Jump to content

stoat

Members
  • Content Count

    1,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by stoat


  1. The three scenarios with this problem are:

    A Polish Battlefield

    King of the Caste

    Task Force Navajo

    Any ideas or does someone have these in a working version.

    By the way Stoat, HSG N A Polish Finish is available at TSDII in an Ai and H2H version. See here:

    It was A Polish Battlefield that I was refering to. I believe I have A Polish Finish on my hard drive. Thanks for setting me straight.


  2. Poor you. Just wait until Ike gets there.

    UVEA

    Michael

    Some parts of Chicago got 7+ inches today, with another 3+ coming in tonight; all before Ike moves through. We only rarely get the remnants of hurricanes, but this year Gustav dropped 4 inches on us, and Ike will pass over as well.


  3. Despite Boo's cheatsy air strikes, an entire platoon of his Shermans have fallen victim to my Stuggery and I have a platoon of infantry rampaging behind his front line; gunning down his panicked, teary American boy scouts.

    In other news, all of today's soccer games are rained out, so I can't yell at small children. Turns would be appreciated.


  4. stoat,

    Were you also accused of being gamey? If so, who was the cannibal? Sorry, couldn't resist, though the first question was actually serious! Some people are absolute death on using crews this way. OTOH, it was rear area action on your turf, which is hardly the same as using them offensively in the front line.

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    I tend not to play with those that are very concerned with such practices as attacking crews and unusual force purchases. That being said, I'm not the type that uses crews as scouts, or anything of the like. I was playing a regular opponent, a rather laid-back Englishman, and the action took place fairly deep in my rear area. No accusation of gameyness was made.


  5. I discovered this property of support weapons the hard way. In a PBEM scenario, my opponent snuck a pair of panzerschreks into my rear area to attack armor that was arriving as reinforcements without escorting infantry. I couldn't spare a rifle squad from the main battle, so I decided to send a couple of tank crews from knocked out Shermans to take them out, figuring they couldn't defend themselves. 7 tank crewmen against 4 Germans resulted in 3 American casualties and 1 German.


  6. My point is not whether or not sex ed 'does the trick'. To be against sex ed in schools speaks to the type of person who is opposing it. When I learned of Palin's objection to sex ed, I immediately formed an opinion of someone who is closed-minded, old fashioned, unrealistic, etc. She does not strike me as someone who is forward thinking or proactive. Yep, I got all that from learning that she opposed sex ed (whether it be explicit or non-explicit).

    While I'm not sure if this is the case with Gov. Palin, I know that there are a fair number of parents that would prefer to teach their own child the birds and the bees. They prefer to introduce that information to their children in a more controlled environment than marching them in to a class where they listen to old Mrs. Floppy-Arm-Skin talking about coitus and autofellatio or whatnot, or pushing a government standardized soft porn video into a VCR and letting that do the teaching while she flips through the latest JC Penney catalog. Preferring one's own brand of education to that of the state is not always the sign of a closed-minded, unrealistic, reactionary fuddy-duddy. Parents home school children in every other subject all the time. And is it really that far out to believe that a parent may want sex kept out of their child's school like others want religion kept out? Of course, both of our cases are based on unproven suppostions.

    Learning that her daughter is pregnant was an "ahhhh moment". No shocker there.

    I think this is unfair. Everyone is quick to point out when the child of strict parents gets pregnant. Sure, kids with strict parents act out. But there's no ahhhh moment when parents that don't give a damn about what their kids do wind up with pregnant children, or when kids from anywhere else in the strict-to-lax spectrum get preggers. I don't even think that there is irony here. If Bristol was an abstinence advocate, or had taken one of those vows of chastity and then gotten pregnant, that's ironic. But this would hardly be the first time a child didn't hold a parent's point of view, or acted outside the realm of their idea of a model child.

    To be clear, I was referring to unconditional love. And it was from the viewpoint of the daughter (as the receiver), not the parent (as the giver). Big difference. I did not say that Palin doesn't love her children unconditionally.

    What can I say to this? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. I take your assurance that the baby was an unintended consequence for the guy involved, but it'll take a lot to convince me that all the young women who get pregnant do so "accidentally".

