Comprehensive Wishlist

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any references . . .

What are your references? Ever been there? Any combat expericence? Got any references . . .

Regards, RhinoBones

Experience.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Experience.

Please tell us about your "experience".

Here's a pic of the grand kid you hate . . . hope you don't have too hard of a time living with your self depreciation.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any references to units 'sheltering in wadis'? Common defensive tactic, was it?

I know of examples of sunken roads being used. A trench is only 6-7 feet deep, yet it provides a huge defensive bonus wherever it's used. Parapet type structures aren't that common - especially ones that run continuously for hundreds of miles.

Kind of funny. I've been in quite a few deserts. For starters, they are generally not 'flat, featureless, open.'

Can't have a mirage without those features. That's why the roads were so important in North Africa: it wasn't that they were much of a movement advantage, it was that they gave a sense of direction in a featureless landscape. Otherwise, columns would soon be going in circles.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Can't have a mirage without those features. That's why the roads were so important in North Africa: it wasn't that they were much of a movement advantage, it was that they gave a sense of direction in a featureless landscape. Otherwise, columns would soon be going in circles.

Okay, have to state the obvious I guess. Compass.

If a column got lost it was only because of sheer stupidity.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any references to units 'sheltering in wadis'? Common defensive tactic, was it?

I know of examples of sunken roads being used.

In other words, you don't know of any examples of wadis being used in this way. Yet you vociferously -- against all evidence and all common sense -- insist that is how they were used.

And why have you taken up this position? Because it is the position you took up, and you will never abandon it, modify it, or consider any other possible point of view. It matters not a whit to you that it is completely indefensible and lacks all possible validity.

And this is why any discussion of anything with you becomes sterile, fruitless, and pointless. That's repetitive, I know, but so are these debates.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Experience.

Please tell us about your "experience".

Here's a pic of the grand kid you hate . . . hope you don't have too hard of a time living with your self depreciation.

Regards, RhinoBones

...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


I know of examples of sunken roads being used. A trench is only 6-7 feet deep,

There's an implied paradigm here: a deeper trench is better.

It sounds stupid but I have to point out that if a trench is 20 feet deep it is NOT 3 times better. It's worse.

Can't have a mirage without those features. That's why the roads were so important in North Africa: it wasn't that they were much of a movement advantage, it was that they gave a sense of direction in a featureless landscape. Otherwise, columns would soon be going in circles.

This is true enough of sandy deserts- but as Colin points out, plenty of desert is rocky rather than sandy.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Okay, have to state the obvious I guess. Compass.

If a column got lost it was only because of sheer stupidity.

My comment was based upon SPI's Campaign for North Africa rules:

[8.46] Tracks. The major communication network of the North African Plateau is the series of tracks that criss-cross the entire area. The tracks are useful not in that they are easier to walk or ride in (in some places they are no easier than the terrain in the hex); what they do provide is direction - i.e., which way to go. Sense of direction in the "desert" is almost non-existent; the tracks provide that.

Whether units got lost or not (I think they did) is not the point. The point was that the terrain was particularly featureless.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In other words, you don't know of any examples of wadis being used in this way.

I can't find any cases of wadis being used in any way. The battles seem to have all taken place in areas that lacked them. Sunken roads are a good substitute. They're physically similar.

Yet you vociferously -- against all evidence and all common sense -- insist that is how they were used.

And why have you taken up this position? Because it is the position you took up, and you will never abandon it, modify it, or consider any other possible point of view. It matters not a whit to you that it is completely indefensible and lacks all possible validity.

And this is why any discussion of anything with you becomes sterile, fruitless, and pointless. That's repetitive, I know, but so are these debates.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This same whiny song gets sung every time now.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

There's an implied paradigm here: a deeper trench is better.

It sounds stupid but I have to point out that if a trench is 20 feet deep it is NOT 3 times better. It's worse.

You have it exactly backward. It was Colin who claimed that a wadi should be at least 30 feet deep to warrant being put on the map. I was countering that notion.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

Okay, have to state the obvious I guess. Compass.

If a column got lost it was only because of sheer stupidity.

My comment was based upon SPI's Campaign for North Africa rules:

[8.46] Tracks. The major communication network of the North African Plateau is the series of tracks that criss-cross the entire area. The tracks are useful not in that they are easier to walk or ride in (in some places they are no easier than the terrain in the hex); what they do provide is direction - i.e., which way to go. Sense of direction in the "desert" is almost non-existent; the tracks provide that.

