.

As this thread is obviously not going to die soon , I´ll give it a twist. When Snipers operated the way you describe, there was, of course, a legitimacy issue as well. Many would say that such a Sniper operated outside the spirit, perhaps even outside the letter of the Rules of War. If caught, I wouldn´t be very surprised if they weren´t given POW treatment.

[Tarquelne]

I'm probably repeating what has already been said many times, but I'll try to be very clear, Mustang.

I have read hundreds of first-hand accounts written by snipers, and they WERE modled incorrectly by BTS.

No.

The game's "Sharpshooters" are _not_ incorrectly modeled born-and-bread (or selected-and-trained) snipers. The CMBO unit is just a guy who's a good shot and has been issued an especially good rifle. That's what the game says they are, and that's all they are.

Yes, a "sharpshooter" was very much part of a partincular platoon, but the game engine doesn't allow a player to break a particular man out of a squad and send him to the second floor to try to pick off the enemy's company commander. CMBO's approximation of that phenom. is the "Sharpshooter" unit.

The "Sharpshooter" unit allows a CMBO player or scenario designer to simulate the "garden variety" sniper found on the WWII battlefield, but not the one-shot-one-kill "professionals" that also took part in the conflict.

You seem to forget, Mustang, that CMBO isn't, can't be, and doesn't claim to be perfect. CMBO is missing a number of units that fought in WWII -True "Snipers" are one of those missing units.

(I remember a thread from last year that ended up 4 pages long in which some people argued that the game's "Assault" boat was seriously underarmored and should be armed with torpedoes and a machinegun. Hopefully this thread won't end like that one did.)

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by Pillar:

"At its most basic level, it is quibbling between common language (Cawley), which has built-in fudge room, and the precise, very specific meaning (Priest, Fionn) of the terms. Added to it are long-standing differences of opinion in some cases that have nothing whatever to do with you."

I think it's also a lot to do with not letting people get away with assuming they are always right and the other guy is always wrong. Check your premises

I wouldn't say it's a matter of precision vs. fudge room though, not at all.

Hopefully something productive came of it all to someone who was following along.

Adam

I have checked my premises, Mr. Smirk. I checked them before I posted and I couldn't care less about the history between any two people on the board. That's their business, public or private, not mine.

At it's most basic, it is still about communication. It is still whether you define a sniper as anyone who shoots from a hidden vantage point or whether you use the definition that involves specific skillsets, ratings, testing, etc.

Personally, I think that Fionn's most salient point in the discussion involves avoiding the inevitable carping about "snipers" being modeled incorrectly if they were labeled as such in the game.

Is it wrong, absolutely incorrect, to define a sniper as any jamoke with a gun popping off from a hidden place? No, not according to the common-language definition as set forth in Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

Is it the most correct definition? I think the discussion would show that it is not, with all due respect to those who have earned that particular rating.

What is most appropriate to the game? That is probably the real issue at hand. IMO, the folks who made this game have hit upon the best and most historically accurate solution with "sharpshooter" -- a squad-level guy who's a pretty good shot with a pretty good gun, as Tarqulene noted in the above post.

[ June 16, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[Fionn]

Willbell,

LOL!!! That is one of the funniest things I've read in weeks. Congrats... You've just made my sig ( which I'll edit to reflect this sometime tomorrow ).

As to the rest:

I defer to Charles and Steve. They have, in the past, several times stated that in-game sharpshooters are not snipers... All the discussion about sniping being done by snipers ( or sharpshooters and snipers etc etc) misses the whole point.

The initial post related sniping to THE GAME. CM:BO is a VERY fine wargame but it is NOT reality.

In game terms sharpshooters are NOT snipers. Out of the game maybe you could label anyone who fired at someone 200 metres away a sniper. Maybe not. Basically though whether or not you do has no bearing on the GAME. GAMEWISE sharpshooters are NOT snipers nor are they intended to be.

Arguing that this isn't the case is misguided ( since Charles is good enough to code exactly what he means to code). OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters.

I can't help but feel that we're mixing game discussion with dictionary definitions and oral history accounts and ending up with everyone disagreeing because their parameters are different ( also we have a few people who just want to disagree with specific others and that muddies the waters).

Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about etc, don't even warrant a properly spelled name so please just continue needlesly tearing eachother to pieces if you so wish .

P.s. Adam, thank you for clarifying that for Mustang . Methinks 'twill matter nought though.

[ June 16, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[zukkov]

bts, i think this should be considered a good reason to release cmbb. these guys are acting like troops that have been on the line a little too long without sex(in this case replace sex with cmbb). they're argueing over the dumbest things!! lol...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

(I remember a thread from last year that ended up 4 pages long in which some people argued that the game's "Assault" boat was seriously underarmored and should be armed with torpedoes and a machinegun. Hopefully this thread won't end like that one did.)

