Holdit

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dirkd1976: I think its fine to re-release a movie with new footage IF IT'S GOOD, AND ACTUALLY ADDS TO THE MOVIE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which makes me wonder, if it's good and adds to the film, who made such a mess of editing that it was left out in the first place?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: consider the case where Rommel had his tank commanders wave white handkerchiefs as his tank battalion rolled unmolested right through French lines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they went straight through the french lines, where's the manoeuvre bit? How does using subterfuge to get through as opposed to fighting your way through constitute manoeuvre warfare? I'm not so sure about it being such a new idea. Wasn't Napoleon's "Manoeuvre sur les Derrieres" based on similar principles? His encirclement of Mack at Ulm is generally held to be an example of this, but how often was such a result achievable even by the great man himself? Not very often, especially once his enemies had cottoned on to the tactic. Even in the course of that particular episode of the 1805 campaign, battles had to be fought for key locations, if I remember rightly. Surely in the world of the continuous front, the scope for such pure manoeuvre is even more limited.

How about a voice mod that includes "Hail to the king, babeeee..."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Ermmm, this is called censorship. I would have thought most Americans who pride themselves in their constitution for the right to freedom of speech would object to such a suggestion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, we're not all Americans, and I don't believe that would be as much a form of censorship as locking up the entire thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Guns of Navarone <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it's a bit of a matinee, but a brilliant yarn nonetheless. I think it's aged quite well too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: What is the deal? How is discussing the ability of Americans in WW2 suddenly a issue that cannot be discussed on this board? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there's a solution that would allow the thorniest of issues to be sensibly debated. If you look at rules 1 and 2 they cover most of the flamey stuff, and should also be applied to the stuff that causes flames, like great big sweeping, unsupported generalisations. If people are constrained to not only express opinions in a non-confrontational manner, but also to back them up with somne kind of reasoning, you're more likely to get a bit of mutual respect from opposing camps. How to back it up? Instead of closing the thread where the flames have started, just douse the flames themselves. Delete postings that contravene the rules and spririt if the board, along with any postings that quote from them, so that less people will be inclined to be dragged into responding to trolls. In this way, a sensible discussion could continue while the more exciteable posters either calm down or just stay out of it. I've seen it work elsewhere.

Although I never read it, I feel a sense of loss just knowing that it's gone. Em...does this have to be sincere?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It could be called "Combat Mission -Beyond A Joke".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very good

Das Boot* All quiet on the Western Front (either version) Twelve O'Clock High Paths of Glory The one with Gregory Pack as a B-17 group commander (it's on the tip of my tongue, honest) SPR (mainly for the beach scene and the accurate hardware) *the original tv series; six fifty-minute episodes. And you through the director's cut was good?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg: Whether you liked the movie or not, simply the greatest war scene of any movie, anywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to mention what must be one of the most heartbreaking death scenes ever committed to film.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau: . Today, I caught cable news (Sky) only to find a committee for racial equality has decided that the term "British" is essentially rascist....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's ridiculous. What was the context? Why precisely was it considered racist? It it's just in the name of the country, then by extension, "Irish", "French" and "American" must also be racist. I'll try to get the BBC's take on it. You know what Sky is like...

ldit <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coralsaw: Holdit, I find house rules OK but kinda like stating the obvious. Something like saying "don't cheat" as a rule. On the other hand, if a player sincerely does not know that a tactic he uses is gamey, well, his savvy PBEM opponent should be sportsman enough to educate, rather than punish. You start building a character image of the people you play with after a game or two and you respect them and continue, or respect them and stop playing with them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the sake of clarity, does your respect for someone depend on what tactics they prefer? Do you mean that gamey tactics are always cheating, whatever the circumstances?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak: No I don't think it is cheating. I consider it more a case of bad manors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lorak, Just for the record, what do you mean by bad manners, and in what context? Thanks

Lorak and Foobar, Thanks for the feedback: that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. I should stress here that the argument to which I refer isn't in connnection with a game, it's on another forum, where the claim is being made that that people on the BTS forum look down on players who use gamey tactics and consider them to be cheaters. I don't believe that to be the case, but I thought I'd check just on the offchance that I might be wrong. I agree 100% with both of you. Anyone else like to chip in? Anyone who really does think less of free-spirited players?

Perhaps contributors who add to this thread would be so kind as help me with a quick straw poll which might help settle an argument elsewhere: Is it cheating to use gamey tactics? Do you consider players who use tactics like the jeep rush to be cheaters? Is it cheating if a player decides not to abide by house rules? Do you always clarify the situation vis a vis house rules with your opponent before the game starts? Do you see a player who prefers to allow the use of gamey tactics as an inferior kind of gamer? Some people seem to be upset by the word "gamey". What other word would you use as an alternative that would not hold any negative connotations? Are house rules a good thing in themselves or a necessary evil? Thanks in advance for any responses. Short answers will do fine. I'm looking for succinct opinions rather than arguments.

