hattori

As a bit of an outsider, I *think* JasonC's comments are being taken a bit the wrong way -- I don't know enough about any of you, but I don't think he's trying to be offensive.
 
I would guess he's promoting the idea from Napolean's quote, 'There are in Europe many good generals, but they see too many things at once. I see one thing, namely the enemy's main body. I try to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves.'  As in, you can use the objectives for clues to where the enemy might go or be, but don't make trying to capture them your primary objective -- make destroying the enemy force your main goal, and capturing the objectives will fall into your lap.
 
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that theory, just trying to mitigate some of the drama before it blows up -- JasonC, Bill and Ian are some of the posters whose material I value the most.
 
I think the entire comment was meant to be a little sarcastic in tone, not really calling the scenario designers idiots.  His choice of word "murdering" seems a bit out of character from other posts of his I have read, making it also seem a bit more sarcastic in tone.  I mean he wrote haiku's when told he should shorten his comments!  I could be wrong, but I'll assume the good until proven otherwise.

I think people are only bothered because they want to read what you have to say, but in all honesty, it can be very difficult to follow.  You're one of the few that seems to enjoy playing as the Russians, so at least for me, I'm always interested when you have thoughts about them.
You are right though, head on, Abrams vs T72 head on is a very bad idea.  I've had 2 platoons of 72s crest a hill to take on 1 Abrams head on from about (I think) 800m, and I ended up down 4 tanks for nothing in return.  I definitely never ever put them heads up against an Abrams (anymore).
The T90AM is without a doubt the best Russian tank, I don't disagree.  It's just that it feels like it's equally likely to die from a javelin, and an armoured rifle company has at least 18 javelin shots.  I figured even if they hit with all of those, I still have 3 to 1 odds on the Abrams.  Anyways, just thoughts, I don't have the time to flesh these ideas out as much as I would like.
I also agree no APS is more interesting, but to me, it's in the game, so I have to / want to figure out how to deal with it.  It's a bit of a slippery slope, because then someone can start saying how Javelins are too unfair and house rule ban them too.  
Anyways, please do keep posting, I appreciate your thoughts on Russian tactics to deal with the American technology advantages.

Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy?  Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely  or enough to make him stop fighting. . . .  The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . .  Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration."   I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points.  Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.

Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy?  Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely  or enough to make him stop fighting. . . .  The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . .  Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration."   I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points.  Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.

Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy?  Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely  or enough to make him stop fighting. . . .  The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . .  Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration."   I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points.  Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.

Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy?  Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely  or enough to make him stop fighting. . . .  The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . .  Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration."   I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points.  Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.

As a bit of an outsider, I *think* JasonC's comments are being taken a bit the wrong way -- I don't know enough about any of you, but I don't think he's trying to be offensive.
 
I would guess he's promoting the idea from Napolean's quote, 'There are in Europe many good generals, but they see too many things at once. I see one thing, namely the enemy's main body. I try to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves.'  As in, you can use the objectives for clues to where the enemy might go or be, but don't make trying to capture them your primary objective -- make destroying the enemy force your main goal, and capturing the objectives will fall into your lap.
 
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that theory, just trying to mitigate some of the drama before it blows up -- JasonC, Bill and Ian are some of the posters whose material I value the most.
 
I think the entire comment was meant to be a little sarcastic in tone, not really calling the scenario designers idiots.  His choice of word "murdering" seems a bit out of character from other posts of his I have read, making it also seem a bit more sarcastic in tone.  I mean he wrote haiku's when told he should shorten his comments!  I could be wrong, but I'll assume the good until proven otherwise.

As a bit of an outsider, I *think* JasonC's comments are being taken a bit the wrong way -- I don't know enough about any of you, but I don't think he's trying to be offensive.
 
I would guess he's promoting the idea from Napolean's quote, 'There are in Europe many good generals, but they see too many things at once. I see one thing, namely the enemy's main body. I try to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves.'  As in, you can use the objectives for clues to where the enemy might go or be, but don't make trying to capture them your primary objective -- make destroying the enemy force your main goal, and capturing the objectives will fall into your lap.
 
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that theory, just trying to mitigate some of the drama before it blows up -- JasonC, Bill and Ian are some of the posters whose material I value the most.
 
I think the entire comment was meant to be a little sarcastic in tone, not really calling the scenario designers idiots.  His choice of word "murdering" seems a bit out of character from other posts of his I have read, making it also seem a bit more sarcastic in tone.  I mean he wrote haiku's when told he should shorten his comments!  I could be wrong, but I'll assume the good until proven otherwise.

I'm extremely new to Combat Mission, so take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt.   I've been looking through these messages these past couple of  weeks -- I've personally had a lot of problems using Russian forces against the U.S., so Sublime, I would be very interested in what you have to say.  You've made endless references that most people are using the Russians incorrectly, but all I've managed to piece together from your posts is to buy lots of ATGMs, use a stripped down BTR-82A batallion with T-90AMs on defense, and use BMP2s with T-90AMs when attacking.  And play with no APS house rules   So please, I'd love to hear your opinion on tactics, what works for you, what you think people are doing wrong and how they should fix it.  I personally have severe difficulty dealing with how well the U.S. spots my forces (that and Javelins).  All I ask is you take your time when writing it.  In fact, write your thoughts first in a word doc of some sort, and correct all the red spelling mistakes -- I mean no offense, but sometimes with your spelling, punctuation, and lack of paragraphs it is a bit of a chore to parse what you're trying to say.

I'm extremely new to Combat Mission, so take whatever I have to say with a grain of salt.   I've been looking through these messages these past couple of  weeks -- I've personally had a lot of problems using Russian forces against the U.S., so Sublime, I would be very interested in what you have to say.  You've made endless references that most people are using the Russians incorrectly, but all I've managed to piece together from your posts is to buy lots of ATGMs, use a stripped down BTR-82A batallion with T-90AMs on defense, and use BMP2s with T-90AMs when attacking.  And play with no APS house rules   So please, I'd love to hear your opinion on tactics, what works for you, what you think people are doing wrong and how they should fix it.  I personally have severe difficulty dealing with how well the U.S. spots my forces (that and Javelins).  All I ask is you take your time when writing it.  In fact, write your thoughts first in a word doc of some sort, and correct all the red spelling mistakes -- I mean no offense, but sometimes with your spelling, punctuation, and lack of paragraphs it is a bit of a chore to parse what you're trying to say.