Tactical Rounds - or Saddling a horse from behind

[murx]

Well, basically the idea of Tactical Rounds to balance some unrealistic elements of IGO-UGO games is a good one.
But sadly the way it is implemented in TOAW3 is... sub-optimal [:(]

The Tactical Rounds try to deny players abuse the IGO-UGO limitations and use their furthest units to move up front - kill the opposition and then use the front units - which still have full movement - to exploit the breach. So basically front units start moving at their first day of the week through a hex which is 'liberated' at the last day of the week by an other unit.

Still the way TOAW implements this allows units to encircle and thus deny retreat of units on their 'individual' last day - while the front units kill them on their first day, bridge engineers can show up at the river with their last movement points and allow to other units to cross the river with their very first movement points.
Even worse - units that have used but one of their movement points can still 'passively' support an attack (i.e. it shows up in the detailed combat log).

Even worse is the fact that combat can 'burn up' those tactical rounds like a short fuse. Not only is it more then often next to impossible to determine how long a single battle will take - even with very light losses/excellent chances (of course except for the AI which knows all the facts and the mechanics, only Tactical Reserve can 'steal' its well planned rounds) - it takes too much control away from the player.
This round burning is unrealistic too - why should Army Group South 'burn' its rounds because the Finns are in a hard fight?

Personally I think the 'proper' way of implementing Tactical Rounds is by giving each unit 10% of their movement points at the start of the turn and each time the player advances one round each unit gets another 10% of their MP.
Units can engage in combat - and are locked in combat as long as the fight continues; but now the player can 'add' units to the fight that just moved in range (basically in the way Tactical/Local Reserve does but manually). Maybe players could even be given to break off the attack.

And of course supply could be modelled a tad more realistic this way - instead of both players getting a 'batch' of supply at the start of the turn they get only a part per Tactical Round too - maybe even implement the 'supply' command - it burns 5 MP and gets X% supply - because the same is true for supply, a fast unit cuts the opponents supply with his last MP and gets removed with the first MP of the other players unit, basically the unit was out of supply for one, maybe two Tactical Rounds (in bigger 1 week/turn scenarios this means less then a day) but the unit still suffers maximum out of supply damage.

A simple approach for supply could be 3/40 of the current supply system per Tactical Round in the moving players turn(which would allow units to move one their first round into a better supply location in the second round - realistic, nay? especially in week long turns) and 1/40 per round in the ther players turn (of course units out of supply get the same partial reduction per turn).

Increasing the MP per round instead of reducing the MP per 'burned round' would remove many of the 'unrealistic' side-effects the current implementation still has and allow the player to control the action much better.

murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

Still the way TOAW implements this allows units to encircle and thus deny retreat of units on their 'individual' last day - while the front units kill them on their first day, bridge engineers can show up at the river with their last movement points and allow to other units to cross the river with their very first movement points.
Even worse - units that have used but one of their movement points can still 'passively' support an attack (i.e. it shows up in the detailed combat log).

Yeah- it's not ideal. There's not really a simple way to improve it without a radical re-write, however. The game originally incorporated movement useage as well as combat into the "rounds remaining" calculation, but this proved to be cumbersome- worse than the system we now have.

To deal with the most egregious example you raised- that of the unit slipping into the rear of defenders with the last of its move whilst others attack frontally with the first of theirs, one can at least rationalise this by the idea of a forced march (in a one day turn, the flanking unit might travel 30km in the first eight hours and spent the rest of the day largely recuperating), and that the unit might arrive just as the attacked unit is retreating, cutting up its retreat and causing the unit to evaporate.

Note in this connexion that a unit cut off in this way will remain in supply, and when it evaporates half of the lost equipment will return to the stockpile.

Even worse is the fact that combat can 'burn up' those tactical rounds like a short fuse. Not only is it more then often next to impossible to determine how long a single battle will take

You need to play the game more, then. It sounds like you are relying very heavily on the combat planning dialogue. Discard this- it is not helpful for assessing combat odds. Once you get a feel for what will work, you won't find yourself having unexpectedly extended attacks anything like as often.

Personally I think the 'proper' way of implementing Tactical Rounds is by giving each unit 10% of their movement points at the start of the turn and each time the player advances one round each unit gets another 10% of their MP.

