David Aitken

Mark One Mother, you, you... American! I was being ironic. (Hint: it has nothing to do with metal.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lawyer BTW, your past comment about my wanting to be President, and therefore I should know the difference between India and Pakistan, is false. George W. Bush has never bothered with such trifles, and he is (more of less) President. Voila! Is this a great country or what??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why I made the comment. I don't know how to say it in legalese, so you'll just have to take my word for it. The rest of what you said was nonsense. David Patel Aitken

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lawyer wrote: Real Brits call everyone of Indian subcontinent heritage a Paki.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And we also think that in the US, practising lawyers are all just hoping for a part in Ally McBeal or Perry Mason. Or maybe that's just me. That's why the legal profession is so theatrical and ultimately ridiculous, isn't it – because it's all just fodder for Hollywood and CBS? (Is CBS a TV channel? Put any three letters together and you can't go far wrong... NBC... FOX... CNN...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lawyer wrote: You grovel at the feet of the English, which even the Paki's in India threw over 50 years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was about to agree with the jist of what you said, until I realised that you evidently aspire to the presidency. Pakistan and India are separate countries... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seanachai wrote: A quick shake of the head to both Aitkin and Abbott. Your attempts at Pawbroonian prose do not capture the original at all well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's not what Abbott was doing – rather, his Mum was busy, so he had to type for himself this time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OorWullie wrote: His OneLiner is the following: You'll may win this one, maybe, but I'll make you bleed like a, well, bleeding person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now we know where you get that strange dialect which passes for English – you've been learning it from mensch! I need to have a shot at this. ::ahem:: PBEM the Report I am think Elvis dies prodigiously. His tanks are still trying through to the bridge. Death befalls my men in as yet not very much. Rune has supplied with us many tanks and semi-tracked vehiculars which number in dark I can't quite tell. Turn of the last his Badger made a big explosion. His infantry run back and forth under the gazeful watch of my gun machiners. To throw large shells at Leeo is the most overwhelming notice of our most current battle to date. I don't know what has armornut to happen. Abbott and I havoc wreak destruction. My halftracks are much thanks to plane die-a-lot. His tanks and TDs are my Tigers meet and cease to normally proper function. We lack many forces of which we began. We fight with sticks and objects of moreover less deathly.

Oh yeah, so is the ability to visit a porn-site-in-disguise and download pictures, now known as "art"? A logical extension, I suppose, after you've seen the entries for the Turner Prize...

Thanks, mensch... you make Lawyer look classy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stuka wrote: She who must be obeyed has just this minute arrived home from work, strode purposely into my computer room and announced......"theres nothing on TV tonight, how about we watch Shaving Ryan's Privates again?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... whatever floats your boat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Babra wrote: My computer 'sploded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anything in your life that hasn't 'sploded?

This is essentially a gimmick which is easy to do in 2D, but a completely different kettle of fish in 3D. LOS lines go through the air. They are affected by vertical terrain features. FOV has to be some kind of blanket which covers the terrain visible to a unit, but it can't tell you how the unit's LOS is affected. To do this realistically would be a nightmare. It's only feasible to do in 2D, where a mere approximation is enough.

Good heavens, I forgot to say: The first two times I ran the Shermans vs. Luftwaffe scenario, the plane didn't show up at all in half an hour!! Aaaa!!!

BTS's aircraft/antiaircraft model is hugely biased towards the Americans, and I have conclusive proof! Abbott's USAF plane has wiped out half of my units in our current game. This is proof enough in itself. I set up a test scenario with two German quad 20mm flak trucks against an RAF plane. The plane fired two salvoes of rockets at one of the trucks (which, I might point out, have tin-foil armour), and did no damage whatsoever. The plane then buggered off for tea and scones back in Blighty. Then I tried two British Bofors 40mm guns against a Luftwaffe plane. The plane bombed one of the guns and strafed the other, and between these two attacks, the guns fired back not once. Then I tried two US Sherman tanks against a Luftwaffe plane. First pass, the Shermans only so much as look at it, and it blows up. This is too much! I am returning my copy of CM and demanding a refund.

Ellros has done the decent thing and saved his few remaining menschen from certain death. His surrender leaves the score at 79-21. Lorak, recordez vouz s'il vous plait: Ellros: used up Germany's entire stock of 75mm and 81mm shells to little effect. Aitken: surrounded and annihilated whatever it was Ellros bought besides artillery. And while you're at it, you still haven't fixed the unpardonable oversight which sees myself credited with 3 wins and 2 losses. So far I indeed have 3 wins (Babra, Elvis, Ellros), but I only have one loss (Leeo). This excludes my suspended best-of-three with Meeks. So, if you would be so kind, my record should now read 4/1/0, taking this (second) game with Ellros into account.

Just a point about artillery that seems very accurate – it may be a battery of on-board mortars.

