Henri

I buy a new game almost every week (X-Plane and Combat Command last week...), and most of them do not last longer than a couple of weeks on my HD; but I have had CM almost since it came out, and I am spending more time playing it than all other games put together. Kudos to all (now if only the CMHQ scenario page can be upped from its status of the slowest page on the Internet...). Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffinCheng+: BTW, Henri, how bout a TCP game or 2 in the weekend? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, we could continue out present pbem game on TCPIP and/or start a new one. Do you have ICQ? It makes it easy to contact people in real time. I don't have my number here, butif you send me an email, I can give it to you (or you can do a search on my email address with ICQ).We can also meet on Matt's chat room, which I check out regularly. Henri

Playing with a mostly armor force in forested terrain without a lot of infantry support is asking for trouble; the M18 is a fast tank killer, and in terrain like this, is much superior to any German tank. You needed a fast light tank like a Puma to counter this fast-moving Hellcat, who can dance circles around German heavy tanks if given the chance. Racing a Panther down an uncleared road into enemy territory in terrain like this is worth a court-martial And yes, you were very unlucky; I have had a couple of games like that where all my tanks bogged down, missed every shot, and were picked off by inferior enemy tanks from two miles away with the first shot... Henri

Most email programs have an option to have attachments part of the email message. For instance, if you use Eudora, there is a box that you have to uncheck in the preferences in order to avoid this. I believe it is the RECEIVER of the email that has to do this.This has nothing to do with the mail server. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Fionn is going to be mighty dissapointed! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno, Jeff;it is not clear to me that this contradicts what Fionn said: he was a bit vague except for saying that the 85% definitely does not refer ONLY to effective armor thickness.He did not reply directly to my question of whether or not the 85% was simply a catchall number that took into account all the effects such as weak spots. So my understanding of the above is that the 85% IS a catchall number for effective armor thickness -but that also incorporates the other factors that affect penetration, in sum an aggregate measure of probability.And that is what I thought Fionn said in a roundabout way on the Usenet forum. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Strange, I was sure I had heard an "official" statement the quality affects the weak point thingy. Could have been Fionn saying it, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You bet, there is a rather hot discussion with Fionn on the Usenet war-historical forum about what it means exactly (Fionn doesn't post here any more since he was banned). Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terence: RTFM: read the f#$@ing manual <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to be confused with RTFL (rolling on the floor laughing)... Cya:see you (later)... henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Francesco: Why not give it a pounch with a AT rifle (panzerbuchse) or some GOOD shots from a sharpshooter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, this was around move 20 of a 25-move TCPIP, and the infantry on my left had just expended their Panzerfaust immobilizing then killing the opponent's last Jumbo, a nearby machinegun watched the M8 race by picking his nose, and my Panzerschrecks were up near the front waiting to sandbag approaching enemy armor. I had additional infantry some distance to the right, but there was no way I could have brought them around in time, not to mention that would have meant leaving the center of my position without a reserve. Since I had two tanks near the mobile artilery unit and my Jumbo-killing infantry was straddling the road to the left, I really did not suspect that an enemy armored car had any chance to do any serious damage. I seriously under-estimated the ease with which this unit could race through my position -I don't think that any unit actually even shot at it. The whole thing lasted only three or four minutes. In retrospect, had I known what was going to happen, as soon as I saw where the M8 was headed, I should have started to rotate my artillery and tanks to get ready to meet him - one Wespe actually had him in his sights for about 30 seconds. Being welcomed by fire from 2 Wespes, a Hummel and one or two Panzers might give him second thoughts. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: Allied tanks suck no more!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hellcats have never sucked for killing German tanks (but don't let them get hit...). Henri

In a TCPIP game, I had turned the tide and was winning after immobilizing the opponent's last Jumbo and probably his last tank besides one or two Priests and a couple of M8 armored cars.Behind my lines protecting the victory flag were 2 Wespemobile artillery units, a Hummel mobile artillery, a STUGIII and a PzIV. On the other flank, I had a PzIV anbd a STUGIII backing up the infantry. So I breathed a sigh of relief confident that I could hold off his final assault on the flag and perhaps even kick his ass all the way up the map. But suddenly, out of the blue, an M8 shot down the road on my left, roared through my infantry who watched it pass with gaping mouths, rounded the bend in the road, and appeared behind my massed mobile artillery, which turned to face the intruder, who immediately dispatched the STGIII before it could react. It then proceeded to kill all three mobile artillery units who never got off a shot. In the meantime, I was bringing my PzIV, which was a bit ahead between the infantry and the artillery, to hit the intruder from behind. The M8 helped him by backing up right into his line of sight as he approached. Just as the Pz was about to fire, a Priest appeared behind him in his line of sight, and he began to waver, moving his cannon back and forth, and finally decided that the M8 was the most dangerous foe. But it was too late, and the M8 killed the Pz with a side shot, then proceeded to move forward to kill the Hummel. My mighty potent unyielding impregnable unconquerable invincible indomitable over-powering artillery backfield was reduced to tatters in two minutes by a sonovabitch of an M8 armored car! Some might consider my opponent's move as gamey (racing an armored car down the map edge then racing behind my lines through infantry), but I found it nothing short of brilliant (not to mention other less mentionable adjectives...). I'll tell ya this: I learned a good lesson, and next time I play the Allies, you can bet yer sweet patootie that I'll have an M8 nearby in the end game... Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lassner.1: Always keep your Tigers (I and II) and other heavy armor on the road unless you have dry/damp ground conditions. Jagdtigers will not last even one move off-road in snow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, in a pbem game I am playing right now with a canned scenario, I have 4 JgTigers off-road in teh snow, and not one of them is bogged down yet (fingers crossed...). Henri