That's not a system of combat rounds. It's a system whereby the player gets ten (very) short turns in succession. Given that, on the whole, leg infantry units don't have more than 13 move in a turn, your system would make it impossible to differentiate the costs of moving into certain terrain, other than with a massive re-write.

A simple approach for supply could be 3/40 of the current supply system per Tactical Round in the moving players turn(which would allow units to move one their first round into a better supply location in the second round - realistic, nay? especially in week long turns) and 1/40 per round in the ther players turn (of course units out of supply get the same partial reduction per turn).

This would work- in those scenarios where force supply is either exactly forty or exactly eighty. I'm not aware of any examples.

[murx]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

To deal with the most egregious example you raised- that of the unit slipping into the rear of defenders with the last of its move whilst others attack frontally with the first of theirs, one can at least rationalise this by the idea of a forced march (in a one day turn, the flanking unit might travel 30km in the first eight hours and spent the rest of the day largely recuperating), and that the unit might arrive just as the attacked unit is retreating, cutting up its retreat and causing the unit to evaporate.

This might be close to realism in 1/2 day or day scale scenarios - but probably not in the bigger ones [8|]

Note in this connexion that a unit cut off in this way will remain in supply, and when it evaporates half of the lost equipment will return to the stockpile.

On a side note - the way equipment is recovered bugs me a little too - I can agree with soldiers returning to the stockpile, but for heavy equipment (or even worse with planes) it heavily depends on who 'owns' the battlefield afterwards - guess where the German T-34 came from - I remember reading something about a heavy tank unit of the Germans in the Ardennes offensive - the soldiers came back but none of their tanks (no fuel).

Even worse is the fact that combat can 'burn up' those tactical rounds like a short fuse. Not only is it more then often next to impossible to determine how long a single battle will take

You need to play the game more, then. It sounds like you are relying very heavily on the combat planning dialogue. Discard this- it is not helpful for assessing combat odds. Once you get a feel for what will work, you won't find yourself having unexpectedly extended attacks anything like as often.
[/quote]

I dont rely on the planning dialog (funny medium losses/good chance with one division attacking results in 100 squad losses - attacking with three divisions results in very light losses and excellent chances and 110 squads loss [&:] how funny .... those attacker/defender % infos are corporate statistic stupidity - nice numbers, nice pie chart - no info; real info would be 3 attacker per 1 defender infantry, 1:1 for tanks and so on - attacker 50% defender 50% sounds nice but when you read it was Rambo and his friend against a Russian division...)

Personally I think the 'proper' way of implementing Tactical Rounds is by giving each unit 10% of their movement points at the start of the turn and each time the player advances one round each unit gets another 10% of their MP.

That's not a system of combat rounds. It's a system whereby the player gets ten (very) short turns in succession. Given that, on the whole, leg infantry units don't have more than 13 move in a turn, your system would make it impossible to differentiate the costs of moving into certain terrain, other than with a massive re-write.
[/quote]

I should write what I think - I meant each turn 10% of the total movement allowance of the unit is added - so if a 13 move infantry would have 1 MP in first turn - if it does not move it has 2 in turn 2, 4 in 3, 5 in 4, 6 in 5, 8 MP in 6, 9 in 7, 10 in 8, 12 in 9 and in the last 10th round it has 13 (if it has not moved at all).
Thus this infantry unit could move into a wood hex which requires 3 MP in the 3rd round (or later) - but not immediately.

A simple approach for supply could be 3/40 of the current supply system per Tactical Round in the moving players turn(which would allow units to move one their first round into a better supply location in the second round - realistic, nay? especially in week long turns) and 1/40 per round in the ther players turn (of course units out of supply get the same partial reduction per turn).

This would work- in those scenarios where force supply is either exactly forty or exactly eighty. I'm not aware of any examples.
[/quote]

Where is the need to have multiples of 40? Floating point instead of integer? or instead of 100% using 10000%%? This should give enough precision with rounding. I always thought computers were invented for 'complex' calculations [:D]

murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

This might be close to realism in 1/2 day or day scale scenarios - but probably not in the bigger ones [8|]

Well, it's not perfect. But your suggestion to fix it just replaces one set of abstractions with another.