Whether units got lost or not (I think they did) is not the point. The point was that the terrain was particularly featureless.

Reality? A pronouncement in an SPI manual? That's a no-brainer, apparently.

SPI are the same people who designed a France 1940 game where the Germans would win no matter what they did -- and then announced that this demonstrated that the Germans would have won no matter what they did.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

There's an implied paradigm here: a deeper trench is better.

It sounds stupid but I have to point out that if a trench is 20 feet deep it is NOT 3 times better. It's worse.

You have it exactly backward. It was Colin who claimed that a wadi should be at least 30 feet deep to warrant being put on the map. I was countering that notion.

This overlooks the detail (which I pointed out) that if one puts on wadis that are less than thirty feet deep, then you might as well use 'fill to border' for many areas of the world. Start mapping six foot deep wadis and you'll find it will be faster to clear the hexes without such 'wadis' than put them in.

The bottom line is that a shallow wadi simply isn't a significant enough terrain obstacle to represent in TOAW. A deeper one would be far too deep to serve as a trench -- and in any case, you've yet to produce a single example of wadis being used in this way.

They are dry riverbeds. That's what 'wadi' means. Wadis that are deep enough to be represented on a TOAW map pose the same set of obstacles as rivers -- and are defended the same way as rivers.

We might as well have an argument where everyone else insists that helmets are intended to protect against shell splinters and richochets and things -- and you insist soldiers wear them to save their hearing. You can do just as well with that. Why not?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

In other words, you don't know of any examples of wadis being used in this way.

I can't find any cases of wadis being used in any way...

You musta looked real hard. I ran a search on 'Afrika Korps wadi' and came up with this in about two seconds:

http://www.eucmh.com/2009/12/07/the-ger ... ps-ww-2-1/

It actually looks like the kind of thing you might want to consult -- should you ever be interested in designing a decent North Africa scenario. Now go ahead and search the document for 'wadi.' You'll get about six hits.

What you will find isn't entirely to my liking. Wadis were obstructions to movement; however, the piece comments that they only seem to have been used as the basis for a defensive line once -- and in that case the defenders actually wound up deploying forward of the wadi.

On the bright side, there are (not surprisingly) no references at all to wadis being 'used as trenches.' That really is a ridiculous concept.

The study was drawn up in 1952 by German officers who served with the Afrika Korps -- it would be about as authoritative as you can get. You can go with that -- or stick to your theory.

I'm sure you'll know what to do. All too sure.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Yeah, yeah, yeah. This same whiny song gets sung every time now.

I like a ferocious argument as much as anyone. However, I prefer ones that are more productive than arguing with the guy in the Supermarket parking lot about Jesus. You do just dig in on whatever ridiculous proposition you've saddled yourself with, hunker down, and refuse to move.

As I've said, it wouldn't be such a problem -- if you weren't involved with the further development of this game.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Reality? A pronouncement in an SPI manual? That's a no-brainer, apparently.

It's a secondary source, same as any other secondary source. My point is, I wasn't just pulling it out of thin air. Regardless, the featurelessness of much the Western Desert is undeniable. You can see it in practically all period pictures of the Desert War.

SPI are the same people who designed a France 1940 game where the Germans would win no matter what they did -- and then announced that this demonstrated that the Germans would have won no matter what they did.

The France 1940 game that you so regularly disparage was a pioneering effort that advanced the field. It would be the equivalent of the Model-T. Your criticsm is about the same as saying that the Model-T a stupid design because it lacked a CD player. Their CFNA game was much later and was about as advanced as board wargames ever got or ever could get.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This overlooks the detail (which I pointed out) that if one puts on wadis that are less than thirty feet deep, then you might as well use 'fill to border' for many areas of the world. Start mapping six foot deep wadis and you'll find it will be faster to clear the hexes without such 'wadis' than put them in.

Actually, I put wadis in everywhere they were shown on my topo maps. It didn't require any "fill to border". And, furthermore, those maps showed where the escarpments were. Very few wadis had them.

The bottom line is that a shallow wadi simply isn't a significant enough terrain obstacle to represent in TOAW.

Then a trench must be too insignificant as well. If a trench is a significant defense feature (and is it ever) then a terrain feature that has some of its properties will be too.

