Dick Reece

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: Dick, I will accept your 2000 paces, if only to put an end to your verbal diarhea.... I think all of your hard work at scenario building has drained you from any further mental excursions. Most of what I have heard from you seems to stem from synaptic atrophy, leaving predictably mundane drivel as your only output. I will stand beside you as we get the lawyer, but as soon as we are finished I will come down on you with the wrath of God, hopefully putting an end to the grotesque waste of the UBB code, that you call a post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Foobared, Hah! Stand beside me but downwind please,you festering pustulence on the arse of society !! You reek of cadaverine and putrescine,you CM PBEM zombie.Peculiar it is indeed,a medical mystery,how you can exhibit all the symptoms of organic brain syndrome, and yet lack the main ingredient needed to give rise to the condition! Soon Foobar,we shall meet on yon battlefield, and you shall eat those words, along with a dish called crow. Let's get on with the death of a maggot known as lawyer, then we'll meet at 2000 pesos<BG > and fight for this valuable $1.29 movie, which garnered so many Bubba awards with it's initial release. Later, Foobart Captain Imodium

"I am waiting for word from the attourney, you stooge...." Thou darest call I a stooge? You moose lipped harpy from the sludge and slime known as the cesspool,you dare blow your fetid breath in my regal direction ? As soon as we're done with the attorney, a meeting engagement at 2000 paces is in order! I want to Foobar,Foobar "But let us not bicker amongst ourselves...Friends let us plunge the knife into the Lawyer before we turn on each other! First things first!!" Yes, let's bury it to the hilt, shall we?, and then burn his beemer for good measure.I have a troop of orphaned street urchins and and destitute widows waiting in the wings for his bloated, reeking carcass, once the job is finished.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: WHOA WHOA WHOA.. NO prizes should be given out UNTIL all the battles are finished!!! If different people have designs on the same prize, they should have to FIGHt for it. I want the movie. When I finish my victory against the lawyer, I am perfectly willing to fight it out with the other victors for the right to the prize. Lawyer? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hah!! Infidel!! My winning is a cinch,you'd only lose.The movie is mine,doitbag! Mine I tell you,MINE.......mwwwaaaahahahahahaha!!Lawyer has no say in it,besides, he's an attorney,surely you don't believe any of his bottom dweller slime ? You can challenge me for it if you like,or hire someone to do it for you,if you lack the courage Dick

"Unfortunately, you will not be participating in any Victory over Lawyer contest. Your forces are thoroughly beaten in a brilliant triumph of good over evil." So then Bielzijake, you finally admit that I've won .I accept the 1.29$ trophy movie graciously, with an humble heart.Just send it where you've sent all the others.

Guys,I've got dibs on the house and swimming pool, before anyone else lays claim to it . Anyone who doesn't agree will have to face me in a meeting engagement.I'm sure there are no takers for that,you quivering masses of CM jellyfish are all alike . What we need here is a "Lawyer Playoff".Anyone who beats lawyer..........has already received there reward .What better way to spend your time than crushing an evil attorney,especially one with a mouth like Jake's ??

Shudddeeerrr, gasp Guys, this is our legislative tax dollars at work here Now we know the man behind the ruination of the country.One can only hope he's not shared vast quantities of his DNA with the Nations populace........... Jake ol' buddy, Bubba knows where you live, and he's comin fer ya..........He's been eating brown beans and cabbage all day, just for you .He's gonna burn your house down and make love to your coon hound [ that is a coon hound ain't it ?]. Dick

Hah!!!! My favorite type of thread, a lawyer bashing! Especially a bashing of "The Lawyer".Ol' Jake plays like Joseph Stalin, throwing one platoon after another into the meat grinder.He goes through his own men faster than a lawyer through a bank account! Dick

What does the % of jews on this board have to do with the article,or anything else for that matter? I don't understand the reasoning? I think the advice lady may be overreacting,but you don't have to be Jewish to dislike/disagree with everything the Nazi regime represented.I'd be more careful in the future with questions like that,very close to flamebait, as well as derogatory and disrespectful. Dick

Wish all this good advice had been around when I was working on that old 133

If what Maximus says is true,you'll have to look in your motherboard book, or call your PC manufacturer,and see if there is a jumper setting on your MB that will disable the onboard video card,thus allowing you to use the new one.If there is no jumper or any otrher way to disable the onboard vid card,you will have to buy a new MB.I ran into this once before with an ATI Rage card built into a Gateway 133mhz PC.No jumper,no solution, other than a new MB. Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M_Ridgeway: I completely reinstalled the game...so there is no pref file.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once you try to run the game and accept a video setting there is a pref file.However,if it's a fresh install,set your desktop to the resolution you desire [800x600,or 1024x768,whatever you prefer].Restart the game, and accept the settings when it queries you.

