CavScout

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pford: For example, I know for a fact that there is intellegent life on Titan. Now please prove me wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good one. The dificulties of proving the negative...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knaust: oh well guys!...CC2 (CC3 and more are a little ****ty) is completely different from CM...but as a former Cases Ladder #1 I can say that CC2 is a very good adhrenaline game! No adhrenaline in CM but it is more realistic and can simulate a batallion level battle very well. So I enjoy playing CC2 as well as CM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why does everyone prefer CC2 over the others? IMO, I prefered CC4... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. T: Wow your right! I mean, not liking CM and all is a little weird I suppose, although still believable. But the 14M being huge thing! Something strange is going on here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Huge" is all relative to you modem speed. On the 'ol 56K I'd of probably skipped it as well. On cable nothing stops me.

Great post Colonel_Deadmarsh. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: The East front had most of the coolest gear and weapons for both sides. Which side do you think you'll play the most?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends... what year? Not going to be fun taking IIIs and IVs against those mean 34s... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: 13. The US Army had more ships than the US Navy. I'd like to see some proof of that. I might accept that the Army had more transport ships than the Navy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It really comes down to what one calls a ship. Even today, the US Army has more aircraft than the US Air Force. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by der Bob: See what I mean? Poor RMC writes what any reasonable person (English- or German-speaking) should instantly recognize as sarcasm, and obviously he thinks CM is a great game, whereas Sudden Strike (whatever that is) is more-or-less a suboptimal vehicle for selling useless crappy souvenirs. What happens to him because of his message? He gets the CM fanatics to declare "Jihad" on him for being a "troll"! Would you guys please take it easy? RMC: I apologize for the absence of senses of humor in many of this board's members. der bob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortuantly true... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: CavScout - I think the point is, why would you go to a forum dedicated to a game and say that you thought the game was boring and uninteresting? Since, logically, the people on the board actually like the game, you're not going to do much good except to get people annoyed. It's not as if Steve and Charles will suddenly say, "Good god, he's right! We'll get cracking on that RTS patch right away!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want a company to make a product more to your liking it would make sense to post on their forums with what you dislike about their current product. BTS doesn't need a bunch of "yes men" on their boards, they need true opinions. You may, as I do, disagree with the poster but that is no reason to attack. This should[n't] be a "you agree with me or you're against me" forum. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-05-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: Facts are: (iv) you're a troll, looking for a flamewar! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sometimes I wonder who is really the "troll"... the person giving an opinion that is not popular or the ones who who attack that person for it. I think calling someone a "troll" for no reason is "trolling" in its own right... If you think his opinon wrong, state why. His post wasn't mean spirited or inflammatory. It was a statement of why he didn't like the game. CavScout ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

Man... people are much to quick with slinging "troll" about... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I may add that protecting one's flanks was more of an issue in larger battles than what is modeled in CM; at this scale, except for recon missions, the position of enemy strength was generally known. And when assaulting a strongpoint, it was generally not an issue at all, since by definition, a strongpoint is isolated. -Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did I read this right? "..protecting one's flanks was more of an issue in larger battles than what is modeled in CM..." Who or what is on your flanks is important as far down to the platoon level. CAV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I'm getting a little tired of always seeing hugging the map edge as the example of "gamey" playing, which should be forbidden, and it has even been suggested that if your pbem opponent does this, you should not play him again (after a suitable warning if you are so inclined). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortuantly in real life you have no positivly secure flanks. You could have afriendly unit advancing or it could be an enemy there. Also, there is no barrier to movement through the flank. One may have a "lane" to remain in but you can still move across it if need be. Flanking is not "gamey", have a flank that is 100% safe is. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Check6: Prairie grass fires (only when dry, I suppose) are actually just about impassable to men because of the density of flammable material and resulting intense flame and heat. The hot air itself would burn a man... imagine opening up your oven when it's on the self-cleaning cycle and putting your head near the door for five or ten seconds. Once a grass fire gets going it is really intense. And as for tanks - I know that I would drive through any kind of flames more than six inches high with the greatest hesitation. I think the grease on the treads would catch very easily. And if you start burning anywhere you're very screwed. It's my opinion that the representation of fire areas is very decent. However, a couple things: Could small fires go out after a bit? Could roads be prevented from catching fire? I think that that is certainly rather unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know... I was part of many a fire crew stomping out grass fires on the firing ranges... Secondly, I don't think the grease is that flamable... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Tanks are all metal, leaking oil and what-not from underneath the engine compartment. Stick a iron bar into a fire for a minute then grab it. -johnS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not advocating parking in it... driving through it. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: CavScout, you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. =) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't know about that... drove my Bradley through a few grass fires... Anyways, this was a ROAD. You should be able to haul butt through it, IMO. Cav