    I meant unconditional, but left off the prefix. And I find it hard to believe that teenage girls are so desperate for love that they go on the hunt for baby juice to make a little bundle of life changing love of their own. The girl who thinks her parents don't love her is high on the list of candidates to get drunk and laid in a closet at a homecoming party, but I don't think all that many girls want a baby before they're out of high school.

    You're right that there's nothing new about teen pregnancy and I'm sure you'll believe me when I say I've known a young woman or two who has found herself *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* "accidentally" pregnant. You said that there isn't an " American teenager who ... isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some [one] could possibly lead to a baby", then why does teen pregnancy exist?

    Sure, it does happen. I know girls that have gotten pregnant and married at 17, but it's hard to know the breakdown of whether the marriage was because of the baby or not.

    I don't buy the argument that young men are too "hugely horny" to use a condom or that young women can't get a prescription for the pill when they decide to become sexually active.

    Responsibilty isn't always an easy concept for teens, in general (don't flip your wig, stoat), to grasp. Making it easy for teens to get their hands on birth control is a must. Condoms are stocked right between the facial tissues and the cold meds in the 7-11 convenience stores in my neighbourhood. So why are teens still getting pregnant? It makes me wonder just how many "accidental" pregnancies aren't accidental at all.

    I see teen irresponsibility on a daily basis, so I can hardly take exception. And condoms aren't hard to acquire. As you mentioned, they can be found in any convenience store. Pills are another story. There are parents that don't like the idea of their daughter being sexually active, and thus refuse to go along with the practice, and it's not always possible for high school girls to pay for the drugs themselves. But I'm not a girl, and I see this issue from the other side. That being said, there are a lot of guys that carry condoms in their wallets, either because they want to imply that they're getting some, or because they actually are. I'm not keeping records, nor do I look for stories, but I would have to say that the ratio of protected sex to unprotected sex is very high. Very few high school guys want to have children when they're 17 or 18. That's for after college, when the wild oats have all been sown. And because man seed is required for the making of a baby, most guys tend to cover their bases. The guys I know that have gotten girls pregnant are for the most part those least suited to be fathers. They're the ones that don't bother with condoms either because they don't like the feel or it would interrupt their game, or whatever other excuses they dig up afterwards. What I'm saying is that even if the girl wants a baby, the guy can still choose to use a condom. And I think instances of both individuals wanting children because their mothers didn't hug them enough are suspect at best.


  7. I have a strong belief that a woman who is against sex ed in school is closed-minded. When in the comfort of their own home, how much do you think that Palins talk about sex and the consequences of engaging in sexual activity? The ostrich with its head in the sand is what comes to mind.

    I have no idea how much they talked about it, nor does that really matter. You can't tell me that an American teenager who goes to a public high school and who presumably watches television isn't educated already, and isn't aware that having unprotected sex with some guy could possibly lead to a baby.

    It's still ironic that Palin's daughter is pregnant. Sure, being educated on something does not ensure that a person won't make mistakes. Chances are, Palin's daughter did know what she was getting in to. Truth is, I think teen pregnancy has more to do with a teenager wanting unconditional love and, not getting it from her parents, she decides that a baby will fill the void.

    Claiming that Sarah Palin doesn't love her children conditionally is an interesting line to take. And perhaps times have changed, but I see teen pregnancy as having mostly to do with hugely horny teens not taking the time to put on a condom or check if their partner is taking the pill. Teens having sex is nothing new, but of the peers I have that have children already or on the way, I can assure you that the baby is an unintended consequence.


  8. Well, the first thing that struck me when I heard of Palin was that she's against sex education at school and that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. Sex ed including the basics of contraception IMO might be a tiny bit more effective than telling teenagers to just think of baby Jesus when nature calls...

    How many 17 year old high school students do you think are out there that have never heard of contraception? If you don't want to get your girlfriend pregnant, wrap it up. You don't need a sex ed class for that.

    Being against sex education in this day and age is incomprehensible.

    I took 18 weeks of health class over three years in grade school, and another 18 as a 1 semester health class my sophomore year in high school. Care to wager how much of the curriculum was sex ed? None of it. Not a single day. Sex ed or even drug ed programs don't prevent kids from having sex or from doing drugs. I did hear a lot about how bad drugs and alcohol are, yet a large percentage of my classmates smelled of weed or were talking about the coming weekend's parties while this education was in progress. All sex ed classes achieve is to make class awkward for a time. Engaging in drug related or sexual activity has nothing to do with a class you take in school, and everything to do with the circumstances an individual places themself in and their judgement.


