Jump to content

Fionn

Members
  • Content Count

    4,244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Fionn

  • Rank
    Banned

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Whoa now... Before people go labelling this guy is there actually any proof ( IP logging etc) that this is the guy who once posted as Seibold/Headshot etc? Let's at least try to establish the need for SOME proof before someone can get lit up by the crowd.
  2. lcm, It is fairly clear. If fighting is raging all around them and nearby then sure they may try to protect themselves but if you read actual accounts from WW2 you will be struck by how many times crews report bailing out under fire and how VERY, VERY seldom they say anything about fighting back. No, the vast majority of the time they just talk about getting the hell away from the enemy and back to the rear where they can wrap themselves in a few inches of steel again. As I said, you can draw the line wherever you want personally but if you're going by "realism" then crew accounts leave one in no doubt that realism equates to "get the hell away from the front line".
  3. Panzer 76, Indeed I am. The chance to learn new things at the foot of a player such as POS is one I don't often get. POS, This could bog down in interminable wrangling over details. Lets cut all of that. Here's what I propose: 1 game using your settings. Since u've given me choice of nationality I choose Germans. Afterwards, a second game using settings determined by me. So, 1 game using your settings, 1 game using mine. Seems the fairest way to proceed without engaging in endless wrangling over specific points no?
  4. Ah, thanks Gordon. It struck me as similar to the disruptive/fake wake patterns from WW1 but I wasn't sure. Thanks. BTW as re: the turn... Damn, I was waiting on you.. Have sent you an email asking u to resend last turn.
  5. LOL!!! Although the bit about rubbing the stat sheets over your naked body just left me with horrible mental images. *shudder*
  6. BlackVoid I would have thought that was realistic ( if unorthodox). If an enemy force doesn't thoroughly suppress an ambush site then it deserves to be repulsed time and again.
  7. Yeah, at first I thought it might just be a bit of a joke, you know an overblown public persona or somesuch but I think he's actually serious. Weird.
  8. Gordon, Excellent work. Can you give more details re: the camouflage. It is, to say the least, unusual.
  9. Lou, Your point re: not becoming the advisor is well-made. Manoeuvrist doctrine would hold that the job of a teacher would be to teach others HOW to think but not to teach them WHAT to think. Admittedly when teaching is accomplished by actually playing a competitive CM game and then debriefing post-game much of the debrief comprises a listing of errors made, tactical possibilities not considered and alternates. OTOH it wouldn't be correct to view such things as comprising a list of what to think. Rather it helps round out the students' knowledge of what can and cannot be done. He or she will then look at all future engagements with wider "tactical eyes" and decide on the course of action best suited to the terrain, mission, enemy and, perhaps most crucially, his/her own temperament. As to whether you'd win more games if you played using my "prescribed methods".... . The question is in error. a) I don't have any prescribed methods. If I did and you tried to follow methods not suited to your temperament you'd lose... it wouldn't matter if the tactics were suited to the terrain, enemy or mission. If they aren't suited to YOUR personality and emotional state that day then they are wrong. It should be noted that the above view is controversial especially with those who believe that at the CM level the application of force x at point y will always yield result z.
  10. I'm bloody trying . OTOH the target needs to agree to come onto the firing range first. So far he's still examining the lay of the land. I wonder if his coup d'oeuil will fail him? [ March 29, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]
  11. No worries... I'm a bit touchy at the moment re: people putting words in my mouth so u have to take that into account re: my reply. BTW new scenario on its way to you.
  12. Nevermind, Your reply shows you didn't closely read what I said... I quote it again below and will point out some things. Nowhere did I use the word sharpshooter there. If I didn't use the word then there was a reason for that. You spoke of the use of sharpshooters in the attack being a "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THEIR POTENTIAL". I disagree. Sharpshooters are one component of the intelligence-gathering capability available to CMBB players and their intelligence-gathering capability is relatively the same when attacking as defending ( hence my disagreement re: it being a completely different aspect of their potential when attacking). I specifically did not use the word sharpshooters since there are many modalities for gaining intel when attacking. Sharpshooters are but one of those modalities. I spoke of the importance of intel, not any specific means of getting it. At NO POINT did I state that they were "always better under all circumstances". That was merely your, incorrect, representation of what I stated. To reduce what I stated into the terms of your reaction I argued that having intelligence regarding the enemy was ALWAYS better than not having intelligence and that having good intel on the attack would tend to differentiate one more from mediocre players than having good intel when defending. So, in conclusion I never implied the above. IF you read what I said this is clear. I spoke merely about having intelligence. Sharpshooters are one means of gathering intel. MY disagreement was with your statement that the conduct of sharpshooters on the offence called on a wholely different aspect of their potential. This is simply not so IMO. P.s. I'd be very careful about saying things like the following " i think your looking at this without a very open mind." when it is demonstrably clear that one actually hasn't read the post in question. (I didn't mention sharpshooters and I didn't say anything about them always being better. I spoke of good intell always being better than poor or no intel.) [ March 29, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]