CM uses your desktop resolution setting to run the game.Delete the CMpref file in your CM folder,set your desktop to the desired resolution you wish to play CM in [1024 x 768,etc], and restart the game. Dick

My vote goes to the KVII and SU152,I've always been very fond of both.Runner up would be the T34-85,if date is not a consideration.Say, private Dietz,I worked on an air evac out of Nam named Dietz, at Letterman back in 71, are you any relation? Dick

My vote is in as yes for the rarity factor,set as an OPTIONAL choice of course .I also think each and every unit should have a base value that is added to.One thing, this will cause the QB point ranges to be elevated equally, I hope.It would be nice to see some 3500,4500 etc. point selection capability in QB's as well.Lastly, it would be nice,if possible, to turn off the "force type" [x points for armor,x points for infantry,etc.] selection limits for QB's.Maybe this could become a function of the rarity factor ? "Force type"selection is limited when rarity factor is on,but unlimited when not ? thanks for asking, Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I love it. The best part is, a building does not have a firing slit to be penetrated, so it is likely that a building will provide better cover than a pillbox!! Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Carrying this a bit further, when the gun finally does go,there has to be collateral damage to MG's nearby,etc.Anybody tried this with a small SPGUN as yet, like the 105HC? This could be a great thing to use sparingly in scenario design. Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: That is really amazing what you folks manage to dig out I'd made some testings with a 50mm Pak and a Churchill VII ( without ammo ). You might imagine how many " Plings" and "Plongs" it took before something happened. However, the building were the Pak was located did not take any damage and it was a light one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is great news,a real boon for scenario designers.Have you tested it with the other AT guns,76,88,etc., yet? This will be a real plus to scenario design,a large building could be turned into an awesome bunker complex.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: Panzerschrek and bazooka can start the fires due to the backblast of the rocket propellant. I would see no problem hiding a 50mm or a 75mm AT gun inside a building. After a few rounds your visibility might stink, but certainly no reason to light up the building. You'd probably want the tip of the barrel outside the structure though, to avoid any shock waves rattling the ceiling. This is all theory. Anyone know of military practices, and pros and cons? Too early to spell correctly... [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All very true, I agree with you in theory.My point is that most likely the code doesn't differentiate as it should, because AT guns were not modeled to be in buildings.I'm saying that because of this,firing the gun inside the building will most likely yield the aforementioned results.Best way to find out is to test it, but I can't do that right now due to my current location. Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: This is an unexpected realism issue : given sufficient prep time, any AT gun could be manned inside buildings (with some HE to enlarge door openings perhaps ). Even when not voluntarily done so, CM is ALWAYS realistic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll bet the minute it's fired the building will take damage,blow up,or catch on fire,just like when a schreck or zook is fired from a house Dick

I'll say it once more,I'm sorry, you are right about everything.Once more, please forgive me.I'm apologizing so that you may get on with the real purpose of this thread. You are right,you always have been,no doubt you always will be,and I am wrong.I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.Forget about this,get on with your life, as I am trying to do.I only post this so you won't waste anymore of this valuable thread space proving me wrong and exposing anymore of my numerous faults. Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: "Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble." Dick Reece is correct. He has plenty of trouble already playing PBEM with me. He may be a little nervous, however. Hehehehe...... I agree with Matt that Dick and Scott both made valid points. I didn't detect any hidden agenda in Dick's posts. I can tell you firsthand that Dick uses the Chinese restaurant method for selecting units: Pick one from column A, one from column B, one from column C, etc. Then mix it all together and blow everything up with much gusto! Very cool to watch, and seems to work well so far, but it ain't over till the fat lady sings, eh Dick? Cheers Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gawd , it's the attorney from hell!! Help us all.......arrrrgghhhh Jake, Bubba's comin fer ya