I think CMBO's sharpshooters are underarmoured, should be given torpedoes, and assault boats. BTS - fix or somefink!

Do you think that is enough to put this thread out of its misery?

[Conscript Bagger]

Sorry Andreas, I'm going to prolong the misery...

Just wanted to mention some other things we might keep in mind about forum newcomers -

Many of them have only very recently become interested enough in WWII to discuss it on a Web board.

Many of them have only very recently begun using Web boards.

Many of them have only very recently begun playing CMBO.

Often more than one of these conditions applies, which means newcomers are often coming here with mistaken assumptions about WWII, Web boards, and/or CMBO.

Often they express these mistaken assumptions rather bluntly. True, it's off-putting, but I'd suggest that such bluntness is often the result of overeagerness - remember, the stuff we talk about here is not what we're likely to be able to talk to our friends, parents, significant others, coworkers, etc. about, simply because most of them don't share our interest in the topic. But one day, our friend the newcomer fires up his browser and finds himself here, where everyone is talking about the kind of stuff he likes (except, of course, the Cesspudlians ). So his exuberance leads him to post in such a way that exhibits varying levels of ignorance of WWII, Web board etiquette, and/or CMBO.

Those of us have been around WWII study, Web boards, and/or CMBO for quite a while might give him the benefit of the doubt before we smack him down and make fun of his posting style (in some cases waiting to do so until the second or third page of the thread when the precedent's already well set). Correct his errors in knowledge, sure. Explain the value of honey vs. vinegar in discussion, definitely. Those who are nothing more than trolls will make that obvious pretty quickly, and the forum admins know how to deal with that. But those who are simply thrilled to be amongst others of like interest in the game and the history, and who perhaps don't realize (a) the holes in their own knowledge or ( the depth of knowledge present in the forum community, ought to be given the chance to temper their initial overzealousness without being verbally drawn and quartered (and obviously, they also have the responsibility of learning to post with the same general courtesy that is usually exhibited on this board).

In short, it's too bad this thread couldn't have gone straight from the first post to the more considered comments that have appeared on page three.

PS - Fionn said "OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters." I think I'll go do just that, because it intrigues me.

[Jazz]

Mustang,

Spelling someones name right has nothing to do with respecting them, it is a matter of common courtesy.

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

Can I have a summary for the intellectually inept here?

Are snipers really sharpshooters who aspired to become something more than they once were and then realized that just being a sharpshooter doesn't really attract the chicks? Or, is a sharpshooter really a closet sniper who works at a diner washing dishes during the day and killing people from 600+ Meters at night?

[Shapeshifter]

Well I use the CM sharpshooter only for recon purpose,sometimes they can get also a good target in the scope,and they can hide good,are cheap but they are not deciding the battle at all.

My opinion is that the sharpshooter unit's role is nominal in an CM-battle except the use of recon.

I belive the Sharpshooter unit is only included into CM to give the game a bit more flavor.

[Slangton]

Why must every thread degenerate into a petty argument over things that in the long run mean virtually nothing to the game and how it plays? Sometimes I think the 'twitch' crowd has more manners than some people around here...

[Psyched]

Shapeshifter

I agree with your statement about the recon value of sharpshooters, but they can also be valuable in other respects.

Last night I played a QB against the AI and by hiding my sharpshooter, I was able to kill the tank commander of a Tiger and it shocked the entire crew. A nearby Bazooka was then able to take out the Tiger with a rear shot. That was a pretty cost-effective way of eliminating German armor!

I have also found sharpshooters useful for making armor button up when shot at, which greatly reduces it's LOS. I'm sure this has saved many of my units from being spotted and subsequently killed.

Just a few ideas.

I'm always willing to learn but sometimes I don't like being taught.

---Winston Churchill

[Crank_GS]

Dang! This is a thread and a half! It was exhausting to read. I think Offwhite's comments are quite appropriate. Where else can we discuss these things? I don't know about you, but all I get is the eye-roll.

One suggestion, though, Mustang: I lend more weight to statements made with correctly spelled words. It indicates to me that thought went into them. A typo here and there? OK, no problem. But your post was riddled with incorrectly spelled words, and I think that use of spell-check would have helped greatly.

[Michael Dorosh]

ISN'T THE REAL point to be made the fact that snipers in real life operated in two man teams?

The "snipers" in CMBO are sharpshooters, by that definition.

The Commonwealth did not have "sharpshooters" per se, but put their snipers into a special platoon called the Scout and Sniper platoon. They worked in two man teams - one man with a spotting scope, the other with a special Lee Enfield called the No. 4 Mk I (T) - it had more than just a scope, it came with a special sling (an American Garand sling in most cases), had a wooden cheek piece, and was tested in the factory for accuracy.

The spotter picked out likely targets, and the sniper killed them.

When not sniping, the platoon was a kind of dedicated recce element for the battalion.

The snipers in CM are nothing like that. To be realistically modelled, they should be given superb spotting ability and come in two man teams.

I am a bit surprised that neither JasonC nor Fionn apparently consulted any sources on how snipers operated, were trained, or equipped - which would have been germaine to the real question - what is a CM "sniper" and how does it relate to "Real Life"?

The answer is clearcut in the case of the Commonwealth, perhaps not so much in the German or American cases.

[ June 17, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Fionn]

Dorosh,

Seeing as I am the only person here who actually recommended a book on sniping etc I find your comment re: NOT consulting a reference work to be "strange and misleading".

Also, in the Commonwealth, American and German armies of the time while sniper teams were expected to comprise two men this was, by no means, their only composition.

Many of the top Commonwealth, German and American snipers preferred to operate alone. Several of the very top German snipers ( 100 kills + ) operated alone without any observer/partner.

Therefore, in CM while it would be MORE accurate to model sniper teams as being 2-man teams it would also be historically correct to model them as 1 man teams as one man sniper units DID abound.

[Sig]

Hello,

Just a little info regarding definition used in a foreign (for anglo-saxons) language, i.e. French: like with German (with Scharfschützer), French uses "tireur d'élite" (elite shooter) to define sniper and marksman. However, I do remember a little more subtle distinction used in the swiss army were you could receive the "médaille du bon tireur" (translates roughly as: the good shooter's medal), indicating you are identified as a marksman. No special sniper training existed however.

"Military" english is too rich when compared to French and German, it seems. Ah, these aggressive anglo-saxons .

Sig

[Shapeshifter]

To Psyched

Your post is very interesting,maybe I have someday the luck to try it out on an Tiger Tank.

Thank's

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by Psyched:

Shapeshifter

I agree with your statement about the recon value of sharpshooters, but they can also be valuable in other respects.

Last night I played a QB against the AI and by hiding my sharpshooter, I was able to kill the tank commander of a Tiger and it shocked the entire crew. A nearby Bazooka was then able to take out the Tiger with a rear shot. That was a pretty cost-effective way of eliminating German armor!

I have also found sharpshooters useful for making armor button up when shot at, which greatly reduces it's LOS. I'm sure this has saved many of my units from being spotted and subsequently killed.

Just a few ideas.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm always willing to learn but sometimes I don't like being taught.

---Winston Churchill

</font>

[willbell]

Here is a little first person history.

We bought our first refrigerator from a salesman named Ivan. We started talking and he shared that he had been a sniper in WWII. He told us to refer to him as Ivan the Sniper.

Interesting, huh.

[essayons44]

Yankee Dog

Your reply to Mustang is a masterpiece of scathing

wit. I don't think I have seen anything nearly as good, and I have read a good many postings on boards such as this. I only find one fault in what you had to say. You neglected to ask him when, where and with whom as the major forces did WW11 (World War Eleven) take place? I thought I was pretty sharp on my history; am I fooling myself in this regard?

If you are as skillful a battlefield commander as you are with the written word, I should fear if I ever meet you there.

essayons44

"I can't get any lower! Me butttons is in the way!" Willie to Joe,while under arty. fire.

[YankeeDog]

Essayons:

Thanks for the compliment.

I feel obligated to note, however, that in hindsight I probably should have tempered my "scathing wit" a bit. Maybe I should have added a paragraph at the end explaining to Mustang that my issue was with what I saw as a rather arrogant posting style and a general lack of supporting data, not with his assertions per se. He was, after all, just a new member of the forum looking to contribute something to a couple of issues of debate.

I'm glad you enjoyed my attempt at satirical humor, though. And yes, I did note the "WW11" thing, but I decided to leave it out because it didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the stuff I was lampooning.

As to whether I play CM as well as I write, we'll just have to meet on the field sometime.

Cheers,

YD

[Viceroy]

Yankeedog,

looked up the words in question in the OED (shorter) and it seems that no grogs were involved in the compilation of the dictionary.

Sniper E19 A person who snipes or shoots from cover; a sharpshooter.

Sharpshooter E19 1: A person skilled in shooting accurately, an expert marksman.

2: Mil. A rifleman of a particular grade. US L19.

[Sargento Garcia]

My girlfried, wich is paperwriter, takes her dictionary as a discussion over a term begins, ussually it ends sharply the argument.

;:

[Capricornelius]

[Capricornelius]

A quote from Alfred Lang, who came ashore at "Omaha" during Operation Overlord (he had joined 110th Field Artillery's HQ Battery):

German artillery fire was pounding the area and snipers were holding out and taking pot shots at the invaders.

Sgt J. Robert Slaughter:

Unseen snipers concealed in the cliffs were shooting down at individuals.

Snipers or just sharpshooters?