ASL Veteran

I would have to agree that there are a lot of abstractions in CMBO for artillery. One thing that I would like to see implemented would be to have a little more interaction with the Spotting Round. Maybe I should place the desired location for the FFE, then when the spotting round comes down - that would then become the center of the FFE. I would then evaluate where the Spotting Round landed and decide if that is where I want the FFE to land - otherwise I should adjust the Spotting Round again. Seemed to work well for that "other" game about WW2 tactical combat . I wonder what kind of drift you could expect with an initial spotting round?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: AVT -- I think it is fanciful, and stupid in fact, but so is putting the Bren into the class of the MG-42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't say I disagree with a single part of what you just said there.

The reason there is a class of weapons referred to as 'LMG' is that it is too difficult for an average rifleman to control a weapon that fires a full sized rifle round in a fully automatic mode without support from a bipod. This is the entire reason for the creation of the class of weapon known as the LMG. Give the squad a weapon that fires a full sized rifle round in full automatic mode accurately and reliably. There is no specification of an LMG being belt fed. There is no magical cut off point where 47 round drums become LMGs while 30 round magazines are not. This is also why the creation of the assault rifle was so revolutionary (and why it created a new class of weapon) - it used the short rifle round instead of the full sized rifle round and allowed the rifleman to have a full automatic capability in a weapon that can be managed. This is also why no weapon firing a full sized rifle round without a bipod could be reliably used in any but a semi automatic way. edited out comparison of Garand as Slapdragon recanted on that point [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: So -- you want the Bren an LMG -- lets throw the BAR and SVT in as LMGs also since they are close in firepower to the Bren.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is preposterous. The SVT is a semi automatic weapon and the Bren is a fully automatic weapon. You say they are close in firepower? The BAR - sure - it can be classed as a weak LMG without a quick change barrel. That wouldn't be a stretch. But to put the SVT in the same class as the Bren is fanciful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Now we attempt to promote the MG42 to a functional class of weapon that did not exist in the 1940s, the GPMG, thus freeing up the Bren to become the LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a real reach. Now you are saying that the MG42 is not a GPMG? The MG42 was the first GPMG - it defined the class. Just like the Dreadnought defined the battleship, the MG42 defined the GPMG. You can't really be serious here can you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here I would have to say OK -- lets just call the BAR and LMG, and any other autoloading rifle with automatic capability .. snip<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are no autoloading rifles with automatic capabilities. The automatic rifle is also known as the self loading rifle. The automatic rifle does not mean that the weapon can fire full automatic. It means that the new round is loaded automatically - without the soldier manually turning the bolt. This is also why they are referred to as 'Self Loading Rifles'. Even a smart guy like you should know that Slappy. The weapons in this class would be the Garand, SVT 38 and 40, AVS 36, GEW 43, and weapons of their ilk. I'm curious - do you feel that the Garand is in the same class as the Bren? If so, can you justify it in some way? If the Garand is in a different class than the Bren - what class would that be? I begin to weary of this nonsense. Slappy, you are amazing. BTW, I couldn't give a rat's butt about having separate Bren teams or not. My only concern is the wild propaganda being spouted about making the Bren into an automatic rifle in order to fight against separate Bren teams in CMBO. Why concern for such a thing? I haven't got a clue. To me, calling a Bren an automatic rifle is like calling an apple an orange.