If you are short on points, the Hetzer is cheap and efficient; the JgPzIV is tougher but costs more, but it can stand up to a Sherman Jumbo -in one recent firefight, a Jumbo and my JgPzIV each bounced three or four shots off each other's front armor from 50 m before a lucky shot from the Jumbo hit the Pz's gun. henri

Ask your opponent to request a ceasefire, then accept it, which will end the game. henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffinCheng+: Can't send u any files since Boxin' Day. I cannot reach your email account. Please assist. Are you sure you are sending to h.arsenault@videotron.ca? If it doesn't work, let me know at arseno@phy.ulaval.ca. I'm getting pbem replies from others, so the only thing I can see is the wrong address. I can also be reached by ICQ 101685873 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-06-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: The JgPanther has an 88mm gun with better penetration values over the Panther's 75mm. The JgPanther has 55 degree sloped armor all the way up the front hull while the Panther only has it on its lower hull and not the turret, obviously. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the JgPanther's 88 is the same as the Tiger's, it has less penetrating power than the Panther's high-velocity 75 mm gun, and presumably its only advantage over the Panther lies in thicker frontal armor (but if it was equipped with the later higher velocity 88, then...). In addition, the Panther has a fast turret whereas the JgPanther does not have a turret at all and is therefore very slow to turn to its flank. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: In most but not all cases they retreated to safety, to be able to take over another tank in the next battle. They rescued their comrades. Troop and Squadron leaders took over another tank and continued to command their unit. End of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about the case shown in the Patton movie where his tankers ran out of gas and they and the German tankers fought hand to hand? Was that ahistorical? Henri "Godammit, war is beautiful!" (Patton)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BK6583: A highly recommended scenario, although as I told Wild Bill in an email, I'm not sure how an American player would fare against a human German opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, my game is a TCPIP game not yet over, but a couple of moves ago, the Americans definitely had the edge. At this time, it is uncertain who is winning, because I am unsure of how many and which kinds of units the American player has.Although I have not played the Americans and my game with the Germans is incomplete, it is my impression that the US initially has a slight edge (until he gets over-confident...), but the US may be slightly more difficult to play since he is on the attack against an inferior but well-entrenched enemy. I intend to post an AAR (with spoilers) once the game is over (now where is my opponent?...). Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: I don't recall saying anywhere in my post that if you don't know a TO&E, you're not as cool as I am, drive a ****tier car, and have a smaller penis. By some of the responses I've seen on this thread, however, it seems as if that's how my post and the posts of several other people have been interpreted. Well get the hell over yourselves. No one is attacking you. Play however you want. I believe that's all the "historical" people have been calling for this entire time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't be so defensive. You said about the five 81 mm mortars: I wouldn't call it gamey (ie, it doesn't take advantage of a limitation of the game's code), but it is ahistorical. Now if I misunderstood, I apologize, but in the context of this discussion, I took this to mean that it is one of the "things" that players who want to play the "historical" types should avoid. I am not attacking anyone; my question was a bit rhetorical, but it is a serious question: do the "historical" advocates claim or not that units should be chosen taking into account the historical proportions of the TO&E ? Your comment seemed to say "yes", and if I misunderstood, again I apologize. But if your answer is no, then does it mean that SOME ahistorical choices of units are OK and some are not? If so which ones? I already said that I have no problems with my opponents requesting any kinds of constraints for a given battle. I had no problem recently when my oponent requested that we enforce the rule of 75 in a game (no Tigers or other ubertanks); I would have a problem if someone claimed that this rule should ALWAYS be enforced in "historical" games, which would imply that there were no Tigers in WW2! Henri Sheesh, and I had resolved not to get embroiled in any forum controversies this year: so much for New Year's resolutions...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Here's a TO&E for US Infantry Batallions 1940-45: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Although I don't remember playing against Panther and I don't remember ever buying 5 81 mm mortars, this sounds suspiciously like a game I played, where my mobile artillery unit (maybe a Priest-but seems to me I had the GErmans...) has wedged between two buildings in the town, which was assaulted by 2 or 3 infantry platoons right along the narrow line of sight of the Priest and of an assault gun. Now what worries me is this: apparently a player is supposed to know what the standard TO&E of every army in WW2 was, and buy his units in accordance to their proportion in the TO&E? Jeez, and I can't even remember what Fionn's rule of 75 is! OK, just for argument's sake, let's suppose we enforce this; but it is well known that the Germans especially had a habit in 1944 of creating ad hoc battle groups with whatever was available. so are we going to forbid the Germans to do what they did historically? Or is someone going to make a list of all those "historical" battle groups to which non-gamey players will be pressured to follow? Are we going to let the Germans do it and forbid it for the US? Then to make it more even, give the US more points to be used only historically? Then while we're at it, make the point balance historical so that the Germans can almost never win? Where the hell are we going with this anyway? Henri