On a side note - the way equipment is recovered bugs me a little too - I can agree with soldiers returning to the stockpile, but for heavy equipment (or even worse with planes) it heavily depends on who 'owns' the battlefield afterwards - guess where the German T-34 came from - I remember reading something about a heavy tank unit of the Germans in the Ardennes offensive - the soldiers came back but none of their tanks (no fuel).

Not every peices of equipment that goes to the stockpile is damaged or abandoned. A great deal if it just represents stragglers. Perhaps units which are in a worse supply state could have more of their lost vehicles sent to "lost" rather than "on hand", though.

I should write what I think - I meant each turn 10% of the total movement allowance of the unit is added - so if a 13 move infantry would have 1 MP in first turn - if it does not move it has 2 in turn 2, 4 in 3, 5 in 4, 6 in 5, 8 MP in 6, 9 in 7, 10 in 8, 12 in 9 and in the last 10th round it has 13 (if it has not moved at all).
Thus this infantry unit could move into a wood hex which requires 3 MP in the 3rd round (or later) - but not immediately.

OK. So if a unit defending a road is destroyed on round eight an unmoved unit can use 90% of its full movement allowance to advance up the road on round nine?

Where is the need to have multiples of 40? Floating point instead of integer? or instead of 100% using 10000%%? This should give enough precision with rounding. I always thought computers were invented for 'complex' calculations [:D]

This would mean rewriting every bit of code which refers to supply.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: murx
Where is the need to have multiples of 40? Floating point instead of integer? or instead of 100% using 10000%%? This should give enough precision with rounding. I always thought computers were invented for 'complex' calculations [:D]

This would mean rewriting every bit of code which refers to supply.

Don't forget the supercomputers... End of turn on anything less than a P4 would take 'a while.' Even on a P4, it would take 'a while'

[murx]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Not every peices of equipment that goes to the stockpile is damaged or abandoned. A great deal if it just represents stragglers. Perhaps units which are in a worse supply state could have more of their lost vehicles sent to "lost" rather than "on hand", though.

Yes, that could give more realistic flow back of equipment (I guess tho the amount that flows back is 'global' and not equipment specific or equipment class).

OK. So if a unit defending a road is destroyed on round eight an unmoved unit can use 90% of its full movement allowance to advance up the road on round nine?

Have the hex 'remember' a battle - a unit that enters the hex gets its movement points reduced exactly the same way all units get their movement points reduced with the current system. Instead of global reduction just local. A unit that enters a battle hex (turn 8) in turn 9 can have maximum 10% of its MP - cost of entering hex, if that value is negative unit cant enter. If it tries to enter that same hex in turn 10 it has maximum 20% - MP cost of hex; simple solution - basically the same that is already in use.

Where is the need to have multiples of 40? Floating point instead of integer? or instead of 100% using 10000%%? This should give enough precision with rounding. I always thought computers were invented for 'complex' calculations [:D]

This would mean rewriting every bit of code which refers to supply.
[/quote]

Yes I do realize that the current engine has severe limitations - but I hope for a future wargame, maybe TOAW 4 or 5 - which tries maybe different (maybe better?) approaches on IGO-UGO typical problems and the limitations of the current engine.

(For instance the next generation of TOAW could use 'container units' instead of the current units, a bit in the way War in Russia does - a Btl would be a container with a few Btl typical equipment and 3 to 5 'container' representing the combat companies - which could contain their equipment + their platoons (again container) etc. This would allow for 'asymetric' detachment, 'real' attachment of units - how often does that Corps AT asset not withdraw with the 'main force' and gets just overrun... of course they dont want to retreat with the rest of the pack - the scenario settings would describe the minimum/maximum size of allowed container)

murx

[Johnus]

Dear Golden Delicious:
 
I am confused.  Please give me a simple explanation of how a turn is used up or completed.  Is movement ignored and rounds of combat the only variable ??
If so, when combat consumes half a turn, does a unit that has not moved have only half its movement factor ??  Thanks.

[murx]

Explanation for Johnnie:
Yes - if a unit starts a combat in tactical turn 1 that is resolved in tactical turn 5 any unit on the map will have a maximum movement of 50% left. So a unit that already used 50% of its MP will still have the rest of their MP, but a unit that had still its 100% of MP will get it reduced without having moved.
 
murx
 
 

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

Yes, that could give more realistic flow back of equipment (I guess tho the amount that flows back is 'global' and not equipment specific or equipment class).