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to put the Bren in the same weapon 'class' as the MG42. The Bren is an LMG. The MG42 is a GPMG. Two different class of weapon. I see now that Slapdragon is essentially saying that the MG42 is an LMG and the Bren is not because it is not like the MG42. This would obviously make someone conclude that the LMG in WW2 was a class of two - the only weapons being an LMG would be the MG42 and the MG34. No other weapon could be classed as an LMG because no other squad automatic weapon is like the MG42 therefore they are all Automatic Rifles. This ignores the fact that the MG42 is classed as a GPMG because it can fulfill the roles of both LMG and MMG / HMG. I feel that this is poor 'taxonomy'. To class an MG42 as an LMG completely ignores it's role and use as an MMG. I think it is fairly widely acknowledged that the MG42 is a GPMG and is a class above LMG only type weapons. Slapdragon is comparing a GPMG to an LMG and concluding that the LMG is an AR because the GPMG fits the role of LMG better. It may fit 'modern' classifications, but it doesn't fit WW2 classifications. I think the regular use of the modern GPMG in the role of LMG has colored Slapdragon's opinion of the characteristics of WW2 LMGs. Of course, this ignores the fact that the GPMG role of the MG42 was revolutionary at the time. Incidentally, the higher rate of fire of the MG42 requires a heavier barrel than lower rate of fire weapons since the MG42 would heat up faster.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: I count only 5 men in the HMG team. IIRC there are 6 men in the HMG team in CM. Which is the historically correct number, 5 by your source or 6 by CM modelling ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless the author's background on the jackets of all his books is a fabrication, then Alex Buchner was a company commander in a German Mountain Division during WW2. I think he would be a trustworthy source for the size of an MG42 crew. You may have noticed that all independent MG crews in CMBO have 6 men for all nations. I'm sure the crew size is an abstraction/convenience. The actual size of a German Infantry Company Command Group would be 10 men not 6 as another example (and yes, I can list them all and their duties as well) - yet all company command groups for all nations in CMBO are 6. No big deal really. I would just hesitate to compare CMBO crew sizes to a published author's listed crew size. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I make a German HMG section consisted of 2 guns + 12 men (section leader, horse cart driver, 2 gun leaders and 8 gunners). Divide that by two you get 6 men per gun. Approximation based on an abstraction ? Should the MG42 HMG sold only in pairs (as would be the appropriate OOB) or separate ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the sixth man in the German HMG crew in CMBO is representative of the crowd noise generated from all the spectators to my PBEM matches. Either that, or the sixth man is in reality one of the horses from the cart. This would then explain the ammo carried by the team, as a horse could carry a great deal of ammo in packs.

As much as it makes me want to hurl, Jason's estimate about how much the MG team would carry is about right according to Alex Buchner. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before the beginning of a battle, the "gun leader" took the machine gun's sight and a case of ammunition from the cart, the Gunner 1 took the machine gun, Gunner 2 the folded mantelet, Gunners 3 and 4 carried two ammunition cases each, making a first supply of 1500 rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think he guestimated around 1700 rounds in one of those posts that were too long to completely read through. Every HMG squad consisted of 2 heavy machine guns: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus a two horse field wagon with driver for machine gun mantelets, equipment, ammunition, and baggage. The heavy machine gun group consisted of a leader and two crews, each with one "gun leader", gunners 1 through 4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So although the 'first' ammunition that would be carried by the team would be 1500 rounds they could always send a guy back to visit the horsey and grab a few more rounds.

What is my definition? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The final solution took on a fairly common form; a gas operated weapon firing from a bipod, controlled by one man, using a magazine holding thirty or so rounds, and usually with a barrel that could be rapidly changed for a spare so that it could be allowed to cool down before the wear problem became serious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ian Hogg, "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War 2" All the weapons I listed meet this criteria (other than the BAR - which is an oddity anyway). You still have not explained what the difference between the Bren and the DP are. Very simple question. Can you provide the answer - or would you rather flop around and avoid the question because you have no answer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I would like to see another taxonomy, especially the hoops that will have to be jumped to make a Bren into an MG42.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Seeing as how the MG42 and the Bren are in a different weapon class, there is no way to make a Bren into an MG42. A Bren is an LMG while the MG42 is a GPMG. Even Lewis can see that