There seems to be some confusion here. Steve rightly says that what he and other "historical advocates" oppose is the SYSTEMATIC use of crews as infantry, and others have mentioned the ahistorical possibility of the massive crew assault. Now clearly this massive crew assault thing never happens -what DOES happen is the single crew that moves to a nice observation position from where he can spot the enemy (by eye or by drawing fire). Now who is to say from a single instance whether a player is doing this systematically or not? The implication seems to be that if you do it ONCE, then you are probably doing it all the time and you are ahistorical, i.e. gamey. My point is that the real question is not the about the systematic use of crews in ahistorical ways (which is impossible to verify in practice), nor about massed crew attacks (which never happen), but about the validity of a single crew (or maybe a couple) being used in a specific game as the player sees fit as a spotting unit. My impression is that the anti-gamey people are claiming that only STANDARD WW2 procedures should be used in playing the game (tactics that were used only occasionally should not be used at all), whereas the free-for-all people claim that whatever the game engine allows should be considered fair. There is not much middle ground between those two positions.This is partially due to each side exaggerating the other side's position, but still... Let me add that although I belong to the free-for-all group, I have no problem in accepting any constraints suggested by my opponents. I recently accepted to restart a TCPIP scenario when I realized after the setup that I had bought a JahdPanther after agreeing to play by Fionn's 75 rule.My opponents can confirm that I never impose any constraints nor refuse any, and that I prefer to let my opponent choose the scenario and conditions.But I do prefer to play with no holds barred, which allows for more creativity. Henri ----------- "General Patton, Sir, I think that we can outflank the Germans if we follow the road along the edge of this map..." "Are you insane? There will be no goddam map-edge hugging in my army, do you hear?..."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by retarded_keydet: LOL! No offense but that sounded like a communist propaganda broadcast to me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not surprising, because during the Cold War, and following the McCarthy purges, almost anything that tended to give the Soviets their deserved credit for beating the Nazis was considered Communist propaganda. Henri

We are so focused in playing the game as it is designed that it seems that no one (to my knowledge) has realized tht for 2-player games, victory flags are not required. Victory flags are required for the AI, but there were no victory flags in WW2, and they artificially constrain play in 2-player games. How come there are no scenarios with Squad-Leader-like victory conditions? -for instance, "have at least three squads in the houses in the town at the end of the scenario", or "destroy at least half of the enemy force while maintaining at least half of yours", or "Have at least 3 non-demoralized units at the end of the game"-well, you get the idea. I am playing a pbem game right now on a huge map where we agreed that victory flags can be ignored -damaging the enemy is the object of the game. Well, after half a dozen moves, I still haven't spotted any enemy, but it is a huge map... Anyway, scenario designers are already designing games especially for 2-player games, but they are still oriented towards controlling victory locations.Even Squad Leader transpositions are flag-oriented. So c'mon you designers (I am not one of you), let's see some creativity with victory conditions designed especially for 2-player games.Among other things, this would allow much more flexibility in the game design -for example, a scenario could be wildly unbalanced, but the weaker player would win if he maintained a given part of his force, or a specific unit, or-you name it. Such scenarios would probably require better scenario briefings than most scenarios have now.In some cases, at least one player should be told the exact composition of the enemy's force and even their exact locations. One idea off the top of my head is the following: one player is told that he must ambush an enemy force garrisoned in a nearby town. The enemy is unaware of his presence, so none of his units are allowed to move until five moves after the attack begins. The ambushing player is told that he must expect enemy reinforcements after a certain amount of time, so he must do as much damage as possible to the enemy in the town, the skedaddle off the map before the enemy reinforcements can intervene.I am not sure how to enforce the no-move rule with fog of war, but perhaps the game could be played without FOW, since it plays a negligible role in this scenario. Henri

"When Titans Clashed" by House and Glantz are a must. Manstein's "Lost Battles" is very good, if a bit dry, especially for "what-if" considerations. Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TownsendVol: Can I also get a link to Wild Bills Scenarios so I will be ready when the game arrives. I tried the search and came up with posts from him but no links. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have posted a number of CM AARs both here and on the war-historical usenet forum; if you can't find them, let me know and I can email them to you. Make sure you check out the AARs on the CMHQ site. Wild Bill's site is http://wbr.thegamers.net/ Henri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: But hey, where were those infantry scouring the woods ahead of the column? Doesn't sound like it is ALL the games fault! ;^) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As it happens, in this canned scenario, the Germans don't have a single infantry unit. When I have a choice, I usually send infantry ahead of the tanks. Henri Henri