A deeper one would be far too deep to serve as a trench

Not unless the sides were escarpments. And that is a feature external to the TOAW wadi tile. Absent that, the sides can still be used as parapets - and can't be any sort of significant barrier defense that it would be if filled with water (see Fredricksburg).

-- and in any case, you've yet to produce a single example of wadis being used in this way.

Seems you don't have any examples of your way, either.

They are dry riverbeds. That's what 'wadi' means.

Exactly! And that's all. As such, their only possible defensive benefit would be the sheltering benefit units in them would enjoy.

Wadis that are deep enough to be represented on a TOAW map pose the same set of obstacles as rivers -- and are defended the same way as rivers.

Only if they contained escarpments or were bordered by hills or mountains. All external features that need to be added by the map designer.

We might as well have an argument where everyone else insists that helmets are intended to protect against shell splinters and richochets and things -- and you insist soldiers wear them to save their hearing. You can do just as well with that. Why not?

Your ability to delude yourself that you're winning an argument that you are ignominiously losing is one of your endearing characteristics.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you will find isn't entirely to my liking. Wadis were obstructions to movement; however, the piece comments that they only seem to have been used as the basis for a defensive line once -- and in that case the defenders actually wound up deploying forward of the wadi.

So, let me get this straight: You didn't find any examples of them being used in defense either!

I had found a case of defending in front of a wadi. That was at El Mechili. That was because the town of El Mechili contained a fort.

On the bright side, there are (not surprisingly) no references at all to wadis being 'used as trenches.' That really is a ridiculous concept.

On the bright side, there are (not surprisingly) no references at all to wadis being "used as rivers." That really is a ridiculous concept.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Reality? A pronouncement in an SPI manual? That's a no-brainer, apparently.

It's a secondary source, same as any other secondary source. My point is, I wasn't just pulling it out of thin air...

That the assertion is patently idiotic is neither here nor there, apparently.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

What you will find isn't entirely to my liking. Wadis were obstructions to movement; however, the piece comments that they only seem to have been used as the basis for a defensive line once -- and in that case the defenders actually wound up deploying forward of the wadi.

So, let me get this straight: You didn't find any examples of them being used in defense either!

I had found a case of defending in front of a wadi. That was at El Mechili. That was because the town of El Mechili contained a fort.

Yeah...and I admit it. I bet you find that really incomprehensible.

However, I'll note that your Western Desert wadis really are pretty tame little fellas. Go elsewhere in the world, and you'll find plenty of 'wadis' that would be of great defensive value.

This is the sort of thing I spend a good deal of time looking at -- as much as any one image could be taken to be representative.



Now, 'that' is the River Aras, which formed much of the border between Turkey and Russia, and between Iran and Russia.

It's definitely a river. Flow of water (at least here) isn't all that great, though. Really, the defensive value and the delay to movement comes more from what happens when you try to climb out of the canyon. Put this bad boy in flat land, in a region with plentiful infrastructure, and you might want to represent it at 2.5 km. Certainly not at 10 km or higher.

However, it's a river, and I map it as such. But lots of the feeder canyons are typically either dry or contain so little water that it's ridiculous to label them rivers. They are 'wadis,' in short. Wadis that are significant enough to offer a defensive obstacle.

However, the nature of the obstacle is almost identical to that of the 'river.' So it seems to me that the effects in TOAW should be about the same.

...but then, I don't think wadis were used as trenches. If I thought that, I might feel differently.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Your ability to delude yourself that you're winning an argument that you are ignominiously losing is one of your endearing characteristics.

Sure, Curtis. Wadis function as trenches, compasses are of no use in the desert, and while we're at it, how fast units try to move doesn't affect their exposure to interdiction strikes, any road that can supply a division can supply an army, supply issues and the impact of lack of supply affect all arms the same, TOAW models Napoleonic warfare just fine, that the Japanese can invade Hawaii in War in the Pacific demonstrates that they could have done it in real life, human population remained static until modern times, and Neanderthal man became extinct because of, and only because of, Cro-Magnon predation.

I'm sure I've missed a few. No offense. 'Winning an argument' with you isn't really something to be proud of. It's usually a matter of pointing out a consideration or two. Of course, you'll never admit anything, but that's just who you are. It has to be accepted. One sits down, checkmates you, and eventually gets up and walks away while you sit there insisting it's not mate.