What about the theme music? It seems to me to beautifully capture the drama and tragedy that is war. I remember the first run of the series on the BBC. That music and the face in the flames stayed with me for years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Bah! What army goes into battle were a dress uniform! Seriously, the allies had much more practicle uniforms as a whole. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Practical, practical... Beats me - I'll have to look it up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606: I must admit I play the German side more then the US side. I like the German uniforms and their tanks. US uniforms are so drab and the US tanks are so darn ugly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think the Sherman's a bad looking tank at all. I'm sure I'd fancy one after a couple of pints...

Don't forget the uniforms, lads. The Germans definitely won the style war.

If I remember that Jagdpanther correctly, there were three holes in the engine compartment and one into the crew compartment (it's been a few years, so I might be wrong), but I remember wondering if the allied tank that killed it had deliberately immobilized it first before going for the kill. Slightly off-topic, next time you're in that area, I'd heartily recommend a visit to HMS Belfast. There's also an RAF museum at Hendon which is worth the trip.

Losing all your tanks first isn't the end of the world. In Chance Encounter, I've lost all three StuGs for only two Shermans, only to have my infantry take care of the rest (against the AI, admittedly). I played a scenario recently where I had US company with no armour, and was suddenly faced with a Panzer IV. I just kept everyone as far away from it as possible until it moved out from behind some smoke for a better view and was killed by a bazooka team (alright, alright, it was the AI again). The point is that there is no equation along the lines of "more tanks = victory". Even though life is easier if you have some, it's not the end of the world if you don't, especially in a world of shaped charge infantry anti-tank weapons. [This message has been edited by Holdit (edited 10-09-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Holdit, Wow, these look like excellent book titles. Exactly what I had in mind. Do you think they have them over at Amazon? OK, here's another question - is there any working muskets like the ones of the period being sold? I imagine they are worth quite a bit more then the replicas which do not fire, so Im just asking. I'm not (yet!) rich enough to afford a $200,000 old gun! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I bought them all off the shelf in various bookshops, but I imagine Amazon would have them as they're all still in print with the possible exception of the Bruce Quarrie book, which I'm not too sure about (ISBN 0-85059-785-4). if you need ISBNs for the others, give me a shout, but you shouldn't have any problem. I've you really want to dive in deep, I'd recommend Nosworthy, but it can be heavy going in some spots, because he goes into a lot of detail about the emergence of Napoleonic tactics from eighteenth century innovations. It's all fascinating stuff though. "Uniforms of Waterloo", "Uniforms of the Napoleonic Wars" and "Uniforms of 1812" by Philip Haythornthwaite all contain historical information - mainly concerning (apart from the uniforms of course) some brief regimental histories and accounts of battles, not to mention detailed OBs for the Waterloo and Russian campaigns. The old AH game "Napoleon's Battles" is a handy source of information too, especially regarding OB's and battles. As far as I know, you can buy a Napoleonic musket, but I couldn't say where. Some re-enactors were displaying them at a wargames exhibition I attended in the late 80's in England (I even got to fire one). The model was the English Brown Bess; I was told that no-one was making the French model (in the UK at any rate). I seem to remember that the cost at the time for a musket was about £150.00

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesreidau: John Tiller (formerly worked for Talonsoft) is the MAN where Napoleonics are concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. That's a matter of opinion. Recommended Books* Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature - Bruce Quarrie Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon - Rory Muir Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies - Brent Nosworthy The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon - Gunther E Rothenberg (*Recommended by me, that is )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: When you are playing Monopoly don't you talk to the other person about whether $500 goes into the middle for people who land on Free Parking or do you contact Hasbro for the official word? Talk to your PBEM oponents and come to an amiable arrangement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey you that that thing with free parking too? I always thought it was a great idea. Great way of getting yourself out of a hole too. The reason I ask isn't because of a disagreement over the conduct of a game. I can figure out the desirabalilty of a gentleman's agreement for myself. I've been involved in a discussion of the whole question of house rules in another forum, and someone there claims that BTS has come out in favour of such house rules being mandatory for all. It sounds very unlikely to me, but I thought I should check my facts, as I missed a few chunks of that whole debate (mainly when it started to get tiresome). Hence the request for clarification from BTS.

I need an answer to a question that's cropped up elsewhere: are house rules against tactics like edge-hugging and the fast jeep recon thingy mandatory, or are players free to decide between themselves prior to a game whether or not they apply. I'd also appreciate reply from BTS on this just for the record. Many thanks