Okay, let's look at the DP then. You say that is an LMG, but that the Bren is not. What are the primary differences between the Bren and the DP? You have already ruled out the difference in feed - you had to because of the HMGs that I listed earlier. So, what differentiates the Bren and the DP - other than the feed? Originally posted by Slapdragon <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you read my earlier discussion, feed mechanism does not matter, nor does ammunition caliber (as long as you do not peak into the cannon class) but ability to lay down fire, keep up with an infantry unit, and be carried / operated by one person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you misinterpret the thrust of my question. The question was "name one weapon used in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG" You say there were 20 that I missed. That either implies that there are 20 weapons that fit your definition, or that I already listed many that fit your definition and that there are an additional 20 that you would like to add to that. The reason that I am asking the question is that I am trying to ascertain what a weapon that fits your definition is. If you say there are 20, then you certainly can name one of them can't you? I'm really not asking for much am I? I will not dispute your weapon of choice, merely examine it's characteristics vs the Bren. The reality is that you can't name a single one. Therefore, what you are arguing is that the LMG as a weapon class did not exist in WW2. If you would like to show my assumptions about your position to be false, then name one weapon in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG - or admit that there are none. Quite simple really. Once we have established a baseline, we can then move the discussion forward.

Alright Slapdragon ... you got me. Not only did I list the three heavy machine guns, I also listed every weapon used by any nation during WW2 that is commonly categorized in the LMG class in exhibit D (include the BAR which was used by Poland BTW). Using your definition of an LMG, name a single weapon used during WW2 that fits that definition. Don't bother trying to find out which nations used which weapons - I have listed them all for you in my post. Every single one. Go ahead and name one, then explain why that one is an LMG and the others are not - or why they all are and the Bren is not (makes no difference to me). Remember that the MG34 is a GPMG and is not a choice.

A well thought out and reasonable response. Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon - or anyone else for that matter?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: "Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’." Logic like this means that since I evolved from a line of hairy apes so ergo I can only be classified as a hairy ape? BS aside. People are getting hung up on names and analogys. The fact is the game looks at performance levels and things like belt feed is a quantum leap in firepower output. A green/regular unit with a belt feed MG might only be approached by elite units with magazine fed weapons. The game is going to make green/regular the norm. You dont have to reply to me ASL. But feel free to respond to issues. Its called a discussion. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That analogy was used because that is the same analogy that Slapdragon used when describing the history of the Bren. It is certainly not an analogy that I would consider valid. It was an analogy that was used within the context of its earlier use in this thread (by Slapdragon). Weapon classification is what this thread is about. Weapon classification is what I addressed. If you would like to make a contribution to the discussion of how the Bren should be classified, then please tell me what that classification would be and why.

