M Hofbauer

Interesting. What PzDiv. would that have been? 23,000 would be enough in August 1944 to make four PzDiv's from. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

might be a long post but bear with me there might be something in there for everyone: E.Meeks: I don't want to turn this discussion too serious but let me just say that the issue with blacks in SL is not their appearance rather it's their appearance in mixed units, which did not occur until Truman desegregated the army in the Korean War. Keep in mind that a greater percentage of blacks joined the army and fought in WWII than whites. the army dropped their absolute segregation during the Battle of the Bulge, when the reinforcement system got quite some cracks under the offensive, and soldiers were sent out as soldiers, not as blacks and whites. So, mixed replacements appeared in the originally all-white or all-black units. I have pics to prove that. personally, I find the blacks not as much an issue as the general issue I have with that p.c. mixture, and I fear that if Hasbro's open intent is to have p.c. squads, then there will be the usual Hollywood quota of latin-american, asian-american, jew, woman, gay, etc. pp. in the squads makeup, probably in the evil squads, too. Don't get me wrong, nothing against these minorities, it's just ridiculous if they applied their Hollywood cast quota upon WW2 squad makeup. Joe Shaw: Frankly, I felt the same way when I saw the movie Starship Troopers. yes, the movie and the book have rarely anything in common. Personally, I found the movie was blatantly stupid, but kind of fun just because of that, like those old B-movies (japanese godzillas, formicula etc.). Of course, ST was obviously rather kryptofascist, and it had that usual Hollywood cast makeup. what is funny is that in the wake of the movie they sold the books as "the book to the movie", not the other way around. OTOH, a 1:1 conversion of Heinlein's work would have been hard to do, and probably less enjoyable - unless you are into his simplistic protofascist-chauvinistic political views. elementalware: legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name. not really. sorry but the intellectual property juriost in me kicks into gear. if the name "squad leader" was a so-called "notoric brand" (don't know the angloamerican expression, see article 6^bis Paris Agreement on the Protection of Commercial Property(the US is party to it)), that is, it would be a widely known concept = everybody would associate the name with certain qualities, then the use of that name for something that it doesn't live up to is consumer fraud. The real question is whether "Squad Leader" indeed carries enough popularity to fit under article 6^bis's definition. Since the amount of public knowledge/acceptance of the brand is directly used to determine how much leeway the supposedly wrongful user of the name has in deviating from the public perception of the notoric brand, then even if you would conclude that "S.Ll" is a notoric brand (which I doubt) then it's publicity is so low that the deviation that Hasbro undertakes is still within the accpeted frame of leeway. philistine: But what if Ford buys Honda, or vice-versa. Ford owns Mazda, and together with DaimlerChrysler they own Hyundai. But not Honda. Footballhead: I never played SL or ASL. I know the concept though, and played other boardf wargames. Personally, I wouuld like a more individualized wargame, something with a litle bit more of character development / RPG factor, so basically I have nothing against the leters from home. If these letters were just an _additional_ side fact in CC1, I really wouldn't object, as litle asI would object to hzave some sort of personal file for each of the solödiers for a game on the scale of CC. My personal gripe with Hasbro's upcoming game stems from their own admitted features of the game, mostly the ridiculous p.c. "family wargame" approach...besides of course it is totally pervert to have a no-violence WW2 game... ROTFL....Family Wargame - that's an even bigger oxymoron than wargame itself already is... ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

T-mines had been available to the german army for decades before WW II. The standard german antitank mine at the outbreak of Barbarossa was the T.Mi.35, as the model designation suggests it was a prewar design. I suppose with "magnetic anti-tank mine" you are referring to the manually attached close combat anti-tank weapon for infantry; Development of the Hafthohlladungen magnetic-attached mines just started around that time. Several experimental models were developed. The first use of the regular anti-tank magnetic-attached mine, the Panzerhandmine 3, occurred during May 1942 at the Wolchow. conclusion in regard to your original question: T-Mine yes, magnetic ATMM no. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

jadayne, I know what you mean. However, there's an indirect way of doing it, a workaround; if you want a vehicle or squad to pause for any length of time during the turn before they resume their mission, I tell them to move/reverse (repeatedly on the spot if necessary) or crawl resp. before I give them the regular order again for resuming. It takes some experience / practice to see how much crawling etc. a Pause translates into, but it works. (but you had probably figured that workaround out on your own anyhow).