I think it would be fairly straightforward to get the program to check if each type of equipment has one of the "motorised" flags before sending it to replacements. Of course Ralph would have a better idea than me.

Have the hex 'remember' a battle - a unit that enters the hex gets its movement points reduced exactly the same way all units get their movement points reduced with the current system. Instead of global reduction just local. A unit that enters a battle hex (turn 8) in turn 9 can have maximum 10% of its MP - cost of entering hex, if that value is negative unit cant enter. If it tries to enter that same hex in turn 10 it has maximum 20% - MP cost of hex; simple solution - basically the same that is already in use.

And what about the ZOC penalties for adjacent hexes? This all sounds like a major rewrite. Can we get supply fixed first, please?

(For instance the next generation of TOAW could use 'container units' instead of the current units, a bit in the way War in Russia does - a Btl would be a container with a few Btl typical equipment and 3 to 5 'container' representing the combat companies - which could contain their equipment + their platoons (again container) etc.

Yeah. See some of Jarek's suggestions in this area. Of course, too much flexibility would be unrealistic; the player should be constrained by the way the armies were really organised.

Third post down;
http://www.tdg.nu/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1148781589

[Johnus]

Murx:

Thanks for the explanation. Last question. A unit which uses movement but does not engage in combat, does not consume any portion of the turn for other units, right ??

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Murx:

Thanks for the explanation. Last question. A unit which uses movement but does not engage in combat, does not consume any portion of the turn for other units, right ??

Correct.

[murx]

In reply to Golden Delicious

Yeah. See some of Jarek's suggestions in this area. Of course, too much flexibility would be unrealistic; the player should be constrained by the way the armies were really organised.

This strongly depends of the nation - the Germans were (in)famous of creating 'ad hoc' battlegroups by selecting those sub units available and best fitted for the job - they did this whenever neccessary, either for offensive operations or as reserve and 'Feuerwehreinheit' in the defense (but also to counterattack when the attacker was weak).
So such a battlegroup (Kampfgruppe) could consist of the last remaining motorized Panzergrenadier Company of a PzGren Division, the self-propelled portion of the Corps AT asset, Combat Engineers and what else they 'needed' or deemed fit for the situation and was locally available.

Also units which got seperated form their 'mother organization' would be integrated immediately into the local situation as long as it was necessary and/or impossible to get that unit back to its former unit.

One of the main doctrines of the German was unification of command. This only became 'difficult' during times of opposing offensive maneuvers that could divide units locally (be it batallion, division or corps) and create a short time window where such a unified command was impossible. Much stress was put on the junior officers who then took local command until a higher command again was able to coordinate.

The German COs usually did not suffer from bad coordination and cooperation of their attached units (no matter from what mother unit they came from) - but esp. later in the war they suffered from misinformation and bad estimation.
A German CO who got command over a group could not be sure about the 'real' size he got - the Infantry Division in his Kampfgruppe could be down to 1 1/2 Batallion, the Tank Btl down to a few tanks; a unit he might remember as a battle hardened veteran untit might have been severely mauled and got replacements of too young and too old reserves with little military training.

The other point where Germany suffered from 'bad cooperation' was mainly in the activation and use of reserves - esp. late in the war with 'Hitler directives' and such - in action on the battlefield the Germans suffered little problems with cooperation - even with minor nations, the problem with their unit was mainly overestimated strength and proficiency.
Of course this is different with multi-nation units with 'higher ego' problems, US and British had more problems cooperating. Italian and German units too.

So basically 'mixing' units of different corps (or even armies) was not the main problem (at least for the Germans) - mixing between SS, Wehrmacht, LW and of course minor nations is different story. Mixing of Allied units - I dont have information about that part but maybe others can fill in this gap.

Another point is local disbanding - a unit could get disbanded and there man and material distributed into another unit (it would be a nice feature if container and/or units within a container that get disbanded automatically 'fill' the other container/units within the container - surplus therefter is sended to the pool).


