Simon Fox

Certainly, but astral travelling as a research methodology is unlikely to transfer well to another field. You may need to modify your modus operandi.

Lorak you're far too polite, I concur with Bastardables. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

This is new to me, though I knew something like it would come. It was most important for hull only AFVs since they could have los to a target but not be able to fire. Thanks Dan, now maybe I will know that my carriers can't fire ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Yes of course you'll never be able to teach basket-weaving now, the intellectual rigours *shakes head* ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Gee Slappy you've got your priorities arse-about. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But that's the difference between the "simulator" and the "gamer." (both are tm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry professor no one else wants to play with your little boxes. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

Poor Trotsky asks a question and he gets a Pillar vs Samhain debate hehe Anyway I agree with suggestions re ATk guns though I would prefer to use them for overwatch and have the towing vehicle there to relocate them if required. For a ME I find I prefer the better reach of the 17pdr which also has some decent HE, 6pdrs are good for defense though. It would be very unusual for a Brit ATk gun to be towed by a truck. 6pdrs would be Bren carriers or maybe a jeep. 17pdrs would be a halftrack or a so-called Stuart Kangaroo. I never use wasps in a British ME only attack or assault. Germanboy show he is a gamey bastard to to so I recommend you buy extra PIATs (which is within the units expected TOE) and Bren carriers are pretty handy for moving them around. A MMG carrier or two are good and give the Vickers good mobility. As for arty, 3in is OK 4.2in or 25pdr is better and can really shake a German player is he only has 81mm. 3in is good for suppression but 4.2in or 25pdr can really strip the opposing force of its infantry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there a problem with that. Can and man not complement a lady on her looks, without someone accusing you of sexual remarks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too! But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-05-2001).]

Firstly, You should read my sig Secondly, I don't disagree with the truth of your example. My point was that it wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion since those guys essentially became an infantry unit and weren't expected to do much until they were. Thirdly, You've come in at the tail end of one of these interminably "gamey" (a very inappropriate word IMO) threads and used an argument that seems divorced from all that has gone before. What has 'honour' got to do with it? Who raised that one? Knights of old? Your argument is tending towards that of Ksak the self appointed Don Quixote of the forum, tilting at the windmills of the 'High Priests', and doesn't he do it so well. Characterising this as some sort of argument between two camps is the easy way out and doesn't correspond at all with my reading of this thread. Some people like to have their neat little 'simulator' and 'game' boxes to put others in. Well it's neat but it's unrealistic and I curl my lip at them. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also a well documented fact is at the seige of Tobruk the Cmdr of the Aust 9 Div brigaded all his service corps personnel ( tpt cooks ordinance etc etc) and created ad hoc Inf element to fight on the perimeter. In fact they were on the perimeter longer than any other unit at the seige.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's no good using this as an example, they're Australian. The other riff-raff like you find in CMBO just aren't in the same league. Seriously though it's a bad example. It's not like Morshead used them in the salient or anything like that and furthermore what have truck drivers and cooks got to do with non-combat units like tank and gun crews? There would really be something suss about me if I called myself Dr Simon because I was and went around spouting a load of unmitigated portentiousness. Well then I would think I really must be a prat. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many "gamey" tactics can be avoided by simply thinking about what you areactually ordering your people to do. Would you give that order in real life while looking your troopers in the eye?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely. One of the 'limitations' of the game in its current guise are that your electronic men always try to do what you tell them irrespective of how foolhardy it might be. Furthermore they always recieve your orders and you instantly see what they do. Personally I would like to see some creeping inertia in mauled sides and units especially on the attack and a bucketload more FOW hehe.

Wrong! It's Bastardable, or more precisely grumpy miserable bastardable. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>growing apathy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That explains a lot you miserable kiwi loafer, pull yer finger out.

I think it is also on the web as I have seen it before. A Stalingrad web site IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are playing Fionn your best move is to play the game, accept your defeat and hope you learn something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly the kind of second rate thinking you'd get from a poolie. You never accept your defeat. After all if Fionn does kick your arse it might end up as an AAR, hehe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If he has any M.O. it is that he is an aggresive defender.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If Fionn has any M.O. it is that he likes everyone to think this. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

I'll be in Mandurah for a Christmas day barbie too ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Gee stukes I'm suprised you could drag yer knuckles up off the pavement to type that.

Cripes, who let the bogans in here?

Bates, I wouldn't have thought you had a choice in the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Otherwise Charles tells him to go get bent<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean he isn't already? ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

Another middie? Yair thanks mate.

Sheesh Bastables are you sure ratty said that I think you misquoted this dr guys.

No, if they get wiped out your opponent benefits via points, if you save them and run them off a friendly map edge you benefit so it's not merely a question of realism devoid of impact in game terms.

Nah, a platoon of Bren carriers, one carrying a FAC with a cab rank of Typhoons on tap, one with a 25 pdr FOO, two with 4.5in FOOs, and one with 8in FOO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again this only my opinion but the chance to hit a hull down vehicle "should" be less than 50% less than the chance to hit a fully exposed tank, simply because the frontal turret area is (usually) not as wide as the rest of the upper hull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(tom_w) If you had read this thread you would find that this has been more than adequately explained (some analogies were made with rectangles on screens IIRC). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I feel that my suggestion of using the same 'centre of mass' to hit routine (no penalties applying) to Hull Down targets as used on open targets, then selecting a hit location in the usual way and disregarding all non turret hits may produce more realistic results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A rather loose use of the word 'realistic' IMO. I can just see a tank gunner aiming through a hill at where he thinks the centre of the tank is rather than at the turret which he can see LOL! These tests are inherently flawed anyway because they ignore some of the advantages of being hull-down. A Harder to spot B Easy avenue to new firing position. C Quick to move out of enemy los if things get hot (similar to D Harder to hit A and D mean that all other things being equal you will get more shots at the enemy than they will at you. Quite frankly most things will kill a PzIV so they are better off avoiding being hit. [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 12-13-2000).]

I agree with this proposal (apart from that bloody idiot Schugger of course , I thought we'd got rid of him?). An immobilised tank is basically dead, historical practice was to abandon them (with a few famous exceptions of course). As I generally eschew unrealistic tactics I don't enjoy having them forced on me. I would like to be able to tell that mortar/gun crew who are out of ammo or depleted Vickers/HMG team who are going to be overrun to "abandon that thing and get the hell out of there" as it is units which can't run withdraw with glacial slowness lugging their heavy weapon or metaphorically chained to their useless vehicle while doom inexorably descends upon them. ------------------ "Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 12-13-2000).]