As much as I have resisted being sucked into this discussion, I guess I can resist no longer. I am simply going to discuss the issue of the classification of the Bren as an Automatic Rifle rather than as a Machine Gun, and as that is my objective, this is directed more toward Slapdragon and David. I am not going to speak to any of the various side issues and irrelevant comments that have been put forth by Lewis. Apparently, the issue of classification revolves around the feed mechanism – at least that’s what I am interpreting from reading Slapdragon’s posts. I would like to put before you Exibit A: 13.2mm Mitrailleuse Hotchkiss d 13mm 2 Mle 1930. This is a 13.2mm weapon commonly referred to as a Heavy Machine Gun. Method of feed? 30 round box magazine (overhead) or 15 or 20 round strips. If we are saying that a weapon with a 30 round overhead box magazine is classified as an Automatic Rifle then this model of Hotchkiss would be classified as an Automatic Rifle. Note that not only does this ‘Automatic Rifle’ use an overhead box magazine but it is a gas operated design (like most smaller ‘man portable’ weapons). Note that this ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 87 lbs (37.5 kg) and was mounted on carriage as well as an AA mounting similar to an 88’s but with two of these guns side by side (the Japanese used this arrangement as well) Exhibit B: Mitragliace Breda modello 37. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Italian HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 20 round strips. Yep, here is another weapon that Slapdragon would have us believe is an Automatic Rifle. This weapon also used a gas operated mechanism. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 84.3 lbs (38kg) and could be used on a variety of mountings. Exhibit C: 6.5mm Heavy Machine Gun Type 3. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Japanese HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 30 round metal strips. Yes, another weapon Slapdragon would have us believe is an ‘Automatic Rifle’. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs in at 122lbs (55.3kg) Okay, so either you accept that anything with a magazine or strip feed is an Automatic Rifle or you have to decide that the feed method doesn’t have anything to do with the classification of a weapon. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that we are going to classify everything that doesn’t have a belt feed as an Automatic Rifle. Let us then examine every nation’s weapon that was used in the LMG role. Exhibit D: ZB vz/26 Method of feed: 20 or 30 round overhead box Main users: China, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Japan. ZB vz/30 Method of feed: 30 round overhead box Main users: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Iran, Spain, Rumania, Turkey Madsen MG Method of feed: 20, 25, 30, or 40 round overhead box Main users: Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Holland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Norway. Automaattikivaari Lahti-Saloranta Malli 26 Method of feed: 20 round box or 75 round drum Main users: Finland Hotchkiss LMG Method of feed: 25 round metal strips Main users: France, Greece Chauchat Method of feed: 20 round curved magazine bottom feed Main users: Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania Chatellerault Method of feed: 25 round overhead box Main users: France Fucile Mitriagliatori Breda modello 30 Method of feed: fixed magazine taking 20 round charger Main users: Italy 7.7mm Machine Gun Type 99 Method of feed: 30 round overhead box magazine Main users: Japan For space purposes I will leave out the other two Japanese LMGs – suffice to say they are overhead feed box on one and overhead hopper on the other. Bren Method of feed: 30 round overhead box Main users: UK Lewis Gun Method of feed: 47 or 97 round drum Main users: Estonia, Holland, Japan, Latvia, Portugal, US, UK Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP) Method of feed: 47 round drum Main users: USSR Okay, I have left off the BAR and the MG 34 for the moment. Examining this list we see that there isn’t a single nation between the period of time from 39 to 45 that had an LMG – they are all categorized as ‘Automatic Rifles’. In other words, the gun classification of Light Machine Gun doesn’t exist. What would be the point of having a weapon classification that no weapon meets? There would be no point would there? Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! Yes, well the MG 34 is a whole different classification of weapon – the General Purpose Machine Gun. Even so, let’s take the logic of classifying the Bren as an Automatic Rifle because of what it was developed from and apply that to the MG 34. The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’. Moving on to the BAR we see that the US classifies this weapon as an Automatic Rifle. However, I think it is probably more appropriate to refer to the BAR as a weak LMG. Other than the BAR there are no Self Loading rifles that fire full automatic. The MP 44 and its kin are referred to as ‘Assault Rifles’ – a whole new classification of weapon. You see, the BAR is the oddball of the whole gun world – an automatic rifle that performs like an LMG (without a barrel change). Perhaps it could be referred to as the first ‘Assault Rifle’ – although it uses full sized rounds and Assault Rifles use short rounds. There should be no confusion in classifying the Bren – it is the BAR that is difficult to classify.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: OH! I dont know if these are the correct answers? According to my sources, each clip weighs 2 3/4 lbs each. A box with a dozen would weigh 32 lbs plus the weight of the box itself. OH! OH! Can anybody hep us PLEEEEZ? Ive always relied on the charity of strangers in times like this.. (bats eyebrows) Thanks Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously the fact that the Bren magazines have their weight distributed differently from the weight of the MG 34's is beyond your understanding. However, since I am in a charitable mood .... the thrust of the original question regarding a comparison between the weight of an MG34's ammo 'box' and the Bren's ammo 'box' was to compare the bulk / weight of the boxes in action. The question was posed in such a way that it implied that the ammo was carried in a similar fashion between the Bren and the MG34. It was correctly pointed out that the ammo is not carried in a similar fashion, therefore a comparison between the weight of a MG34 ammo box and a Bren ammo box was irrelevant to the weapon's weight in action - since the ammo for a Bren was not carried in a box in action (did you get that last part?). Just in case you are still confused I will spell it out even more plainly. With an MG34 (early war) Gunner One carried a 50 round drum, Gunner Two carried four 50 round drums as well as one ammo box carrying 300 rounds, and Gunner Three carried two ammo boxes of 300 rounds. Later, the other two boxes were split between the other squad members, but two boxes are two boxes. Even if you want to say they are carrying more than two boxes - the odds of every single squad member carrying a box is pretty low as it would impair their ability to move quickly on the battlefield. With the Bren, however, each man takes a few magazines - the weight is not concentrated in a few boxes carried by one or two men. In this way the squad is able to stay light and maintain its ability to move quickly. I don't know how many magazines each man carried, but I have my doubts that they carried as much weight as one MG34 ammo box would. Plus the method of carrying would be different as the weight of the magazines would be carried by the body while the weight of the boxes would be carried by the hand, arm, shoulder. Lewis, since you profess to be an 'engineer' I am stunned that you haven't grasped this simple weight distribution concept. Should be basic stuff for smart whippersnapper like you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: I've seen pictures of drum magazines on MG34s early in Russia. I don't know if they were used on MG42s or were used later. I think that the use of these drums is relevant for comparison with the Bren, as I believe that they only held 50 rounds. This is still more bullets than a 30 round clip, but not 5 times more. I'm not sure how these were employed, either. They don't look like they would be as easy to reload as a clip, for example. But it's also possible that belts would be fed into the MG after the drum ran out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is my understanding that the drum was used when the weapon was moving - much more handy than having a 250 round belt flapping around. Once you have established your firing position you would switch to the belt feed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: Im betting you were doing a fast move, try the same thing with a move command. With Fast move I get immobilized a lot, but never in AON with just move. Speed is a factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've actually played AON about six times PBEM as German and I've bogged numerous times using both move and fast move. I did bog using fast move the first time and I've been using move ever since. However, they still bog quite frequently using move as well. The tracks where they cross the paved road and the tracks by the 50 ATG always end up with at least one German truck or kubelwagen stuck on one or the other everytime I play. There is enough transport to get the job done even if one vehicle bogs though so it is just a little annoying - not a game breaker.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: There's a documented case of a Fijian soldier in Malaya in the 50's using 2 Brens at once - one in eahc hand. From teh hip. so yes, you are right - 1 Bren = 1 Handful. But on a more average note I've fired the Bren from the hip, and I'm not a 6'6" 250 lb Polynesian. It's actually very easy to do. accuracy is another thing of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I remember Rambo firing an M60 from the hip at the end of the first movie ... He was pretty PO'd too!