Regarding 'Supply needs to be fixed first'
Honestly, I think that any changes toward the supply system only can bring minor enhancements as long as the engine does not differentate between fuel and ammunition. The basic example for this - a tank needs 3-5 times fuel in the offense then in defense. In appropriate terrain tanks with very little fuel tho can be as effective defenders as tanks with full fuel supplement. Or take motorized infantry - without fuel they still have their feet; of course they can not redeploy as rapidly - but in defencive engagements there usually is no need for that rapid redeployment (even on scenarios with 20km hex - a division usually has to cover between 6 and 10 Km frontline in defence, in delay a division covers 10-20Km frontline).
Another problem I see with supply is the relative 'linear' approach in its effect. Take the PzIIIe with an individual supplement of 130 rounds. Only in the 'heaviest' fighting against a huge number of armored targets it will use most of this - so in smaller engagements with less hard targets it will be as efficient with only 70 rounds as with 130 rounds.
The same can be said about other supply elements - like replacement parts. Instanthaltung (Repair) - they can repair/exchange a lot until they lack (usually key)-parts - then their rate of repair drastically drops.
On a sidenote - it was written in some 'ZDV' (Zentrale Dienst Vorschrift, official military handbooks of all sorts in Germany) - that losses of about 10% (or less) on individual units did not have impact on their efficiency - in fact it usually raised the morale (probably something about revenge I guess) - but at 20% losses the moral impact started to get drastic very fast.

So basically to enhance supply I think it is neccessary to adjust the attack/defense value less on 'higher' supply levels (so a 66% supplied unit is basically as efficient as a 100% unit in 'short/small' engagements, maybe it is neccessary to recalculate current supply/attack/defense each tactical round within an ongoing battle? or is this already implemented?) - and drop the attack value of low supply units more severely then their respective defense value.

murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

This strongly depends of the nation - the Germans were (in)famous of creating 'ad hoc' battlegroups by selecting those sub units available and best fitted for the job - they did this whenever neccessary, either for offensive operations or as reserve and 'Feuerwehreinheit' in the defense (but also to counterattack when the attacker was weak).
So such a battlegroup (Kampfgruppe) could consist of the last remaining motorized Panzergrenadier Company of a PzGren Division, the self-propelled portion of the Corps AT asset, Combat Engineers and what else they 'needed' or deemed fit for the situation and was locally available.

Yeah.

Note that whilst it's the Germans who are best known for this, it does crop up a hell of a lot. Looking at the 1940 French OOB, one finds a lot of ad-hoc "Groupments" which tend to consist of various corps and divisional recon companies and battalions. The British Army treated the division more or less the same way as others treated the corps, moving units around as convenient, an MG battalion here, a Field Engineer Company there- or sometimes a whole bloody brigade. The Japanese and Americans both tailored formations specially for a task when they would have to be self-reliant in an amphibious operation. To refer this to TOAW, in a Northwest African scenario, currently the designer has to choose between the task force organisations of Torch or the official organisations into corps and divisions. If one could have the latter but specially set up into composite units for the purpose of the landing, it would be great.

One of the main doctrines of the German was unification of command. This only became 'difficult' during times of opposing offensive maneuvers that could divide units locally (be it batallion, division or corps) and create a short time window where such a unified command was impossible. Much stress was put on the junior officers who then took local command until a higher command again was able to coordinate.

... the Germans were one of the best armies at managing such a dislocation. The whole doctrine of Aufstragstaktik (forgive the spelling) was about trusting the man on the ground to know better than the officer reading a report at the HQ.

Mixing of Allied units - I dont have information about that part but maybe others can fill in this gap.

For Torch there was a little crossover, but not much. I think it only occured in the commando units- possibly purely for the purpose of having a dozen Americans prefacing a battalion of British commandoes for political reasons.

One could use co-operation levels to determine which units can combine in this way.

Regarding 'Supply needs to be fixed first'
Honestly, I think that any changes toward the supply system only can bring minor enhancements as long as the engine does not differentate between fuel and ammunition.

Well that's one thing- that would be a great improvement. Another is that in a lot of situations, one can just pour more troops into a remote area and achieved the desired result, whereas in reality this would cause the supply situation to collapse.

The best known example of this would be North Africa in Europe Aflame. The common "Mediterranean Strategy" is to throw forty or fifty divisions into Egypt and overwhelm the British there. Obviously this was impossible in the real world due to logistical limitations.

Then there's the fact that an artillery regiment which fires continuously will run out of shells (I believe those are the words required for the "Summon Bob Cross" spell). An infantry regiment which does so will last for weeks and weeks- see Stalingrad- but be completely incapable of offensive action.

drop the attack value of low supply units more severely then their respective defense value.