"(I did not see if they fired tungsten on consectutive shots.)" aha. that's exactly how the designers want them to act. tungsten is never used as a first round. according to BTS, the gunner will first try to "aim" with a regular AP round before he uses the precious tungsten round. Therefore, tungsten rounds are not supposed to be used as the first round. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

hnh_3cm, that's most interesting. care to elaborate? I had some armor sebukku but they all involved big guns on weak vehicles, Nashorn etc. I'ld love to hear that Hellcat story! ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

ROTFL.... I just read the thread title... "Attacking Pillboxes, A problem solved..." and imagined a nonhuman wave attack of charging pillboxes...and thought to myself...well if I would be charged by pillboxes I can imagine Teamski has problems fending that off... sorry.... ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

"Unfortunately I have NO idea if this works similar with Netscape." poor tom, he's stuck with an IE. It works the same way with Netscape. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

my guess is that BTS intentionally wanted to prevent too much micromanaging. In reality, orders were more general, and were carried out even more general. So to give them a certain pause is ok, but only in general increments, not down to the single second. If you pay very close atention you will also note that the 15 seconds are just an approximation themselves, and the order might actually be carried out a few seconds earlier or later. again, that's just what I think why they did it. personally I guess I'ld be fine with pauses down to the second as well, butI'm not specifically asking for it. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

fully agree with Malan. The only thing I could think of is that maybe because the Matilda II doesn't have one of those neak gun mantlet covers like the german or american tanks Teamski was mislead to think it is open? in that case, it's a typical design feature of british tanks, they all look like that (and it looks wrong if you are used to gun mantlets such as on the Tiger or the Sherman), but they are all not "open", it just looks that way. ------------------ "All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)

"In Japan even handgrenades came with bayonets," LOL "but FG42 LMG had a bayonet mount as well so they were not alone." hmm I disagree...not comparable...the FG42 was more of a universal, general-purpose para rifle that would fill the roles taken up by sniper rifles, semiautomatic rifle, full automatic assault weapons / submachine guns, and light machine gun, all in one (or perhaps I should rephrase it into "was supposed to"). therefore, it makes sense to fit it with a bayonet. The type 96 and 99 were dedicated machine guns, usually crew served. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

2034 is "Hilfe! Hilfe!" the one that always got me wondering what it means, was # 2033. A sound that was triggered when a german squad was hit. I always thought it sounded like a swapped english sound cue "men behind men behind" meaning someone from the squad got hit and is lagging behind or something...I never figured what it could possibly mean. only today did I find out (I think) that it is "Mein Bein! Mein Bein!" (my leg, my leg!). thought someobody else who was wondering might want to know. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

excellent catch Mr Aitken. on a side note, the Type 96 and Type 99 (I hope it's at least a 99, the 96 was some serious POS!*g*) are probably the only machine guns that would fix a bayonet, who else but the japanese would think of that *g*, and what a monster king-sized bayonet at that! Xavier: it might not be important to you if you're not into small arms. if you were, it would like, uhm, having an M48 pose for a Pershing, or a Somua S35 for a Panther or a Churchill for a Königstiger, or something to that effect. Surely even you would object to that, even though it's "just a graphical representation" that would not harm the game engine. Otherwise, if you still don't agree, well, have you seen Sudden Strike? Red Alert? If I were of your attitude, I would make sure to check those out. I'm sure you'ld like em. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

I should have some new original IR material soon, problem is I can only corospond with the person with the material by Snail mail. Then I plan on working on German WW2 Thermal development. John, are you planning on putting together your findings in some sort of webpage or something? I would be most interested in your coverage of both of these fascinating aspects, and therefore really looking forward to that! ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

