Kanonier Reichmann

Has anyone received a file from Jon L in Group 5 recently? I've sent him a couple of emails over he past few days but haven't received a response to date. Anybody know whether he was going to be away or anything? Regards Jim R.

You could always try Bluedo. It's similar to Cluedo but set in a brothel and requires sound strategies in a hard core envronment to win. Regards Jim R.

My moneys on Eraserhead to win that fight. He has that crazy assed look in his eyes as if he's a maniacal born again Christain while his hair has a bigger intimidation factor, more than outweighing Chuikovs chest baubles. Regards Jim R.

"Crushing defeat" to which opponent? I didn't hear about that and would be keen to see the AAR if one exists. Regards Jim R.

Try getting hold of the orchestral music that introduced the Band of Brothers series. A truly superb piece in my opinion. Almost haunting in its style. Regards Jim R.

If you're referring to my comments then I must have missed scrutinising the map properly for that hidden ford across the river to obviate my observation of the particular scenario. Naturally no reference was made to forces and the like. Regards Jim R.

I agree with that completely. Moltke had all the feel of Wolf... sheer terror and continual suprises! When it's so easy to make "yet another scenario" these ones that feel so different and unique are diamonds indeed. </font>

You are a nutter! :eek: Regards Jim R.

A brilliant summary Treeburst. Thanks a heap for simplifying and clarifying my understanding of how off map artillery works in CMAK & CMBB. Regards Jim R.

The mod looks superb Tarkus. Just a quick question... how do you tell whether a unit is in communication with its higher HQ? Regards Jim R.

Yes you do Sergio. Refer to the top posting on this page where I reported a result of 59% (me-Allies) to 41% (Dangerous Dave- Axis). BTW, I was kidding about the rework of the stats. I'm sure you have more important things to do. Regards Jim R.

Just an update. I've sent files for Moist Bush & Maleme but will take a bit longer to do the setup for the Sanitorium as I keep hearing strange whispers when looking at the map as if I've achieved some sort of calling. :eek: :confused: Waiting on Allied files for the remaining 2 scenarios. Regards Jim R.

Final report for ROW IV!!! I can now advise that the end score for Proof of Honour against Nestor was as follows: Axis (me) 70% vs Allies (Nestor) 30% Axis Tactical Victory I noticed Walpurgis Nachts previous comment about this scenario in his brief synopsis of his game where he whupped his opponent though adopting a manouevre strategy. The quote was Personally I would liked to have taken him on as the Axis on this basis as I felt my static defence held up well against the Allied forces and without their armour support I would reckon my chances would be good. BTW, Kingfish...would you mind doing a total recalculation of all the stats now that all the results are in? Regards Jim R.

'Tis a terrible shame. Sorry to see you not able to participate in ROW V John. We'll miss your highly entertaining AAR's. Regards Jim R.

Nope, never played it. I drew the line at Squad Leader & Cross of Iron before getting too frustrated by the need for a refresher course in the rules every month. Regards Jim R.

Good to see that all of Group 5 has checked in so we're apparently good to go. Only problem.....lack of game files. Regards Jim R.

Originally posted by GLK Although this paragraph is surely doctored to make it look worse than it really is in the manual (surely?), here is the quintessential reason why ASL is inferior to the Combat Mission series....the bleedin need to be a rules lawyer who knows all the acronyms as if they were a seperate well studied language. Regards Jim R.

Based on a post I've made in the ROW V thread I clearly am in the "I object" category. This is not to say that my opponent or myself shouldn't ever split squads but the wholesale splitting of squads, especially when the infantry force is sizeable, is clearly against the designers intent. No problem doing it on a localised scale but on a wholesale basis.....not in the spirit of the game IMO. Regards Jim R.

Somewhat coincidental but of the 5 opponents in my group, 2 of them being Jeff Wilders & Tabpub were also opponents in the same initial group in the ROW II tournament. It should be good to renew acquaintences again. Regards Jim R.

Actually, I rather liked ALL of those battles in their original form. In my game of Proof of Honour the fog has proven a blessing as the defender rather than a hinderance. Regards Jim R.

And will you also be pre-negotiating all the other gamey things that can be done? No attacking up the sides? No jeep recon? What about Marm-Herr recon? Crew recon? I certainly wasn't expecting there to be a "negotiation phase" before the battle... I'm hoping it wont come to that however as it becomes tedious to the point of boredom having to micro-manage twice as many infantry units than the game designers originally intended. I thought this was a tournament to for people who want play CM. CM has a set of rules. Are we adding more? People who want to play CM usually _like_ giving orders. If you want to minimise your orders time, why don't you play FPS instead? I might split all my squads in two just to give myself double the enjoyment from each battle GaJ. Steve, BFC: "If both sides play with all their squads in halves... it is more even, and in some ways a little more realistic." </font>

While I think of it, on the subject of half squads, it's pretty clear that the designers of the Combat Mission series didn't intend the game to be (ab)used with each capable squad being automatically broken up into a half squad at game commencement. If they did then I'm sure they would have chosen the half squad as the basic infantry sized unit. With this in mind I intend to hopefully come to some agreement with whoever my opponents are that there be no excessive splitting up of squads into half squads with probably a 50% of the force being the rough upper limit. Obviously it's hard to police but I think it would be clear during the game whether such splitting is being abused or not. Naturally, if an opponent feels this will cramp his/her style too much then at least I know where I stand and will adjust my tactics accordingly. I'm hoping it wont come to that however as it becomes tedious to the point of boredom having to micro-manage twice as many infantry units than the game designers originally intended. I think BFC's stated position on this is pretty clear in terms of their intention so I'm going with that. Absolutely no problem with splitting squads for scouting purposes or localised deception purposes but wholesale splitting is simply...dare I say it....for losers (in a holistic sense). Regards Jim R.

Jeez, that's a bit harsh! It wasn't ALL my fault was it? Sheeesh! rEGARDS jIM r.

I believe the way the 50 cal. AAMG was mounted on most Shermans (behind the commanders hatch on a pintle) pretty much dictated that it could only be used in a hurry in an anti-aircraft role. If the commander wished to climb out of the turret and stand on the rear deck of his tank then it could certainly be used effectively in an anti-personnel role but that required time and a distinct lack of self preservation concerns when so exposed to enemy fire. Regards Jim R.

In summary therefore....use them "vewy, vewy carefwully" Regards Jim R.