I had a Kubelwagen, on the road, bog down crossing over the rails where they intersect with the road in All or Nothing. It has actually happened to me several times in that scenario. I've had several trucks do that too (going over to where the 50mm AT starts). Try to explain that one :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: Having played SL/ASL for many years, I've had the opportunity to use cavalry, as well as wagons, sledges, motorcycles and bicycles. Although each provided some interesting aspects of warfare and required the player to develop ways to use them to best advantage, I found all to be extremely vulnerable. The idea of riding any of these conveyances into battle is folly. Their best use is to move troops and weapons to jump off points at which time combat units dismount and fight on foot. Pretty much the way one uses trucks. Sure, it would be nice to see horses, et al, in CM2, but I doubt that they would add much to the game. Are there any other SL/ASL players on the Forum willing to share their experiences?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've played "Assault on a Queen" a couple of times. The most fun was when I played as German. My guys rode in (amidst numerous Harley Davidson / leather jacket jokes) - Tienham and his platoon mostly got knocked off their bikes and died with serious cases of road rash :eek: , but Obr Greup got into the tower where the Queen was hiding. Unfortunately when he finally grabbed the queen in the tower all the Dutch reinforcements came in driving their trucks (my friend rolled a boxcars so 12 squads came in ) and they promptly surrounded the tower where Obr Greup and his boys were holed up. I was trapped and couldn't escape, so my friend mimicked speaking through a bullhorn and said "we have you surrounded, come out with your hands up!" Yep, I lost. However, from that day forward, anytime the German 10-3 was in a game and had a platoon stacked with him they were referred to as "Obr Greup and the Raiders" . Anyway, I could have sworn I saw written on this board that they were going to include motorcycles in CMBB, but no horses or bicycles. I can't recall where I read that, but I'm pretty sure it was on this board. I did see in one of the articles with a mag that they said that Partisans were in though.