I like to have 3 PBEM games at a time, well that's good to know. and at the moment I only have 2 running, so if anyone wants a game on a small-ish map then let me know, I'd say I am still a beginner so newbies are welcome. well isn't that good news! there is the actual possibility for someone to win a chance to play against M. Bates! please wait a minute while I dance the funky chicken of joy... If this isn't the breaking news we've all been waiting for. A PBEM offer by M.Bates. what about his: how about every dimwit and his brother posting their PBEM offers on the forum? I mean, it would just be a few hundred, so it wouldn't really clutter up the board or anything. and besides, it is VERY IMPORTANT to announce to the world if someone actually has one of these elusive PBEM slots open. PS, I will probably post an after-game report to the forum. why are you threatening us? what sort of blackmail is this - what is your demand, how can we avert the realisation of the threat? ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

interesting observatio. I have asked myself before if the - at least theoretical - possibility of smoke rounds hurting inf exists. now I know. thanks for sharing. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Keith, does that mean you are voting for the removal of the hunt command? because according to your reasoning, it is superfluous, as nearly the same effect can be achieved using the method you prescribe for the infantry hunt mode. ------------- "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-15-2000).]

IIRC and AFAIK, AFAIK stands for as far as I know IIRC, IIRC stands for if I recall correctly IMO, IMO stands for in my opinion (sometimes IMHO = in my humble opinion) RTFM - something you should tell the FNGs (read the f-ing manual) wtf - what the f... *g* = grin LOL = laughing out loud, rotflmao = rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off rotflmaopmp = rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off, pissing my pants I am not making this up. (this info brought to you by the anarchistic cells of counter-revolution against the dictatorship of the two Top Secret military organizations and their obscure rules) ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

ROTFLMAO. Demandment settled. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Elijah, there is no way I am going back to that...to that...euphemistically labeled as a "novelty" thread thing... thing is I have no way to counter that formulae that you have been hideously secretly working on and devoting your entire life to ever since you left high school, despite your official claim that you "made it up" as a "SWAG" in "2 minutes" . Hah! you think you could fool me into believeing this? nooooo, I'll leave it to people like tom_aka_w or something to counter your latest evil move, he is also much more eloquent than I am. I rather stick around funny people such as Colonel Deadarsch. While my linguistic, semantic talents might be insufficient to tackle that insiduous idea of yours including your presentation of it, they are quite an overkill for Deadarsch, and I like being underchallenged. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Aussie, beg to differ. everybody here knows that ZBDFFBTZEBFFBG was just the informal name the troops used. Offficially it was known as the FFBTZEBFFBG Ausf. 2 or FFBTZEBFFBG II LOL ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

well I will NOT show you how to post pics. We have seen where it leads if you show people who don't figure it out on their own how to do it...besides, you already managed to start two completely identical threads on this, and your fascination with myriads of tanks makes me fear for a myriad of pics... (basically, you need to upload it to some web location, then paste the pic's URL into your post using html) ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

"No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong." no he isn't. I guess we all agree that the kinetic energy is the same, obviously (actio counterequal to reactio). However, the buildup of the force is slower in the firing person, the person is prepared for firing the handgun, and the gun is held in such a position that the absorbing of the same kinetic energy is possible, whil that same kinetic energy in the target hits even faster, an unprepared position and in a (if it does) inopportune location. If you fire a 44 magnum by holding it in a combat grip it will give you a nasty kick. If you hit some unprepared person at the right location it might very well knock that person over. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

Colonel, IMO it would have been even worse for you if he had had regular infantry because that would mean he would have had considerably more. I know, it's a trade off because they don't perform as well as veterans, but personally on the attack rather have quantity over quality, while on the defense I'ld rather have veteran over regulars. IMO, 13-yr old behavior is if you lose a battle badly and then run around seeking the culprit in anything but your own, be it hinting at your opponent having all the advantages (or cheating) or even some remote line in a manual that has no direct influence on the game itself. ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

your question is a valid one, but indeed this has been discussed before. I remember that well because I share your view that the opponent shouldn't know the experience level, and the detailed type of enemy armor (Sherman M4A3(75)W+), or Cromwell Mk. VI whatever hell even people interested in this stuff have a hard time getting along with those british tank subvariants, how do you expect a german common footsoldier to do so back then, and at considerable rang, and during battle? problem is that the correct model gives you access to superdetailed info at one keystroke), and I am still not convinced by the other, common held opinion that the enemy should know. here is the original thread, it started out with the question how the enemy would know that a tank is immobilized (a FOW question related to the issue at hand) opponents knowledge of immobilized tanks ------------------ "Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)