Units and equipment in TOAW don't have attack and defence values. They have a set of characteristics which are used on both the attack and the defence. The numbers you see on the icon could be described as "Lethality" and "Survivability" respectively.

That being said, it should be perfectly possible to impose a penalty on units depending on whether they're attacking or defending.

[murx]

Auftragstaktik - yeah perfectly [:)] - my guess on the other hand - in defence probably all mix of units and nations cooperated much better then in offence (as long as the line was holding) even without Auftragstaktik.
Regarding multinationial offensive actions I only can think of the movie 'A bridge too far' - my wild guess is - if the XXX Corps would have been a British unit they probably would have advanced much more aggressively? (But then maybe not because of tea-time [:D]).
Also I remember a scene with the British bridge engineer unit gotten a hold-up because of the difficult situation at the only road available.
On another instance I think at D-Day cooperation had difficulties with one side wanted to push further inland and the other side to consilidate at the beach first (but I don't remember if it were the British or the US units who had a different opinion).
Again, I think those cooperation problems usually happen more at the 'top level' then at the actual front line or in combat - no matter what side.
 
Regarding supply - yes managing 'amount' of supply and transport capacity is nearly impossible with the current engine [:(]
But adjusting "Lethality" and "Survivability" sounds good to me.
 
murx

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: murx

Regarding multinationial offensive actions I only can think of the movie 'A bridge too far' - my wild guess is - if the XXX Corps would have been a British unit they probably would have advanced much more aggressively?

I think you missed out or mistyped something here. XXX Corps was a British formation.

Also I remember a scene with the British bridge engineer unit gotten a hold-up because of the difficult situation at the only road available.

What sticks in my mind is the cheering crowds of liberated Dutchmen slowing the whole column almost to a standstill.

Abide with me, fast falls the eventide...

On another instance I think at D-Day cooperation had difficulties with one side wanted to push further inland and the other side to consilidate at the beach first (but I don't remember if it were the British or the US units who had a different opinion).

Something similar happened at Anzio. Field Marshal Alexander instructed the commanders involved to advance as rapidly as possible. General Mark Clark (his subordinate as commander of 5th Army) then instructed them to consolidate. They wound up doing the latter.

Again, I think those cooperation problems usually happen more at the 'top level' then at the actual front line or in combat - no matter what side.

To go into more recent times, there was an instance in Korea when the American commander asked the commander of the British Brigade if he needed any assistance dealing with the Chinese offensive (I think this was early 1951). The British officer replied that he was in "a sticky situation". The American then breathed a sigh of relief and focussed his attentions elsewhere- he had no idea what "sticky" meant in this context.

There again, one of my favourite bits of footage is one of those black and white aerial camera shots, with audio of British special forces directing the American aircraft onto the target.

International co-operation can work; it works a good deal better if the two sides have been through this before and know what to expect from one another. The lack of military links between Britain and France prior to 1939 was a bit of a disadvantage in 1940. Lord Gort apparently knew virtually no French- he just responded to everything with "d'accord".

Regarding supply - yes managing 'amount' of supply and transport capacity is nearly impossible with the current engine

It can be done in scenarios which are fairly small, just not if there is more than one distinct area of operations.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Something similar happened at Anzio. Field Marshal Alexander instructed the commanders involved to advance as rapidly as possible. General Mark Clark (his subordinate as commander of 5th Army) then instructed them to consolidate. They wound up doing the latter.

Funny...sounds just like a failed proficiency check causing an early turn ending...[:D]

Those were the words for the "Summon Kraut" spell...[;)]

[murx]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Something similar happened at Anzio. Field Marshal Alexander instructed the commanders involved to advance as rapidly as possible. General Mark Clark (his subordinate as commander of 5th Army) then instructed them to consolidate. They wound up doing the latter.

Funny...sounds just like a failed proficiency check causing an early turn ending...[:D]

Those were the words for the "Summon Kraut" spell...[;)]

But this didn't stop the fights in the Pacific, no? [:D]

murx

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: murx

But this didn't stop the fights in the Pacific, no? [:D]

Sure it did...for that turn...[:D]

[murx]

I'm tempted to write: You sure want the last word - do you? [:D]

murx

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: murx

I'm tempted to write: You sure want the last word - do you? [:D]

murx

I'm tempted to write: No, I don't...[;)]