No problem, you have been quite informative and have added a great deal to the discussion . Thank you. At any rate (not fee rate of course), it would seem to be the case where there is no clear cut right or wrong without a great deal of research about the various agreements between the parties - and since it seems remote that someone is going to hunt me down and send me a court order in the first place, then I will continue to convert to my hearts content . Give me converted ASL scenarios or give me ... well you get the idea . By the way, I think you may get a lurker award being only a Junior Member with a moderately low member number.

Okay, let's tackle the high ground then . How is it that Multiman publishing has copyrights on scenarios created by various individuals and published by various different companies? I mean, if Michael Klautky creates an ASL scenario "Double or Nothing" and it is published by Critical Hit, how does Multiman even get into the equation? They didn't create the scenario, and they didn't publish it - they only provided the game platform. Who has the intellectual rights to this scenario? Michael Klautky, Critical Hit, or Multiman Publishing? For a CM bent - Dan (Kwazydog) made a scenario that is included on the CM disk called "All or Nothing". What if I wanted to convert his scenario "All or Nothing" into an ASL scenario? Who would have the intellectual rights to that scenario - Dan or BTS? If Dan says - sure, go ahead and convert it - can BTS say no?

While I’m sure that the law itself is not targeted towards profit, the motivations of those pursuing legal action will have profit as their goal (either from the settlement itself, immediate profit, or potential profit). The settlement will have to have a positive economic impact on the party taking the legal action or there would be no point in the pursuit of that action – regardless of how correct it might be to take said action. We are talking about a business here, not an individual looking for a restraining order to gain personal safety from their ex or somefink. The goal of every business is profit, and there are costs associated with the taking of legal action. So, bringing this to our Multiman Publishing situation – they would have to feel that they could either gain economically, or recover lost profits for them to seriously pursue legal action against someone using the ASL name or products (unless they’re stupid of course). The only potential gain Multiman could have in the case of converted ASL scenarios is that for some reason they might feel that the ASL name is being damaged by these conversions and is therefore causing lost sales. Presumably in this situation, someone who plays an ASL scenario converted to CM might think that ASL scenarios are so lame that they would never plunk down their money to buy ASL and that this copied scenario damaged their business. Taking legal action would then recover lost profits. How about the settlement itself? I doubt that Multiman would even be able to pay their legal fees with what they could get from your average Joe scenario converter – who may or may not even have a real job. If Multiman were serious about pursuing every John Doe who converted a scenario, then there would be a physical cost (paying the lawyers and assigning someone to scour the web for illegally converted scenarios – perhaps even as a full time job), opportunity cost (what they are spending on lawyers and web searching could be spent on the next module they want to produce), along with a ‘goodwill’ cost (how does this legal action affect the public image of this company). Focusing just on the goodwill cost for a moment, I think it is safe to assume that the people who are converting ASL scenarios to CM already have ASL products and that Multiman would therefore be taking legal action against their own customer base. Is this really very smart if there is no economic gain involved? They could literally litigate their way out of business! Anyway, that is a financial assessment of the situation rather than a legal assessment of the situation - I'll leave legal stuff to the lawyers and I'll stick to financial stuff . Recognizing the costs associated with this whole thing, I would think the odds of being sent a letter from Multiman's crack legal team would be remote - unless you go into their den and tweak their beard! Hey, then if you get the letter, just cease and you're good to go right? Just my own feeling - I really doubt that Multiman really thought it through if they asked Colonel Klotz to do whatever it was that they asked him to do. They obviously didn't do any research into the potential impact to their business that legal action would entail. It was doubtless a knee jerk reaction from someone who has been fighting too many copyright cases against other companies (such as Heat of Battle, Schwerpunkt, etc) and where copyright protection has become an ingrained corporate habit. Somebody at Multiman thought they saw something sinister and blew a fuse. However, just because you can take legal action doesn't mean that it is the smart thing to do.