Banshee

Trustworthy? Not at all! The AI slept with my wife, stole my wallet, and shaved my cat! Now I have the AI sitting in the corner thinking about what it did, BAD AI, bad bad AI! ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Dang that game looks really bad.. well better luck next time.. I'm also still believing that David could sell his picture for the box art for that game. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

See you have to keep bumping this thing, Madmatt or someone create a Multiplayer forum! ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Try Hamster or Gerbil or chinchilla or the like. Hang on...if these words were banned there'd never be another posting on this board! Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We could only hope ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler: Search for certain banned words and when you find a post with his name on it, you have it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which banned words? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I think he has been "un-banned" before, and I do believe he is still around just under a different name.. But hey it dont make a big dif, unban him ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Annoying newbie question... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember, there are no annoying newbie questions, only annoying newbies! (j/k!)

Out of all their sets they offer to sell I only saw 1 (ONE!) on DVD, argh, though it was an outstanding series (WW2 In Color). If they only would offer more stuff in DVD format. And yes Battle Stations is on VHS. I think the sherman one looked the most interesting, the DUKW one might be good too. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Yeah, war time reports... reminds me of how "effective" the Patriots were in the Gulf... Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just curious, I thought the Patriot was effective as a point defense weapon, It was just the mispreception that it was supposed to defend WIDE areas (whole cities as opposed to a small HQ or something like that). What did the reports say and what do you think were the patriots failings? And I agree that way too much importance is given to this ONE report. If arty couldn't take out tanks what chance would aircraft guns have? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

In the belief that blame should be placed at the right place I submit the following post: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000876.html the first occurence of the word Hamster on this BBS according to the search engine. After this person has been eliminated we can go after the person who mentioned gerbils. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I went and dusted off my Jentz book (ok ok it's lying right next to my bed and I trip over it every night) and while it is a very good book I think there is quite a danger of adding so much emphasis to one report. Now I'm going to have to go through the whole dang book and find every time in which arty took out a tank (esp a Panther) ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

ahh the Joys of Tivo! It was kind enough to grab this show for me, it was pretty good and some nice footage. btw, get a Tivo and you'll always have a good war documentary to watch once you get it set to your preferences. I never watch network TV anymmore. p.s. Im not affiliated with Tivo I just really like mine ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Might try a piece of software called Snagit! http://www.techsmith.com/ ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

BTS has said there will be a save feature. Just save the game.. Remember BTS has very limited resources and we should all look at ways to solve any issue we have with the game before asking for a modification (of course we are now asking for modifications to things that don't exist yet! ) ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

people use different passwords so they can tell their opponent their password after the battle is over so the opponent can see how the other sides movie files looked. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Ok , I have another minute , the place I was talking about was here : http://combatvision.panzershark.com/ and they use a program called SnagIt (there is both a PC and Mac version available). ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

