Kanonier Reichmann

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler: Just remember, the default value in these scenarios is military nightmare. Wild Bill is a master at constructing them. CDIC returned from several days away with a turn so awful I wish I could return it. Too call it suboptimal would be a vast understatement. Holien screams bloody murder at my unfair X, my ahistoric Y and my plentiful Z, but he's dug in, has lots of R, S, T and just got U accompanied by V. How the H won this historically is beyond me. I fight on! Regards, John Kettler<hr></blockquote> Just a quick 'independant' observation John. You wouldn't happen to be a Pom would you?

Just a gentle reminder to Foliagerupture that he promised to update the list of all players "soon" some time ago. I'm sure you have nothing better to do T.B. (he says in jest) but it would be good to get it relatively soon, if only to give us hope that the tournament will be starting in the not too distant future. Regards Jim R. [ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]</p>

Oh, I just remebered... I forgot to shout AUSSIE, AUSSIE, AUSSIE, OI, OI, OI Regards Jim R.

You have to admit though that Jason has stated some pretty specific reasons why he thinks some HEAT weapons like the 60mm Bazooka & the 95mm British HEAT round are over-modelled with a logical argument based on how similar weapons are modelled & yet there has been no specific reponse from BTS. Yet BTS have stated that if you can come up with a logical reason why something should be changed & back it up with facts (e.g. no reported penetrations of the King Tiger from the front or side AT ALL either in the field or in test trials) then it could possibly be interpreted by some that they are shirking the issue. At least that's how it seems to me at this point. Regards Jim R.

I'll throw my name in the hat. Jim Richardson based in Adelaide. E-Mail address of jimbo@picknowl.com.au Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by WARHAMMER: Kanonier, I don't think you know how much trouble you're getting yourself into!!!! Section 3 - Let the trash talk'n begin!! WARHAMMER<hr></blockquote> Yeah, yeah, talk is cheap. I've always said that actions speak louder than words. The battlefield will determine whether you live up to yours. How's that for a good start with the mindgames? BTW, thanks Treeburst for including me in your tournament, I hope I don't let the side down in terms of competitiveness. One question I have however, will additional points be granted if players submit AAR's after the battle is completed? I'm not sure whether this is part of the deal with this particular tournament. Regards Jim R. [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Hmm, maybe something will happen at midnight.<hr></blockquote> What, like my King Tiger turn into a pumpkin or something? Regards Jim R.

12 hours and counting... Regards Jim R.

JUST GIVE IT TO US YOU SADISTIC BASTICH! Whew. Just had to get that off my chest. Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Digby Tatham-Waltham carried an umbrella because he felt his leadership was more important than any weapon he carried (he did carry a pistol) and used it to direct movement and fire. He also carried it because he had a very poor memory and did not want to get shot for forgetting the password of the day. Unlike what the movie said, Tatham-Waltham survived the battle, won about a gagillion initials after his name, then moved to Kenya and was instrumental in putting down the Mau Mau uprising.<hr></blockquote> What did he do, bash them over their heads with his brolly? Regards Jim R.

Hi Treeburst et al. This may appear mercenary on my part & if considered so... TOO BAD! I just wanted to say that I would be happy to be a replacement for Dogface21 if he is unable to commit to the tournament. I always play PBEM but am pretty reliable with at least 1 turn a day. If you're happy to include me Treeburst then I'd be very keen to participate. My email address is jimbo@picknowl.com.au and although Australia is about as far away from the Scandinavian countries you can get, so be it. Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: The same could be said of the Panther. To date I've only found one picture of a glacis plate that would rate the low quality rating given to it in CM. Here it is from the Russian Battlefield Axis Destroyed AFVs gallery. <hr></blockquote> That's interesting. Is this the modified troop carrying Panther without a turret to provide more space for men? Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Titan: Play me first,Im always keen to kick some Aussie Butt From a mate across the Ditch. (Tasman Sea )<hr></blockquote> Now, now Titan... no picking on the newbies. Tis not nice. Plus it wont add much to your standing in the Rugged Defence table as kicking the crap out of a player numbered above 300 wont make that much difference. Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: it depends on the model of US halftrack. The M3 won't, the M3A1 might, and IIRC the M5 does.<hr></blockquote> OK, so does anybody know the logic behind this? How is one model of the US halftrack able to continue firing with the loss of a crew member while another one can't. And just for your own interest, the MG Carrier that was the initial topic of this thread also can't unbutton to fire its medium MG once taking a crew casualty. I just tried it in my game and it's pretty much useless despite it being a veteran carrier, with no option to unbutton. Regards Jim R. [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CMplayer: You convert the hunt command to a reverse when you need to implement it. This can also be done with the mouse, you don't have to use the keyboard commands. Converting waypoints is a MUST if you want to play deftly, in many situations. [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]<hr></blockquote> Ah well, adding this method to my existing, it seems, sadly lacking level of expertise should improve my obviously piss poor results in the Rugged Defence board no end. Regards Jim R.