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Shall I post a link to the now locked "Pegasus Bridge" thread for a real good example of this by you? Funny thing is you would not even stop after the thread was locked. Let it go, I have no issues with you. I simply did not like your scenario and said so in a most neural manner that I still stand behind. Let it go. My comment "perhaps gamey" was simply an off-hand comment regarding "Cherry Picking" if you still have not figured that out. Please see the other thread if you don't know what that is. The reason it was 'off-hand' is because it was not the focus of this thread...until now. If you want to argue about "Cherry Picking" lets do it over there. If you really want to open up the old "Pegasus Bridge" issue, then be man enough to just do it. Don't start picking my words apart in other non-related threads trying to start something. This is childish, pointless, detracts from the topic at hand and irritating as Hell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hahahahaha, I see that I can't have a normal conversation regarding the finer points of anything "grognard" with you Scott.Let me end this now, by apologizing for anything I said in the past regarding Shermans, the Airborne, or Pegasus Bridge.I sincerely mean it.You are 100% correct in everything you've ever said regarding these subjects, and no doubt many others.I stand chastened and chagrined.I hang my head in defeat and shuffle away.Please accept my apologies, and forgive me for my stupidity in disagreeing with you.I wish you well,have fun above all.I mean that sincerely. Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Mr, Reese: Well... I must say that I find it 'ludicrous' that you would pluck my two word statement of "possibly gamey" (bold added) out my post and call it a "definiton", then key on it for two posts. So 'ludicrous' actually, that it appears to me like you are trying to pick a fight. You wouldn't be doing that behind all the smiles would you now? Sorry, I have better things to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble. Sorry I said anything.Why would I start trouble deliberately ? I think your answer speaks volumes, you've not yet proven your statement regarding the Airborne forces and Armor support.I asked you to clarify/prove your statement.Since you can't, you insinuate I'm starting a fight instead.At no time was I "latching onto" anything, I was joining in the conversation in general.I'll say no more,and leave you with your erroneous beliefs about WWII.Funny how people are starting trouble when you can't prove your point. Dick

Hi Scott,you said: Slapdragon has already answered this. But please note what I actually said: "possibly gamey", and I stand by that. And for the record you know as well as I do (I hope) that the airboys received much less armored support than the infantry on average. Scott,throughout a large part of Normandy, and the bulge,the Airborne fought side by side with the "Army", and received plenty of tank support,along with everything else the army got as support. I guess it's just a difference of opinion, which is fine.My argument is that sometimes so many rules are imposed on a match, that it's no longer really a game for fun,but a chore.I find this particular definiton of "possibly gamey" play, by you, totally ludicrous. Now before you get mad,I didn't say that to be offensive,I just think you're way off the mark in your judgement.You're absolutely entitled to have the same opinion of my belief, no problem with that here . As to the racist thing from slapdragon, I wish I knew where that particular ball came from ,I was watching left field and never saw it arrive! I thought we were talking about Shermans and Airborne, not races and religious beliefs,etc. you guys have a good one, Dick [This message has been edited by Dick Reece (edited 09-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by windstarz: I have played a few against the computer and have just started a couple of email games. QB's. I had never noticed this before but in one of my pbem games my spotter had 1 minute before he was able to start firing. At about 20 seconds to go he fired a round that went way off target. It didn't say he was firing but he had one less ammo. He still hasn't quite reached his 1 minute to really start firing. Is that odd or has someone else had that happen?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is a spotting round,to get range and adjust the fire Dick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I don't think it is gamey, but it can be on the edge. I am facing Abbott right now and we agreed it will be an Airborne versus German thing, but he would be supported by tanks a la 17th Airborne. I used random and got a really weird but turning out to be nice force of Germans. What Scott is talking about is what I call cherry picking. Now my force is strange, Volkstrum and Gerbils in the same batch -- which I have never seen before, but it is not so weird. When you cherry pick you choose only Brit AT teams and tanks, only US Engineers and 50 cals, only Canadian APCs and make yourself a force that could never exist in real life in any way. That is gamey -- playing the ignorance of the engine. Now 82 airborne and 17 airborne both acted as line ground troops, but US Airborne were much more rare than regular infantry, and a player like Scott who plays quite a bit can get a little weary of always facing odd and unusual choices. Same with me, a KT once in a while is spice, but a KT every game (except of course when you know you have mud to face -- that is gamey as heck) soon becomes boring. Half of my fun is trying to figure out how to face Abbott's Churchill, and him trying to figure out my roving Panzercheck patrols. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well,I can see the annoyance and frustration cherry picking can cause, but perhaps these things should be spelled out prior to the actual selection of forces? I too grow tired of playing someone who's chosen 4 tigers, and a halfdozen 88 AT's as part of his defensive force .Regarding Airborne troops and US Army weapons/AFV's,I have a particular mix I like very well, that is not gamey at all.I will never understand how any satisfaction can be derived from a win that comes as a result of a jeep rush,or cherry picking forces, etc., unless it was agreed ahead of time that anything goes . By the way, it is well known that Volkstrum and Gerbils fought side by side many times, especially at Gerbilville Bridgehead,where Goring's luftwaffe Gerbils distinguished themselves with there " just lemmings swimming in the river" deception,so there is nothing wrong with your force mix.What I find both ridiculous and appalling are those that insist there were SS Hamsters on the Ost Front, and now clamor incessantly for there inclusion in CM2! Dick