Jump to content

Flenser

Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. An excellent film, the best of series by far. Scott is bang on about the rating though... it should have been "R". A couple of families brought their kids (probably no older than 6) and the kids were terrified. And of course it didn't cross the mind of the parents that they could just leave.
  2. I'm sure there all sorts of services you can use to get around the problem. It doesn't make the problem go away. A problem that is likely to get worse in the future.
  3. Well, sure. It isn't an issue for me (I use Gmail) but I could see it being an issue for others. Not everyone uses Gmail, heavens knows why.
  4. Apologies in advance for beating a barely conscious (possibly dead) horse, but semi-professional curiosity has gotten the best of me. I'm still rather baffled after reading through various threads at the amounts of data being sent via TCP. Is every change in every object being sent? That is: Vehicle A is now at X1 Vehicle B is now at Y1 etc (next tick) Vehicle A is now at X2 Vehicle B is now at Y2 etc Or is something else going on? And a question about the PBEM: Has the file size been an issue for anyone? I understand that 10MB per turn is rare now, but as more people start making more complicated scenarios, it might become more of an issue. Haven't checked lately, but I recall most email providers cap attachments at 10MB.
  5. Ah Moltke, aka "The Pillbox that Wouldn't Die", aka "Case Study on how Luck Can Turn a Battle". Leading with the armor was a necessity in that one, due to the placement of the aforementioned pillbox. Once its gone, things are relatively simple for the Soviets: Lay smoke, surpress with the armor, cross the bridge, let the SMGers do their thing. Of course, if that pillbox refuses to go down, you have to get... creative (see AAR).
  6. 10 or so on both St.N and TV, around 30 on Bear... not a lot of hope of finishing that one no matter the deadline, but I'll keep plugging away best I can.
  7. Swell. Two Peckhams, when one was more than enough. I'll cast my vote in line with the non-walpurgian Peckham. Sorta. A straight-up (no air/arty support) company sized fight between Syrian and U.S. forces could be pretty balanced, given restrictive terrain. At that level, it comes down to the ground pounders, where the tech is roughly equal. Throw in some heavier armor on the US side (Bradley on up) and things go completely to hell for the Syrians. Syrian armor is only scary for the 2 minutes or so it takes to set up the Javelin team. I'll be curious to see how this addressed in TCP play. To me, it doesn't seem like Syrian VS US quick battles will be terribly popular.
  8. Congrats to Bigduke for the well deserved, though unsurprising, win. Looking forward to the next batch.
  9. I'm wagering the slots all belong to a certain Duke... Justly so.
  10. "RISK"? I thought that was the preview edition for CMX2.
  11. Best I can do is recommend another book: U.S Army in World War II Special Studies Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schmidt By MacDonald and Mathews The relevant bit would be the battle for Schimdt. The volume describes several company/battalion sized actions that would make for interesting scenarios. The maps leave something to be desired (simple topos) but there are photos to go by as well. Hope that helps.
  12. My pain, your gain. To tell the truth, the AARs have become (for me) the most enjoyable bit of this tourney.
  13. I'd swear as well, but there seems to be some rather definitive studies that prove us both wrong. Do a search and you'll come up all sorts of stuff.
  14. Yeah yeah. My reasoning (flawed, to be sure) was: 1) Its CMAK, and stuff doesn't bog as readily as in CMBB 2) If you stick to "move", "hunt", etc you can minimize the chances even further. Or so it seems. I'm sure someone has or will run numerous tests to prove that wrong. The plan was that going x-country with the Shermans instead of attacking along the road would be an unpleasant suprise for my opponent. I can't remember the last time I'd actually played a game with muddy conditions, so I probably should have run some tests. Had I done so I would have seen that mud makes for.... very..... slow..... going. Orders of magnitude slower than damp or wet. Only had a few bogs, but watching turtles and snails zip by got old after awhile. So it did end up being a surprise, just for the wrong person. :mad:
×
×
  • Create New...