Got it, thanks Michael. I must have skimmed over that bit. Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by russellmz: clicking any movement cube/waypoint, and hitting "r", "u", "f", or whatever changes the cube/waypoint to THAT movement command<hr></blockquote> Well, if that works then it just goes to show that you learn something new every day. Was the ability to use the keyboard commands like this ever documented in the manual? Just curious. Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Amidst_Void: Okay so what conclusion, if any, have we reached thus far? Are mortars unrealistically handled or, are they realistically handled and HMG's are unrealistically handled and should be handled similar to mortars which are handled realistically? If the Mortars are, on the contrary, unrealistically handled should they be handled more like HMG's which are apparently unrealistically handled as well? [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Amidst_Void ]<hr></blockquote> You didn't used to be a script writer for the British TV series "Yes Minister" and subsequently "Yes Prime Minister" did you? Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CMplayer: Then, at the beginning of the next orders phase, if you've run into more than you can handle, you can drag the next 'hunt' waypoint behind the tank and convert it to a 'reverse' order. Then you get instant reversal, without order delay. [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]<hr></blockquote> Errrmmm... the only problem with this method is that it isn't a reverse order the tank will be executing it will be a "show my arse to the enemy as I head back in the direction I came" order. One fraught with much greater danger than the hunt, reverse, hunt method methinks. Regards Jim R.

I don't think that's the answer Michael (Dorosch that is) as the MG Carrier cannot fire if it's hull down to another target (you get the MG blocked message) so that would tend to indicate that the MG is located in the bow at the front. I'm also assuming that the commander assists with feeding the MG but that is purely guesswork on my part. Regards Jim R. [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]</p>

This is from an earlier thread that was buried. Originally posted by Moriarty: If the HT's crew is two people and the gunner gets whacked, the vehicle will still move around, tow guns, ferry squads, etc., but there'll be no one to pull the trigger on the MG. This posting raises an interesting question. Why is it with a MG Bren Gun Carrier it can't still fire its MG after suffering a single crew casualty? There are still 2 crew members left and although I would imagine the effectiveness of the MG should be degraded without the loader, for some reason the damn thing can't fire at all. Surely it doesn't take 2 people to drive that damn halftrack wannabe. Does anybody know the answer to this one or perhaps heard a reply from BTS on how MG Bren Gun carriers (as opposed to the personnel carrying variety) are modelled? Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moriarty: If the HT's crew is two people and the gunner gets whacked, the vehicle will still move around, tow guns, ferry squads, etc., but there'll be no one to pull the trigger on the MG.<hr></blockquote> This posting raises an interesting question. Why is it with a MG Bren Gun Carrier it can't still fire its MG after suffering a single crew casualty? There are still 2 crew members left and although I would imagine the effectiveness of the MG should be degraded without the loader, for some reason the damn thing can't fire at all. Surely it doesn't take 2 people to drive that damn halftrack wannabe. :confused: Regards Jim R.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Peter Panzer: ...no sweat gyrene: ...large scale, combined arms thrust directly aimed at capturing a bridge over the rhine. conceivably, this could be accomplished by establishing a “corridor,” if you will, of crucial river crossings. This could be brought about with relative ease by the laying of a “vast airborne carpet” through which an armored corps could pass... ...easy as one, two, three - straight on to the ruhr my friend. we’ll have the boys home by christmas...<hr></blockquote> You just wouldn't want it to be only "90% successful" as we all saw what that type of operation led to. Regards Jim R.

Well I can attest to the fact that AT mines DO explode when a Jeep travels over them but I haven't tried it with Daisy Chain mines as it's too hard to get them to move over them. As for halftracks, they do have a fair bit of track in contact with the ground (especially the German ones) and I would have thought that they would trigger AT & Daisy Chain minefields for sure... but apparently not, at least in my game. Regards Jim R.

I've just noticed that Daisy Chain mines aren't exactly 100% reliable in at least immobilising vehicles that travel over them. I'm currently playing a game where a shocked German halftrack reversed directly over a Daisy Chain mine with no ill effect. Then later on, another bleedin German halftrack must have gone right over another one of my Daisy Chain minefields as 2 overlapping fields side by side were set between a narrow bocage lane where this halftrack suddenly appeared. Has anyone else had similar experiences with these types of minefields? Perhaps halftracks are somehow immune to them & it may be a bug? Or is the simple explanation that there is a good chance that they will have no effect on vehicles but are only intended to discourage vehicles from going through them. Regards Jim R.