PBEM Report Ellros's Germans are surrounded and decimated in our hilly rural scenario. One company of my Britons chewed up his forces from the right flank, two platoons went around the back to take his left flank from behind, and another platoon went in from the direction he was originally expecting to finish things off. He seems to have bought a handful of infantry and a shedload of artillery, which doesn't make much sense for a defender. He's learning. Leeo is waiting for me to finish lobbing shells at him before I commence my attack. Score to him: 1 Humber crewman. Score to me: 1 panicked marksman, and anything that got in the way of my artillery. Elvis has received reinforcements (I think) in our nocturnal Rune scenario. He needs them, because I have whacked several tank-type thingies for the loss of one 50mm gun, have lots of stuff he hasn't even seen yet, and have just got lots more. For my game with Abbott I specifically chose a clear, sunny day with the idea of blowing him to bits with planes. I then proceeded to buy not a single plane, not a single AA unit, and only two vehicles capable of shooting at planes, both of which are no longer capable of shooting at planes. Abbott bought a plane. I seem to have put him off his aim when he dropped his bombs, which is just as well, but he has .50 cal machineguns, and I have halftracks. Oh dear. armornut is attacking my village at dawn. So far one of my Archers has broken the gun on a StuG or something. His infantry is rushing around trying to find my Whisky supplies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>dalem wrote: close yer pie hole and send me some sort of setup. And put a monkey in it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dear Mr. dalem, Thankyou for your application for the post of PBEM Opponent. Unfortunately all our PBEM positions are currently filled, but we will keep you on file and inform you of any vacancies in the near future. Thankyou for your interest in Aitken PBEM Inc.

There is no mention of air engagements in the manual. In Real Life™ it would be normal for fighter-bombers to attack ground targets while their fighter escort attacks enemy ground attack aircraft and their escort. If you see aircraft attacking both your forces and your opponent's, chances are there are aircraft from both sides involved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Phillies Phan wrote: Monty was a wienie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I prefer Monty's style of leadership to Patton's, even if they were both gits. George C Scott would have been okay, but the real one was uglier, so he doesn't get away with being a git. The theme music was good though. In fact, I think we need a film too. Patton: Lust For Glory Monty: Lust For Patton Or maybe not.

[politics] I read in The Scotsman newspaper an eminently sensible comment about Dubyah. People should stop regarding him as stupid, because then all he has to do is avoid drooling on the carpet to exceed expectations. It would be better to criticise him for ignorance or some such thing. [/politics]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MrSpkr wrote: not sure, I couldn't bring myself to read it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gah, you can get lost as well, I've seen M. Bates's signature. That's why I chose mine:

I say, has anyone noticed that the USA won the Second World War single-handed and saved the free world in the process? As a useless Briton, I am gosh-awfully relieved that the Yanks were able to defeat the Germans and the Japanese before they got to us, because I don't think we had a Military back then, did we? The French certainly didn't, and the Russians were just a bunch of peasants who had to kill the Germans with their teeth and fingernails. I think CM should be modified to reflect the truth, I'm fed up of all this politically correct mumbo-jumbo. It should be renamed "Patton Kicks Hitler's Ass". And battles in CM2 should always start with unarmed Russians getting wasted until reinforcements arrive in the form of US soldiers and tanks and save the day (before deciding they might as well kill the Russians too).

Gen-x87 wrote: > Oh did I hit a nerve with you? Were you trying to? > I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water. > Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising" > Have we met before? What's that got to do with it? First you claimed that Britain and Russia would not have "survived" without the US, and then you claimed that US soldiers "always seem to find a way to win" and are "always inflicting more casualties than the enemy". I simply said that, from someone who had offered one blindly biased opinion, another was no surprise. > Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it. Would you like to define "everyone"? The French had a defensive strategy. The Germans outmaneuvred them. The French were not unwilling to fight, they simply lost their main asset straight away. > Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes Oh right. Good argument. > I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army. Read what I said. "The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord." > > But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations." > Quit making excuses. I beg your pardon? Excuses for what? I'm pointing out that Britain wasn't somehow defeated until the US showed up. Is fighting a war in three theatres while your country is under attack somehow irrelevant? > I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US. Did I dispute that we were on the defensive? The point I am making is that we were conducting operations on the other side of the world while we were under attack. Being on the defensive is a long way from being defeated, which is what you claimed Britain and Russia would have been without the US. > Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region. You mean Britain? Did I not in my last post use "we" to refer to the British? And if you regard that as a reason for my "anger", you are implying that you would expect your comments to anger the British. > I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining. My particular use of the word "sustain" was in an economic context, as I had in mind comments made by another person on the forum about the British supposedly having no food. > Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done. > I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table Good heavens. I fully recognise the USA's contribution to the war. If anything I am over-generous in this respect, because so many Americans such as yourself seem to think that the US won the war all by itself and saved the free world in the process. You can spend all day pointing out things the US did, and I will agree with you. But you are claiming that the other Allied countries would have been destroyed without the US, which is nonsense. "I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived."

I suspect BTS wouldn't approve, simply because these shots are misrepresentative of the game. Nice work though.

Have you asked the creator of the Panzer Elite tanks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gen-x87 wrote: They stomped France, and England most of the war. [ . . . ] And if the US didnt get involved I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sick of hearing this idea – and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anywho i nominate the US soldier. For some reason we always seem to find a way to win Always inflicting more casualties than the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds like a learned and accurate appraisal. Not just short-sighted jingoism or anything, of course not. France fell because its defensive strategy hinged on the Maginot Line, which was maybe a bad idea considering the Germans simply restaged the Schlieffen Plan they used in the First World War and outflanked it. I'm not French, but I see too many ostensibly in-jest comments about the French's inability to fight. The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by the advancing Germans and had to evacuate back across the Channel. The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord. But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations. It is true that the USA was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and Japan. But it did not somehow save the other Allies from destruction. Germany might have invaded Britain after Dunkirk, but it didn't. Operation Sealion never happened. It might also have defeated the RAF, but it didn't. We were having a bit of trouble, but Göring lost the initiative when he switched attacks from airfields to cities. Britain was quite able to sustain itself and conduct military operations in other theatres. It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right.