you can use various screen capture programs to make movie files for anything (including CM). Some people (don't have the link handy) have made "combat reports" using CM, I'm sure somebody will post a link, the issue with .Mov files vs what people wanted for CM is that MOV only shows a small piece of the action where the Movie files people want for CM would allow you to zone all around like you do now watching the single turn movies. Sorry for my bad writing I'm in a hurry. Hope this helps. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Alright who thought this would be a thread about Goliaths? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: Hi, The points system IS designed for historical accuracy... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you misunderstand my definition of historical accuracy. I mean the points given in the system doesn't reflect the material advantage that the allies enjoyed (i.e. more points) (edit see below, I think you're wrong by saying the above) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: The problem is other, when you do a meeting engagement the game automatically awards both sides equal points. How many times in the late western front the odds were 1:1 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly what I just said, if the point system was historically accurate then either Men & Material would cost less or we would get more points (i.e. the point system is NOT historically accurate).I guess it depends on your definition of "historical accuracy". The point system was designed arround performance (again NOT historical accuracy) , i.e. a tank with X amount of armor would cost less than an a tank with (X+1) amount of armor all else being equal. Points have nothing to do with logistical issues or rarity factors. I stand by my statement and think you are wrong when saying the point system is historically accurate. edit: BTW, I like the way the point system is now, wouldn't have them change a thing. edit 2: also you can always agree to play the Rule of 75's and the issue is solved. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-22-2000).] [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-22-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're quoting this person out of context, what is the context? If the person had just broke through enemy defenses then his action is correct. But I severly doubt some guy was sitting on the front line and just raced forward to find germans. The german army in france broke through the French in the Ardennes and then shot armor units through, the whole of france would be called "known enemy territory". This is different than being at the front lines going against fixed defenses. And I believe it is the fundamental flaw in your understanding. In CM with every scenario you know the enemy is very close to you, a few hundred meters, this presents a very very different situation. Since you KNOW units are in this confined area the "I'm seconds away from dying" attitude is in order. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again out of context, what is the whole context? To me it sounds like he knows where an enemy is already (approximately) and wants to jump from one spot to another to gain a better firing position. But I bet you dollar to donuts that he knows that firing position is he about to get to is safe. I often jump between spots to gain firing advantage on a known enemy, going full bore. But Im not counting on my spotting capability en route and I know my position is secured from counterfire once I get there. When I do get there I would hunt forward to get a shot. Again the point you are missing the most (and it is the fundamental basis of your arguments) is that the tactics you have seen and describe don't happen when you KNOW enemy forces are in close proximity (i.e. every scenario in CM). Another point that would clearly show you that people werent racing around on the battlefield , just thinking about how far you would go racing at 30 mph for 1 minute. I believe it's about a half a mile.. I'll bet you dollar to donuts that the rate of advance (per day) of the US army when attacking prepared defenses was at MOST this far. Just MHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> With respect to your text, note that the question of whether this was done REGULARLY or not is beside the point, since you are claiming that it should not be done at all. I hope that you won't use that word to avoid eating the thread (care for some salt?) BTW, CavScout, thanks for printing out the manual text spelling out the standard way of scouting.Unfortunately this manner of scouting is usually not feasible in CM scenarios and in the situations that we are discussing. I don't think that anyon wuld scout with a jeep or halftrack if he had armored cars (at least I wouldn't). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You said "If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes." And the MANUAL for the professional soldier says exactly this but you discount it because it calls for armored cars instead (nowhere does it mention the vehicle type, only the overwatch is required and dismounted infantry should be used when when at all possible if time and terrain permits)? I'll go get you the salt.. Also you are completely ignoring the spotting issues involved. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> note that the question of whether this was done REGULARLY or not is beside the point<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it isn't, but it is so tiring typing to someone whom I feel is missing the points of at least 150 of the last 200 posts. So I will just spend my energy elsewhere. [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Also, there is something to be said about SLOW recon. A few lightly armored AFVs in front of a slowly moving to contact infantry or armored force is in fact correct for CM's scale. I do this all the time and try to remove the HTs from danger as soon as it manifests itself. In the game I just played with Dan I should have been able to had at least 2 or 3 of my 4 HTs survive the game. But I made some unlucky decisions and boom B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC Recon is supposed to "Find & Fix" the enemy, that is the way I conduct my recon. Just enough force (Amis: Usually a squad or two + M8, M20, or HT , Germans : Luch or HT + infantry) to establish and hold contact to allow the more powerful force to bring their firepower to bear in a benificial manner. If you don't have enough firepower forward it doesnt work because the enemy can overwhelm the force before the trailing units can effectively bring fire. I use a similair system to Steve except I usually keep my AFV's at best even with the infantry and usually 20-50m's behind depending on the cover. I think he must use cover better than I do because my AFV's get toasted if they get in front of the infantry. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: I see M.Bates' point here. I myself never use engineers either, and I bet most people don't. I see your point about their additional purposes, but the (only potential because you will practically never need it) mine clearing and the satchel charges IMO don't justify the increased price of these units. otherwise, I agree they should be able to clear barby wire, but again I think the practical value is lim-0 oh, and btw, the flamethrower applies to california as well, it's just that californians have to add VAT. and besides, it is not free, albeit comes cheaper, but only with some nationalities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I play QB's with the computer picking forces and it seems to buy engineers all the time so I've used them some. Engineers are very important battlefield (IRL)units but considering their is no AT trenches to cross and they can only remove 1 of the 3 obstacles given in CM I agree the usefulness is limited/non-existant and I just treat them as an infantry platoon(-1 squad). Banshee p.s. There was a thread about why engineers couldn't remove roadblocks and of the few roadblocks I have seen in footage I would agree that it would take quite some time to do (i.e. outside the time scale of CM). ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-21-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ash: Damn you and your non valid california sticker, californians are people too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm a californian, and no we are not

I do believe that this thread has caught Steve's fancy ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: Banshee, I'm afraid that you're probably right, and as I stated, this probably won't work. I do know that BTS stated some time ago that they were hesitant to create new forums. I don't believe that this was because of the amount of work involved, but it gives them yet another place to have to monitor and police. It might be better for people to just post quick 'anyone for a PBEM' threads that quickly sink to the bottom when they are no longer current. I just notice that sometimes there are several of these going at once, lately. Oh, well, we'll see what happens. Maybe BTS will come on and give us their take or preferences on this issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the moderator issue is a non-issue, A) they could give the job to any number of people, if it isnt thread about finding a PBEM (& TCP/IP later) match, then it gets locked down. I would suspect there would be several people who would be itching to lock threads (David for one, but I suspect he wants priveliges to the main forum ) ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki