David Aitken

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ wrote: 3/ The Whinger decided the game parameters and they were 2000 pts NO RESTRICTIONS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My dear Mr Organ, had you been psychic, or indeed had you invested any length of time in researching the ancient traditions of this fine institution, you would have been aware that an Unrestricted game is not a green light for buying the most gamey force you can possibly imagine, but rather simply a degree of freedom beyond Combined Arms, where one has more than tuppence ha'penny allocated to armour for every company of infantry. You are quite free to buy Frost's own British Paras supported by Patton's Blood-Drinking Tank Corps and 633 Squadron in its entirety in a Combined Arms battle unless I take the liberty of restricting you to, say, Fallschirmjäger or Polish, so Unrestricted does not afford you an exceptionally unusual degree of flexibility. It does, however, apparently present you with the metaphorical red rag to a bull, and encourage you to form Willy Wonka's 8th Gamey All-Arms Strike Force, even though bulls are colourblind, not suggesting that you are colourblind, although judging by what passes for your grasp of tactics I wouldn't be surprised if you were entirely blind. This post was in no way intended to be offensive to the blind, and any blind persons who have read the post and been offended should be informed that they are not in effect blind. The Peng Thread is an equal opportunities employer, we lambast and deride everyone from white trash sex-obsessed losers like Monica Lewinsky to white trash sex-obsessed winners like Bill Clinton.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Shaw wrote: Since you purchased your transport you now have the ability to MOVE your guns after emplacment. He, OTOH, is pretty much stuck and if he guessed wrong on the LOS or your line of advance ... he's just wasted ALL his points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I find that guns are able to cover a large area of the map, as well as the important bit. Due to the shallow nature of CM maps, if the guns are emplaced opposite the objective, they are in a good position to pick off any enemy forces advancing on the objective, or indeed flanking from either side. The key is that they are concealed – they don't have to worry about being outflanked, because one cannot outflank what one does not know is there. They simply wait for a target and then kill it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MSBoxer wrote: Historically speaking it was just the oppposite for meeting engagements. Usually a small detachemnt was told to leave their FOC and occupy an objective. They had no way of knowing if they would make contact along the way or not. In my view this would ditacte that the prudant commander would unlimber his support weapons in the most advantagous position to cover his progress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My problem with this point of view is that, in order for it to be credible, then opposing forces must have just decided to advance on unoccupied terrain at exactly the same moment. For two forces to converge on a given point at exactly the same moment is highly unlikely, hence my aforementioned attitude towards VLs. For two forces to meet head-on is quite reasonable, and of course inevitable if they are travelling roughly the same axis in opposite directions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My biggest problem with David's argument is that on the one hand he states that he knows the enemy is near, yet on the other hand insists that his major support weapons be unable to lay fire on the enemy in the opening and perhaps most crucial moments of the conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know the enemy is near as of the beginning of the battle. One does not have time to set up when one has a chance encounter with an opposing force advancing in the opposite direction. Battle is joined, and assets are brought to bear as soon as possible. Tanks can operate immediately, whereas guns must be unlimbered in the face of the enemy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It al depends upon how you view the setup box... is it the forward area of control...or is it just a peice of real estate that you decorate with your troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have explained, in my opinion the latter is true, but only in a Defence. In a Meeting Engagement, the former is true. [ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ I strongly resent you saying that I'm "disreputable"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I must apologise for that, I said it in the spirit of the Peng Thread, as I was heckling MrSpkr at the time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guns on the front line do NOT start battles hitched - they start deployed! Moving guns around by motor transport in battle withing a few hundred yards of enemy is, IMO, a damn sight more a-historical than starting them out in condcealed positions!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As has been the basis of my entire argument, if you had cared to read it, the 'front lines' in a Meeting Engagement have only been thus for the previous five seconds. The guns have been tagging along with the armour and infantry, and suddenly the enemy is encountered. Hence the name. The battle starts when both sides realise the enemy is straight ahead, and that's when you have to decide where to put your guns. The guns have no business being there, ready-deployed – they are simply part of your column. Of course it's dangerous deploying guns in the face of the enemy, but I wouldn't call it ahistorical. As previously discussed, Meeting Engagements are historically unusual, but not ahistorical. The problem of deploying guns under enemy observation is inherent in the situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kingfish wrote: But what if you substitute 'Guns' for 'Tanks'? Would David had objected if, during setup, Chad had deployed Tanks in the same location as the guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course not. If you get a tank, you pay for the transport as well as the gun. Also, tanks are more easily spotted than guns, and can't hide in woods. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it because the guns were already disenmbarked and deployed? Assume the guns were embarked only 5 meters away from their firing positions during setup, then unloaded, pushed 5 meters and then deployed. Is it still gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, because points would have been spent on the necessary transport, and the guns wouldn't magically be hiding in position – ie. I would have the realistic ability to spot them being deployed, as Chad did with my gun. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ wrote: David your point about trucks being useful even if they're off table is irrelevant. we do not pay ofr any off-table transport elements. How would your tanks go without railways and trucks to bring them fuel or Ammo? Did your infantry walk from home to their training grounds and from there to battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not entirely equal in this respect. Guns are cheaper because they lack mobility. One might also argue that they also lack armour protection, but this they compensate for in concealment ability. It's only possible to bring guns to a Meeting Engagement and use them because maps tend to be quite shallow. If the map were a couple of kilometres deep, the infantry could march, the tanks could drive, but the guns would never be able to keep up. Therefore, in realistic terms they're only useful in a static defence. However, because of the chance nature of the average ME map, they happen to be useful where they should not realistically be. The fact is, everything can move itself into contact except guns, and therefore guns should not be without transport in anything but a static defence.

Note to Stalin – I see you edited a previous post to point out that you indeed have transport, and I was aware of this possibility. However, I don't think you started out with the guns hitched, which is half the problem. You could, for example, have bought units for recon purposes and claimed that they were your gun transport. Unless they're hitched up at the outset, and take the risk of getting your guns into position whilst under observation, then I have no proof of your reasons for buying the jeeps, and of course you still benefit from concealment of the guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ wrote: Firstly a ME is an almost entirely un-historical type of battle anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you read the thread yet, or just jumped in with your opinion? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Secondly your set-up area is your set-up area. I bet neither Tree nor David sees anything wrong with having artillery observers set up in overwatch positions without buying jeeps to transport them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Artillery spotters can march. Guns need to be towed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry, but this sounds like poor-sport sour-grapes to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, if you would read the thread, it's all been claimed and addressed already. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh yeah, and hte guns I bought in het game with David were 1 17pdr, 1 6 pdr and 1 75mm pack howitzer. He bought at least half-a-dozen Marders, and a simiilar number of Stuh-42's, and set teh parameters as a free for all and 2000 pts, so sorry Dave, but your bleating here is utter nonsense!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Refer to my comments about historical accuracy in response to Juardis. I don't know how common Marders or StuH42's were. How common were Fireflies? That's the tank you've got. And aren't pack howitzers the preserve of airborne troops (I'm not sure about this)? If were were being 'historical', you would have Cromwells or vanilla Shermans, and I would have PzKpfw IV's. This is not the point. I spent my points on Marders and StuH's, and you killed off most of said Marders and StuH's, so you have no reason to complain. Neither would I have reason to complain simply because I lost, but I do feel that you had an unfair advantage. I paid extra for the wheels that brought my guns to the battlefield, and forfeited the ability to conceal them so effectively as yours. You saved points by effectively getting the wheels free – your guns just magically appeared in situ, and you were able to spend the points on extra firepower.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maximus Looks like he was just wanting some easy victory points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It might help if you would read the thread before posting your knee-jerk reactions. In that case you would have noticed that I bought a halftrack for the purposes of transporting my gun, ie. something that had combat as well as mobility value. Of course, what you fail to appreciate is that a truck, even if it is immediately destroyed on contact with the enemy, has proved its worth by actually bringing the gun to contact. You pay the 25 points because otherwise the gun would realistically be five miles away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Juardis wrote: I'm am soooo glad I was not your opponent because I don't take too kindly to being called gamey and to accuse a person of such on a point that has NEVER been brought up before, however valid it is, is ridiculous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean, it's never been brought up before? Admittedly, I haven't seen this issue discussed before, but I'm pretty sure it's been addressed. More to the point, very recently I saw someone stipulate in a ME setup that all guns should have transport and be hitched at the outset, suggesting that this is a recognised point of contention. And again, I didn't accuse anyone of being gamey, though I did point out that they might have an unfair advantage. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's getting to the point where a person has to send out a 50 question questionaire in order to play a game that doesn't piss someone off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Admittedly everyone has their own perceptions of what is acceptable, but this is the only issue I have ever drawn the line at. I don't care if an opponent's force is 'historical' or not – a battalion of Jagdtigers is fine by me – but I do care if they neglect commonsense. In a way, this is gamey by your definition, because ideally the game would not allow guns in a ME without transport – which simply defies logic – and this constitutes a deficiency in the coding. However, it would be difficult to force the player to buy transport, so we rely on our opponents' commonsense. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How often was a 150mm inf gun present on the battlefields AND used in a direct fire role? I don't know, I don't care, but I bet someone could take offense to one being there. Especially since the allies do not have an equivalent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By its very definition, an Infantry Gun is used in the direct fire role. A 150mm howitzer is an indirect weapon. But this is not about which country had the better weapons. The Allies did not have the MG42 or the Tiger. The Germans did not have the Garand or the Lancaster. It is hardly logical to say 'oh, you have 300mm rockets and we don't, so it's nor fair for you to use them'. This is why BTS allocates prices to each of the units in the game. I pay 94 points or whatever for an infantry gun, I might easily lose it to a stray mortar round, but it's a different matter entirely. The issue here is that it is illogical to find pre-emplaced guns in a Meeting Engagement. No coding issues, no historical accuracy, just simple commonsense. Surely that should be a refreshing departure for many people here?

Vehicle crews very often reverse on their own initiative when presented with a serious threat. If you feel the need for an immediate reverse, best issue no orders, and let the crew do what they need to. Ordering them to reverse naturally pre-empts whatever they're doing, and they have to wait a few seconds to process your order instead of deciding the best course of action themselves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>olandt wrote: You are presuming that the units involved have just arrived to the board. Not neccesarily a bad presumption, but it excludes other possibilites such as the enemy secretly moving guns into position during the night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then why aren't they dug in? And more to the point, how did the enemy know that he was going to meet you at that exact point? A Meeting Engagement only makes sense to me in the context that two forces have run head-on into each other. In any other context, it would be an Attack/Defence scenario. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Marlow wrote: In a real ME, each side would not know ifthe enemy was already occupying the objective, and would take far greater steps to assure their security as they approached said objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the presence of VLs in the first place is probably the most unrealistic aspect of a Meeting Engagement. The concept is much less credible if we are led to imagine that two forces have converged on the objective at exactly the same moment. I prefer to see the VLs as an incentive for both sides to advance, as though they were realistically just moving up the line when they encountered the enemy. Otherwise one or both sides might be inclined to sit back and treat the scenario as an Attack/Defence, which is of course the whole issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Enoch wrote: But then this raises the question of whether if a person places a victory flag and no one is there to see it, does anyone care?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect most of my opponents of placing numerous flags in their own territory off-map, thus gaining untold points which I have no opportunity to contest. By this method they can cripple my troops' morale even before the battle starts. They doubtlessly hold the flags with bailed vehicle crews which exit the map to occupy the VLs. Thus far my efforts to pursue them and capture the VLs has resulted in my own troops disappearing, never to be seen again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MrSpkr wrote: Who is to say the meeting engagement is not occurring just forward of one side or the other's front lines? A gun in an overwatch position would not only be logical, but expected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In which case it would be dug in. There is a good reason why barbed wire and pillboxes aren't available in a ME, and troops don't start in foxholes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, as I alluded to earlier, until BTS puts in horses to draw the guns, it is actually a bit ahistorical for the Germans to have ANY towed guns, since a large portion of their forces in 1944-45 were horse drawn, not motorized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But in either case the player would need to spend points on transport. In the absence of horses, the points go on vehicles. Moreover, in an infantry-only battle horses would be the norm, but where armour is concerned, lesser types of motorised transport will be necessary to keep up; so in a combined-arms ME horses would be irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Marlow wrote: Sounds like sour grapes to me. The meeting engagement as it is used in CM quickbattles is a historical anomaly to start with, so playing a ME QB is in itself gamey. The only reason that it exists is to provide a fairly balanced battle, not to model any historical battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A Meeting Engagement is no less realistic than any other Quick Battle. It most certainly does not just simulate a balanced battle. Is it called a Balanced Engagement? It is by no means an "historical anomaly" for two forces to meet each other head-on, it's just unusual. What sets it apart from an Attack/Defence is that both sides are supposed to be on the move. How do you explain that guns should already be set up in concealed overwatch positions? Did both sides meet up, and then agree to ignore what the other is doing for fifteen minutes whilst they construct an arena to do battle? Granted, a Meeting Engagement is not representative of many historical battles, but it does have a credible basis, which is destroyed by the presence of predeployed units as described above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MrSpkr wrote: Then, he needed an excuse for his poor play, and was just looking for something to whine about. Is it YOUR fault that he deployed his forces in such a manner that nearly half of his force was whacked by one AT gun? No.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, MrSpnky, you might be interested to know that the opponent to which Chad refers was actually my fine self. I didn't call him gamey, I just politely pointed out that some people might regard bringing guns to a Meeting Engagement without transport as gamey. Prior to a couple of recent games I had no stipulations about what kind of units my opponents could buy, but this is likely to be my first. I might point out that you brought several guns to our current PBEM, but this is infantry-only, which both entails a lesser degree of mobility and restricts unit choice, so choosing guns is more understandable. They would, however, have been a serious problem for me had I lacked some extremely effective mortars and artillery (which is unusual considering they are regular). I have just been waxed in two combined-arms games where I bought armour and my opponent bought guns. One was Chad, the other was the disreputable Mr Stalin's Organ. I regard this as gamey because to buy guns, eschew transport, and conceal said guns in appropriate vantage points before the game starts is to take an unrealistic advantage in a Meeting Engagement. Pre-concealed guns should be the reserve of Defence scenarios, and the attacker's points advantage reflects the difficulty of locating enemy defenses without being destroyed in the process. Essentially, it would cost points to bring a low-mobility assets such as guns to a ME. They're not just going to teleport into overwatch positions as soon as the enemy is spotted. By eschewing transport you're unrealistically gaining points for other assets - such as more guns - giving yourself considerably more firepower than your opponent. With the added advantage of being able to conceal this firepower, you can just sit back and wait for your opponent to advance upon the objectives, blowing him away at your leisure as you would in a Defence. This is hardly in the spirit of a Meeting Engagement. In a true ME, you would take the objectives and then set up your guns to hold it. They wouldn't just magically start in overwatch positions. Using my game with Chad as an example, I bought one gun (an 150mm IG), bought not a Kübelwagen or a truck, but a whole 250/1 halftrack to tow it; and at the start of the game, towed it down to an appropriate position to support my advancing infantry. In other words, I spent money on transport which could have been used to buy more useful things, started the game as though contact had just been made, and risked having my gun spotted by the enemy as it was set up, which is all perfectly realistic. The gun was indeed spotted, and it survived 60mm mortar fire, 81mm artillery fire, and attempts from both a Sherman and a Priest, before eventually succumbing to the latter. On the other hand, my two PzKpfw IV's advanced with my infantry, and one was immediately knocked out by unseen enemy forces, which I subsequently identified as an AT gun concealed atop a hill opposite my positions. I brought two 234/1 and two 234/3 armoured cars around the left flank; the first two (a /1 and a /3) were again taken out by a previously unseen AT gun. As my 150mm gun was otherwise engaged (Chad being aware of its presence and making every effort to kill it) I was forced to attempt to engage the second AT gun with my second pair of armoured cars. I carefully ordered them to crest a fold in the ground at the end of the turn, and gave them area targets where the gun was. Despite their combined fire, they were both immediately plinked by the gun (which had a veteran crew). So I don't take kindly to suggestions that I lost both of these games through my own incompetence. Indeed I might have done better, but the fact is that my opponents were utilising an unfair advantage in their unit choices, which significantly altered the dynamics of the game in their favour. I shall hereafter be sure to provide transport for any guns I bring to a ME and ensure that they arrive hitched up, and shall expect the same of my opponents.

Bog, scenario sent. Gpig, thanks for your report. • SPOILER WARNING • I assume you got v1.02, since you mention RCL's. In the original version the Germans were allowed to set up on both sides of the river, which meant that they could pick off the British tanks from the flank, which is what happened to one of the guys who tried it against the AI. I've been meaning to change that for a while, but I only did it shortly before I changed the German AT arragements. I have a feeling I deliberately gave the Challengers little HE. It encourages correct employment of the different kinds of tanks, although maybe that's not appropriate in this kind of battle. I have a mind to substitute the Churchills for close-support versions. I just get the feeling that I'll cross the line and suddenly the whole thing will swing against the Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jo Sha wrote: Sorry, sorry, terribly sorry, won't happen again. My mistake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh my god, the CMplayer obsequiance virus is spreading!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slow-Mo-Joe-Show wrote: Jabo! came from the fertile and ever inventive mind of yours truly ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Still playing your old mind games, eh Frank? (I can call you Frank, can't I? Robin Day had a hedgehog called Frank.) Unfortunately whereas most of us are at the level of Chess, you're still playing Tiddlywinks. Ah yes, I remember the first time we crossed mangoes (swords seem a bit dangerous, dont you think?)... It seems like only yesterday... yesterday... yesterday... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(view mists over and fades back to Joe, David and the original Peng troupe with mullet haircuts and blue jeans worn through at the knees, gathered around a 16MHz computer with a 12" screen.) David (looking smug): Hey people, I thought you were all kidding, talking about giant hamsters and whatever, but look at this! (clicks mouse button, and everybody waits several minutes as the computer grinds away) It's really worth it... come on you stupid machine... (eventually an image comes up on the screen, showing a CM map with a platoon of SS and a Nashorn rushing towards the camera, and a giant Otter in the background crashing through the trees. A half-hearted bustle of amusement emanates from the assembly.) Joe (sarcastically): How dare you insult us with this blatant graphical trickery! BTS would never allow a full platoon of SS Hamstertruppen to run from a mere mole! David (crestfallen): Umm... it's not a mole, it's an otter. Joe (indignant): What? Oh, that's what I said, an otter. David: No you didn't, you said otter! Joe: Rubbish, I think everyone hear can clearly testify that the word I chose was "mole". David: That's exactly what I've been saying! (a look of confusion creeps across Joe's face) Andreas: I think it looks like an animal. (everyone goes silent and casts slow glances of derision in Andreas's direction) Joe (regaining the initiative): Look, I think it's plainly obvious that David didn't say what he did, and when he did speak he was lying with the sole intent of exposing me for the... err, I mean, perverting the course of justice and... and I intend to press charges, and... Jon, dressed in a toga (whispers in Joe's ear): Remember, thou art not a Lawyer, thou art but a mortal banker. Seanachai, in British officer's uniform: Roight! That's enough! Silly silly silly. This started off as a nice little sketch about giant animals in CM, but now it's just gotten silly. The man's hair is too long to be a banker, and that toga is pretty badly made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes, I haven't forgotten, and now I'm wise to your little delusions, matey. Now if you'll oblige in showing a bit of maturity like the rest of us, you will notice that I wrote not Jabo! but simply Jabo. So where does Jabo come from? And don't say airfield...

WTF?

• SPOILER WARNING • When I looked again at the force makeup, I was amazed that it's so hard for the British. Eight tanks, eight halftracks, and two platoons of infantry, against two enemy platoons with AT support and two tanks. Of course, the time limit is a large factor, and that's how it's supposed to be. As for your comments about the brief, mensch (this seems to be a hot topic for you just now) , I didn't tell the British commander not to engage, just not to hang around and try to finish off the Germans. In other words, little more than anyone who understands an Exit scenario already knows. The British actually have a huge advantage, because much of the German points are used up on mines. The German tanks are only regular mark IV's, so they ought not to be a major problem. The only issue, as I've said, is that the Germans have a huge AT capability. Six squads with two Panzerfausts and two demo charges each, and four infantry guns (two crack and two veteran). When I first issued the scenario someone suggested that RCL's would be more realistic than IG's. They also thought the mark IV's were out of place, but that was intentional. What I've done is remove the IG's, and replace the Panzerschrecks with RCL's, putting more emphasis on the infantry's AT capabilities, and also increasing the scope for the British to suppress the infantry and therefore their AT capability as well. The scenario would be easy for the British without such a strict time limit, so it's a fine balance. The Germans have a 'shock' capability, ie. large firepower amongst few units, which wouldn't be so effective if the British weren't rushing. By the same token, it would be very different the second time around. I think I'm developing an interest in 'concept' scenarios, not the type that you'll want to play over and over again, but quite spectacular the first time around. After all, no-one gets the chance to replay history. Thanks all for your comments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CMplayer wrote: Have i offended you somehow? Whatever it is, i am humbly and profoundly sorry. May you be wel and happy, at least until i meet you in a GAME and stick a flamethrower into your HQ's loud mouth to watch the lit diesel squirt out the back end, best wishes,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I told you he was a vicious ferret under that cuddly puppy exterior. Do they have ferrets in Sweden? How did PL come to be known as Sancho? And where did Jabo come from?

• SPOILER WARNING • Well, that was an AAR and a half. Thanks Rett! I do think that mensch was a bit ill-advised in charging straight into town. I think this is realistic, as the British commander is charged with getting across the bridge ASAP, and he may feel he can just punch through, but he has to be wary about what stands in the way. Of course, there's no point in the scenario if the British simply can't win. I'm no expert on artillery deployment, but I envision there being no artillery available, as this is not a planned attack. It is either not set up, or is employed elsewhere, specifically in the battle the British force is trying to join. I think I may have given the Germans too much AT capability. I almost think the crack Fallschirmjåger could take out the tanks on their own, even without the Panzerfausts and satchel charges I gave them. The Panzerschrecks and especially the infantry guns are maybe overkill. On the other hand, I think if the British commander sends his infantry out on foot, just in front of the tanks, he can flush out and engage the Germans, suppressing the AT guns whilst the tanks get into position. The British commander might think that he has no chance of defeating the Germans, and his only hope is speed, when in effect if he does engage he will most likely prevail. Expect v1.02 shortly.

Elvis, you missed 4) Because I Am Psychotic. Or was it Neurotic? PawBroon only knows...

You can't control the MGs on a tank individually. Usually you would leave it up to the crew to fire at their discretion, but you can also issue a fire order and tell them not to use the main gun. This guarantees the coaxial MG will fire, but the bow MG is largely independent and will fire on targets within its arc. I have always got the impression that you get separate 'tracer' animations for the bow and coaxial MGs, but now that you come to mention it, I can't be sure. As for the flexible, as Offwhite says, you tell by the sound – although I have a feeling that with the likes of German SP guns, the tracers will originate from the roof rather than the bow. Maybe I'm imagining it all. Generally, US tanks use the Browning M1919, British tanks use the Besa (although this isn't modelled in CM so regard it as an M1919), and I think German tanks use either the MG13 or MG34. US tanks use the Browning M2 as flexible (except light tanks which use the M1919), and Germans use the MG42. You are correct, in the case of halftracks with two MGs, the firepower is combined. This probably changes if they take a casualty, but I haven't checked (and I'm not sure if one can be sure anyway).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Leeo wrote: The problem seems to be with a router close to your end of things. (snip) Perhaps I could post the gory, technical details this evening for you on the General forum, so that you may then smite your ISP with the facts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That might be a good idea. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>isefjord wrote: Originally posted by David Aitken: Well blow me... I must protest. We don't condone that sort of behavior here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeees... I was going to write just that, but then I thought, "no, I'd better make it the full 'blow me down', or some lackwit will start sniggering about the double meaning". Glad to see you were able to circumvent my defenses in the name of a cheap joke.

Okay, it seems that the ASL rule concerning machineguns in upper storeys is simply to compensate for the two-dimensional nature of a board game.