An observation

[undead reindeer cavalry]

There should be a key on each side of your keyboard labeled "Shift"—or its equivalent in Finnish. Use of it at appropriate moments will make the problem and its ensuing criticism go away. Honest.

i think they are labeled "CTRL" in Finnish. i tried typing capitalis with them but it didn't appear to work quite right, or at least i personally found the results to be rather confusing. perhaps my computer is broken and i need to get it fixed in order to sort out this highly embarassing problem of missing capitals.

[George MC]

I can live with your lack of caps Quality of your posts makes up for the small grammatical errors. My Finnish is pretty crap anyways!

[dieseltaylor]

Coo That Is Neat. ACTUALLY ITS EVEN MORE DISRUPTIVE OF FAST READING TO HAVE ALL WORDS CAPITALISED. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY QUALITY WILL OUT BUT i am not actually convinced in my own case that i can wiilingly read large amounts of text in a difficult format. i view it as a courtesy to your reader to write in an easy to read manner. thoughts in paragraphs etc and so on. i think it may be that subconciously i take the view if the writer cannot be bothered to observe the niceties of writing legibly i cannot be arsed to read it.

[Michael Emrys]

i think they are labeled "CTRL" in Finnish. i tried typing capitalis with them but it didn't appear to work quite right, or at least i personally found the results to be rather confusing.

I'll bet you have a lot of trouble lacing your boots too. You know, like remembering which holes the laces go in first and complicated problems like that.

Michael

[jtcm2]

Interesting that, on this line of interpretation, (e.g.) a Co. fighting as part of a small, integrated force on the defensive is more effective, on the ground, than the Co. fighting as part of a lumbering, un-integrated, larger force on the offensive. I mean, at the sharp end, you're still seeing the same number of elements fighting against each other (barring any massive difference in equipment quality and performance); but the "lumberers" are embedded into a larger beast, and simply respond more slowly or have their fighting power degraded in myriad ways just by being integrated within a less effective system (the attacking Brigade or whatever). Does this make sense ?

[Michael Emrys]

Not always. Sometimes (maybe even often) the lumbering beast does better simply due to its ability to absorb losses and still overwhelm the opposition. A lot depends of course on just how lumbering the lumbering beast is. If it is so bad that morale/initiative/coordination fall apart at the first sign of opposition (think of large parts of the Italian army), then it is not going to perform too well. If it's more like, say, the British army, then it will hold together long enough to eventually wear down a smaller enemy.

Michael

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Interesting that, on this line of interpretation, (e.g.) a Co. fighting as part of a small, integrated force on the defensive is more effective, on the ground, than the Co. fighting as part of a lumbering, un-integrated, larger force on the offensive. I mean, at the sharp end, you're still seeing the same number of elements fighting against each other (barring any massive difference in equipment quality and performance); but the "lumberers" are embedded into a larger beast, and simply respond more slowly or have their fighting power degraded in myriad ways just by being integrated within a less effective system (the attacking Brigade or whatever). Does this make sense ?

it depends on the effectiveness of the commanding apparatus at various levels of the chain of command. if the higher levels are able to understand the reality on the ground and are able to issue orders in time, then in theory it should always add to the effectiveness of the units doing the fighting.

it's because the higher levels can see the bigger picture, offer support arms, coordinate actions of units & by so doing combine the combat power of otherwise separate units and because they can utilize the higher level of training and experience of their commanders and staffs.

problems arise when the two-way data flow can not match the tempo of the actions, or when those higher levels are not competent in their tasks.

something worth noticing is that oftentimes tactical interests conflict with operational, strategic or political interests. this leads to orders that do not seem productive on the tactical level, but which supposedly, in the end, pay off on the higher levels.

[jtcm2]

Sorry for being woozy-- but some more thoughts. is the remedy not letting the local commander some degree of command freedom ? With examples--

1. Vet. Co. in defence. As JasonC wrote: small enough that one pair of eyes has good sense of what everyone is doing, command net integrated, etc. Attacked by e.g. a Battn, which is part of a "lumbering beast"-- i.e. not well enough integrated that the higher ups know what's going on locally, but dependant enough on orders from higher up to react sluggishly to events at the sharp end. Result: the attacking battn "comes on in the old way, and is driven off in the old way".

2. Vet Co in defence, same set up. Attacking Battn is part of larger beast, but, upon contact, is given enough freedom (or decides on the spot to seize the freedom) to take its own measures-- i.e. transforms into the equivalent of the Vet Co. in defence (tight control net, immediate answers and responses, etc), only with attacker odds. Result: good set piece attack by calm and well integrated attacker which takes apart the defence.

Does this make sense ? NB in CMBB it will always be (well, ideally) situation 2 that prevails-- unless the CMBB commander play acts in ways JasonC outlined above (when you make contact, phone your mother in law to ask for instructions and wait; while you wait, let your wife decide what to do with one Co. and ask your dog to make a decision concerning a couple of random platoons; also let a dice throw decide if a Co. goes to ground and stays there, etc).

[Erwin]

"...ask your dog to make a decision concerning a couple of random platoons..."

Come on, that kind of frivolity has no place in this forum!

I would NEVER recommend asking a dog, they are way too impetuous and apt to take unwarranted risks. My cat on the other hand often makes good tactical decisions based on a better balance of risk-taking and survival instinct...

[womble]

My cat on the other hand often makes good tactical decisions based on a better balance of risk-taking and survival instinct...

Your cat is a much better tactician than either of ours have been. Their advice has usually been "Charge!" or "Open fire! All weapons!". Or "Now that's what I call a mouse!"

[jtcm2]

Or perhaps a Maus ?

[womble]

Or perhaps a Maus ?

[throws jtcm2 a cookie]

[Erwin]

hehe nice one!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Does this make sense ?

it does, but usually the problem is that there are not enough orders (nobody coordinating actions), not that there would be too many orders. so your #2 example could still have that inefficient battalion, but this time there would be also another battalion + division level artillery barrage + some tanks + prior information about enemy positions.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request