Kanonier Reichmann

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: I could have sworn I seen HQs drop a command bonus when a man gets hit, but I'm not 100% sure of this. I'm at work and unable to test this out, can someone be so kind as to run a little test to confirm this. Many thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From my experience it doesn't make one scrap of difference who or how many men are incapacitated within the HQ unit, provided at least 1 man is still standing you get the full bonuses. At least that's certainly been ny observations of the game at least. Regards Jim R.

I'm wondering if anyone else has thought it odd that the efficiency of HQ units in providing their combat bonuses doesn't appear to be reduced despite their own casualties. Unless I've missed it in the manual, it appears HQ's can continue to lead squads under their control just as well when down to 1 man or at full strength. Obviously no changes will be made to CM1 now but I thought it worth raising before CM2 is set in stone to see if others thought a deterioration in leadership efficiency should be modelled as casualties to the HQ are taken. Thoughts anyone? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAZZA: LOL! Yeah,Whatever KiwiShmoe,you never kicked my ass.I never surrendered in 4 turns LOL!! in fact I never surrendered in that game it went the distance and it was also my first pbem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey JAZZA! Stop quarelling with your NZ mate and send me your return file. If you've got time for these posts then you've got time for "CMing". BTW, looks like KiwiJoe's statistics are about to plummet now that he is finally taking on the rest of the world rather than just playing opponents in his backyard. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: The Japanese landed troops on Milne Bay in New Guinea, but the Australians had gotten there first. The Japanese landings were successful, but the Australians repelled the Japanese attack. The Japanese did succeed in rescuing some of their troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point, I'd forgotten about that. Milne Bay was the IJF's first land based defeat (as opposed to the first Wake Island where they never really got an initial foothold) and the precursor to many more to come over time. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I have toyed with the idea, though I can claim no support for it, that the Dieppe raid was staged to show the Americans how unrealsitic their eagerness to stage a cross-channel invasion was. Like I say, I haven't the slightest shred of documentary proof for the notion and it seems pretty far-fetched to think of Churchill et al sacrificing that many men just to win a debating point... Michael [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wouldn't surprise me. Churchill had a bit of a history of sacrificing Commonwealth troops (as opposed to British troops) on lost causes. e.g. Australian & NZ forces in Greece, same again in Singapore and of course Canadian forces at Dieppe. Not one of his admirable qualities in my opinion. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Hmmm, As far as I know any plane will not show up more than 5 times in a given scenario, so it may have been 4 fighter/bombers you had against you. Seems rather a lot really... Can anyone back me up on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nup... you're on your own. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: My record is 3 loses, 1 draw, 52 wins. All 3 loses are threw bad luck... (luck plays quite a role in these small 1500 point battles). Ive yet to see a player any where near my skill level. NEVER have I been out played. Yeah Yeah... Im an arogant son of a bitch... true... but Im a damn good player. [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try Fionn & then see how good you are. One condition... whatever the result you've got to post the details. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: [QB} Funny enough this extreme accuracy of the M2 was once considered undesirable, due to the fact that machine guns are used to "spray" areas. Gyrene [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just stumbled across this thread. I've also heard that one of the "faults" of the Bren gun was that it too was considered too accurate for a fire base weapon and possibly one of the reasons why it has become widely discontinued in use by the worlds armies. Does anyone else have a take on this? Regards Jim R.

Hey, great idea about Eurowarrior- Jerk of the month award. Where do I apply? Regards Jim R.

OK, how about this situation. I have 3 full strength "normal" British Paratrooper squads sprinting from one 2 storey heavy building to another, a distance of about 40 metres. The first 2 squads make it into the heavy building while under a bit of flank fire from 2 German squads but the 3rd squad loses 2 casualties from this flank fire when it is literally only about 5 metres away from the cover of the heavy building it was ordered to enter. Guess what it does. It immediately turns 90 degrees away from the cover of the building and proceeds to run around like a chook with its head cut off IN THE OPEN towards a light 2 storey building some 30 metres away whilst getting shot up in the back!!! Would that happen in real life... I don't think so. I guess these things happen when there's no such thing as perfection, especially when it comes to computer programmes. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warphead-: Yes that is the Trojanov. They have one in Kubinka. Supposedly it could only drive straight ahead because of the four tracks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure I see why it shouldn't be able to turn, in theory at least. Assuming each pair of tracks on either side were synchronised, surely all it would take to slew this monster around would be to brake one set of tracks while the other set remains in motion, hence a turning effect. Am I missing something here? (apart from the obvious of course that the Soviet designers either didn't think to have synchronised pairs of tracks or one side or the other couldn't be braked). :confused: Regards Jim R.

Hmmm, looks like the Russkies DID build the ultimate super-heavy tank of the war after all! Would love to know what it would have taken to penetrate that beast from the frontal aspect... a Krupps rail gun perhaps? Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: Also buy some vehicles like Grayhounds they have bad ass 50mm MGs and they can cover your units when they are low on amo as well. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Rob/1 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Woo hoo! 5 c.m. machineguns! Where can I get hold of these uber weapons? Regards Jim R.

How about T and E 0331s 0302s and 11Bs So in this context: "Since the MMGs are mounted on tripod with T and E, all the Machine Gunners would have to do is bump his gun left (mg 1/2) or right (mg 3/4) to deliver accurate flanking fire. The closer the enemy would get the more effective the fire. 0331s 0302s and 11Bs know exactly what i'm talking about." I've got absolutely no bloody idea what X00's talking about! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Poll: who hates the new look of the fourm? 1. It's worse 2. Hate it 3. Don't care<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> White is too stark and leads to eye burnout, IMHO. I personally didn't see what was wrong with the original colours to be honest. Regards Jim R.

Just wanted to be the first with, G'day dad.. wish you were here. Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Canuck: Also I posted this so I could see how much seniority I had over everyone else Muhahahha <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not much by the looks of it... Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: My question is, if these "open" tiles represent terrain which includes shrubbery, dips, etc, then where is the tile that represents an open field with no cover that can maximize an mg's effectiveness? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And where are the "Knights that say Nie". They were always around where shrubberies existed! Regards Jim R.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: This issue is Still a MAJOR problem IMHO. -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Couldn't agree more, hence this attempt to bring the matter to BTS's attention again. Regards Jim R.

Wilhammer, the reason why they aren't treated as very lightly armoured vehicles is beacuse once that is done then infantry units won't target them due to their inability to penetrate armour with their light arms. Unfortunately it results in unrealistic modelling of what should be a very vulnerable vehicle to all kinds of fire. Regards Jim R.

I'm on tenderhooks sitting on the edge of my seat desperately hoping for an answer... please put me out of my misery. Regards Jim R.

Hey Jeff. I think you've just qualified for inclusion into the new category of "ASL-retentive". Sorry, couldn't resist... Regards Jim R.

Hmmm... I had computer generated forces in a single player game I set up where the computer chose for me 2 Churchill Mk VIII's plus 2 Daimlers in a 1,250 Meeting Engagement plus a platoon of Engineers! Naturally I was very happy with this force but I would bet if I was playing a human oponent in an E-Mail game- computer generated forces- he/she would probably be very suspicious that I had cheated if I had initially set the parameters. My point is, simply remove all possible doubt by changing the way these computer generated games are established through, what I assume, are relatively simple programme changes. Fell free anytime BTS to shoot me down on this. Regards Jim R.

What was there to cry about over some guy with a shouting disorder? Regards Jim R.

A dead one! Otherwise the bugger keeps running away... Regards Jim R.