  13. FWIW I've had some limited dealings with Band of Brothers and feel justified in stating that their playing group does seem to be less interested in "who is top of the ladder" and more interested in having enjoyable gaming experiences... in which everyone does their best. That POS wouldn't fit into that mould is hardly a surprise. His claim that he was told a more competition-driven ladder might suit him better in order to protect BOB players from him is, however, hard to credit. There are some excellent players in BoB. Just because one isn't interested in achieving the epitome of self-glorification and self-regard doesn't mean one can't be an excellent player. In fact one could argue that players who feel they have nothing to prove to others, given their evident ability, would be more likely to join a place where they could play just for fun, free from the attention of "young turks" and others of such ilk.
  14. There's no-one bullying you. I proferred some parameters for you to play under since I felt that you playing the exact same parameters 40some times in a row in a game whose end-point you admit is designed to come once your troops run out of ammo were less than equitable. I explicitly stated a willingness to discuss and change those parameters based on the principle of mutual agreement. Unless, in your part of the world, bullies try to engage in discussion, compromise and are willing to listen to your point of view I don't see how the above could be labelled "bullying". Could you point out, specifically, which aspects of the setup appear "boring" to you? If it is the time limit then I will point out that there's nothing stopping you from crushing me within 15 turns. 60 turns is the outside maximum allowed. If you beat me in 15 then the game stops in 15. The only way I can see that 60 turns would be scary to you is if your tactics are developed such that your ability to fight on beyond 25 turns is extremely limited ( due to force mix and tactical usage)? Perhaps I'm missing something though, please feel free to explain it to me. My games tend to be quick too. I don't expect long games BUT I have the ability to play them. I simply suggest that if you are as good as you say you are then you should be able to adapt and overcome. That attempt to get you to play a game whose parameters you haven't optimised to your own style of play etc is what I'm attempting here. One could argue that the fact that you've finished 43 games in 7 weeks merely proves that you play a lot of games. I'd also point out there's no end to people who don't consider all the ramifications of playing someone who has a list of settings which create quite similar maps time and again ( SMALL village maps with moderate woods don't present one with deeply varied maps. Most of the maps generated will have a central village with many woods leading to them. The fighting will key on the village and, as such, a player who plays this sort of map repeatedly can build up a very good idea of what most opponents will do and utilise this to give him an advantage in most of his games.) Ah, but I didn't say that. What I actually said was that I offered these parameters but that they were EXPLICITLY open to change based on mutual agreement. Hardly the same as dumping a setup on you and calling you a coward if you changed anything. I specifically invited you to inform me of your concerns and inferred a willingness to change said parameters if I didn't feel they were unbalancing. So, I don't see how an explicit public statement that the parameters are open to change based on your input is the same as dumping them on you and demanding you play them, else be labelled a coward. Ok, there's an implication here that the reason you are turning down this "attack/defend" is because my "params are too wild" ( to paraphrase). So, please list which parameters are "too wild" and then what you would prefer. I can then generate a compromise solution from that. One neither of us will be entirely delighted with but which should form an equitable basis for game parameters. ( Again, hardly the stuff of "bullying".) Yes, indeed those credentials are brought up time and again. Harsh truth of life: 1. Being top of the RD ladder doesn't mean you're the best player there due to the issues with frequent play etc. 2. Even if it did it doesn't mean you are the best CMBB ladder player since there are several ladders. 3. Even if it did it doesn't mean that you are the best CMBB player ( I know lots of good players who have nothing to do with ladders). 4. EVEN if you were the best CMBB player in all of the world ... it means very little in the real world.
  15. I'm not so sure Nevermind. Since one is advancing and has overall force superiority it stands to reason that good intel would enable one to use MORE force effectively when attacking than defending. Also since poor intel on the attack is the rule rather than the exception the ability tog ain good intel while attacking would tend to improve one's performance far more than said good intel would while defending ( since even very poor defenders will get moderately usable intel of their attacker).
×
×
  • Create New...