  9. This stupid **** comes up every time they open a new particle accelerator. Tiny black holes evaporate, and RHIC didn't compress the east coast of the US into matter singularity when it began operating.

    And no one is playing God. To go along with that figure of speech, the scientists would be making new species of animal out of nothingness, or passing down guidelines for people to live by, or demanding a jihad, or killing Egyptian babies. See the difference? And wouldn't God already know if the Higgs boson existed?


  10. "Tobruk positions" are fortifications that are level with the ground. They are so named because Rommel first viewed this type of postion at Tobruk. The fortifications seen by Rommel were actually constructed by the Italians, and were so well sited and constructed that he later adopted them into the Atlantic Wall. It is basically a concrete bunker that's been dug into the ground, thus reducing its target profile. As such, the concrete pillbox would be a much closer fit than a wooden bunker, but even this doesn't really do the Tobruk justice. The Tobruk was hard to see, hard to hit, and usually held only one MG. While the concrete pillbox is notoriously hard to kill it is too visible, too large, and too well armed to be a true Tobruk.


  11. Incidentally, I often see reference to use of WWI tactics - like yours above - as if that's a bad thing. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's a bad, else why is everyone still trying to "do a Cannae"? In very general terms, for the British, ...

    1916 tactics were pretty bad.

    1917 tactics were pretty good.

    1918 tactics were great.

    Where Montgomery dipped into the WWI toolbag he was recycling and re-using 1918 stuff. Not the 1916 stuff.

    Bite-and-hold itself is and was a proven tactic. I don't believe anyone would criticize a general for taking ground. But these tactics also limited him. If the objectives were taken, the capturing forces settled down and prepared for the next assault after waiting for guns to be resited and supplies to be brought up. Little thought was given to further advance, even if the ground could have been cheaply won, as it was outside of the scope of the limited objectives and the logistical contingencies weren't drawn up. It's said where the army goes, the logistics will follow. While that is not absolutely true, a greater flexibility in the execution of his battle plans would have made Monty a better general, in my opinion.


  12. I was rather hoping for an opinion or some form of comment rather than an attempt to break the minimum character count for a post.

    This book suffers from a flaw that quite a few history books do: it is too large in its scope. Too many authors try to cram in a theater's worth of action into four or five hundred pages, and attempt to do so both from a larger strategic perspective and with ample narration from the guys in the lines. From what I have seen, this is an impossible task to accomplish in a work of such size, and as a result the quality of the work suffers. If you are unfamiliar with WWII, or just want a generic overview of the early Italian campaign, The Day of Battle or something like Neillands' Eighth Army would do you well. But if you want a more informative an detailed read, I would recommend reading a variety of books that focus on individual battles such as Sicily, Anzio, Monte Cassino, and the fall of Rome.


  13. One example - Atkinson continually berates Montgomery for 'taking his time' to advance. Montgomery was a cautious commander, and didn't want to risk unnecessary casualties - probably a legacy of his WW1 experience. Atkinson sees that as some kind of weakness instead of what I see it as, which is a virtue. Britain didn't have essentially unlimited manpower.

    His apologism for Mark Clark grated most, though. The man was a poor commander (again, IMO), and was profligate with mens' lives in a way that would have fitted in well on the Eastern Front.

    Monty is a character that is revered in the UK, but largely unliked in America. In my own opinion, his bite-and-hold mentality was an anachronism from the First World War, and one that reduced his effectiveness. In the Italian campaign, breakthroughs were few and far between. When a line was breached, pushing hard and fast into the German rear area before they could establish another defensive line was far preferable to waiting until everything was properly supplied and emplaced before advancing, and in so doing wasting days at a time. His penchant for using airborne divisions as heavy infantry after their drops also earned him few friends in the States.

    However, I've never liked Clark as a commander, either. I believe he should have been tossed out, but instead he remained in command for the duration. There were a number of generals sitting on their tushes waiting for Overlord, and any of a number of them likely would have been more effective.


  14. No, it wasn't. Not overall.

    Strawman alert: Obviously the US didn't have a literally inexhaustable pool of manpower :rolleyes: That's not my argument. However, and especially compared compared to the BCE, their manpower problems were at a much lower level. The BCE problems went much deeper, and started a lot earlier.

    The US had plenty of young men to throw into the fight. When the Joint Chiefs were analyzing what would be required of the American military machine during the war in the dark months of early 1942, they estimated that the US would need to field 180 divisions. After the Japanese and Germans reached high tide at Guadalcanal, Stalingrad, and Alamein, and the campaign in France went far better than expected, this estimate was reduced to 100 divisions. Of the units that were formed, many only saw action in the last few months of the war. A majority of the mechanized cavalry regiments served only in the last 3 months of the war in Europe, and there were infantry and armored divisions just coming off the boats right up to the end. Even the airborne arm was just coming into its own at the end of the war, with the 11th, 13th, and 17th divisions all coming on line very late, in addition to the 555th PIR which served in the Pacific. By comparison, the Empire was largely spent, and certainly could not have come up with an additional 80 divisions should the need have manifested itself.


  15. Fair enough (good response).

    Of course the fact that the Japanese didn't seem to do anything to counter the subs means the Japanese don't really get much of a means to respond.

    Not true in the least. The Japanese undertook a lot of measures later in the war ('43 on) that the Allies had done slightly earlier. They began to organize convoys, they ensured all ships were escorted, they detailed fleet destroyers to convoy escort, they began a concerted corvette building campaign, they introduced larger spread and more effective ASW air patrols, they put radar in their planes, and they even took an additional step; that of laying large minefields to create barriers to keep Allied submarines out of large patches of ocean. Most of these measures were countered with new tactics and technologies, such as the wolfpack, the "hell's bells" mine locator, and orders to target Japanese escort ships, a doctrine initiated by USS Harder. I would suggest reading Bowfin or The Last Patrol to gain a better understanding of the constantly changing war between Allied subs and Japanese surface and air forces.


  16. Lost in the shuffle of the recent conflict is the fact that the Russians sent an FFG into the Eastern med on the 10th to participate in combined anti-terror operations with the US Navy, while most of the rest of the Black Sea Fleet was doing its thing off the Georgian coast. US-Russian naval relations have been fairly cozy in the past few years. Sending US warships into the Black Sea would be a lot like the Russians sending theirs to the Chesapeake. No one emerges from that situation happy.


  17. I've been out of middle school for a while now, but back in the day I did learn that one can't insult others and take the moral high ground simultaneously. You annoy a hell of a lot of people, Abbott. It's what you do best. But expect to get peeved yourself.

    Getting the thread back on subject [namely anything but Abbott], Boo is the cheatingest bastard CMAK has ever seen. The fool buys a P-38L, which zooms over and launches 14 harmless, flower-and-puppy-killing rockets. A few turns later it comes back and fires an additional two rockets. The only possible answer to this gamey riddle is that Boo is a l33t3 hax0r!!1! But he will lose.

    And if you lot are going to prance around like a gaggle of fuzzy-navel-drinking, Matt-Nathanson-listening, skinny-jeans-wearing preteen girls, you could at least put a decent beat down video on youtube.


  18. Not all penetrations are killer blows. Hits to less vulnerable parts of the vehicle and partial penetrations often do little other than affect the morale of the crew. Also, CMAK, unlike CMBO, has a "death clock" feature, which means that after you have knocked a tank out, it can take up to three minutes for the crew to leave and for the tank to be labeled as knocked out. However, if the tank was returning fire, this would not have been the case. All hits aren't penetrations, and all penetrations aren't fatal. I can sympathize with you, as there is nothing worse than thinking you've penetrated and destroyed a Panther, only to have it turn on you and light you up.

    If you ever have any questions, this is a great place to post them as there are always folks around to answer them, and some are very knowledgeable when it comes to game mechanics.


  19. New maps, Space Commies, functional Marine landing craft, and a chance to shoot Ace Pilot in the back. You can pick your side over at Gyrene's place, or PM me or post here or somefink. Those BFC old-timers you thought were dead? They're not, they just play BugHunter.

×
×
  • Create New...