Why can't your tanks drive through flames? I understand it with infantry... but tanks? Some how in the current OP I am in, the road has caught fire and I can't move out. Both sides are covered in woods... requiring back-tracking way to far to continue... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarlXII: I'm having a bit of a problem with my Shermans. I've flanked a village with a pillbox in it. The firing arc of the pillbox is towards the front of the village. My infantry and tanks are now rolling in from the side. Still the Shermans pop smoke and back away when in LOS of the pillbox. I am certain that there are no other enemy AT assets nearby and that the pillbox is unable to fire at them. This is in a v1.03 PBEM game so maybe it's fixed by now but I can't remember reading anything about it. Is this a bug then? I'll be happy to recieve any thoughts on the subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've by-passed pillboxes and had my tanks firing 180 degrees to the rear smoke at them. Irritating when there is enemy to the front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrD: It is no coincidence that the largest tank battles took place relatively early in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No doubt. As someone pointed out the increase in infanty anti-armor weapons knocked the tank from its earlier perch. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jpinard: I'm in a winter scenario and half my tanks are bogged down and immoblized by the snow. How can I get them moving again?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've been able to back-out of bogs. cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: No, I am second guessing the decisions made by a relatively small number of American generals who insisted that the heavier vehicles that were already designed were not needed. You should do a little study on this issue, instead of blindly insisting that everything the US did in WW2 was the numero-uno, number one, not to be questioned best idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And I would ask the same of you. You simply deny the success of the Sherman. That the tank was able to enter service in 1942 and last throughout the war shows that it had success. BTW, your atatck that the US refused to use the British 17 pounder is unfounded. "The US Army tried to acquire the 17 pounder, but British ordance factories were working to capacity and unable to supply." [Forty. <u>World War Two Tanks</u>. Page 139.] Who needs to study? Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: "The "infantry support tank" concept changed as weapons changed. Even the Germans were 'late' on the scene with the Panther. You think those short barrel IVs were made to fight tanks?" Well, duh. That is the point. The differnce being that the Germans and Soviets figured that out in 1942, and the US figured it out in 1944. THAT IS MY POINT!!! Everyone else (even the bloody Brits) had realised that this idea that you ahd infantry tanks and anti-tank tanks was not going to work , simply because your opponent is rarely so accomadating as to only attack where you expect him to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The above all continued to make infantry support tanks with primary HE loads. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You'll notice that the method of transportation has changed in the mid-term as well. ... You'll notice it took MONTHS for a sizeable U.S. force of armor to build up in the Gulf. You're comparing apples and oranges. Actually, you are doing a great job of proving my point. It might have taken months to build up the Gulf forces, and maybe some of that ahad to do with the weight of the M1. I am not convinced that ti si true, but lets assume it for arguments sake.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I think the US could have designed and biult a vehicle similar to the Panther without the Panthers problems. The Panthers problems were very much a result of the inefficient German procurement system. I guess I just have more faith in American know-how than you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes so much faith in "American know-how" that you sit here second guessing them. Odd way to measure faith. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Exactly CavScout... its a recon mission. You dont go on recon lugging around a bazooka and ammo. Snipers and half-teams would be a better idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, losing the bazooka would be bad... but I suppose another question is how did the bazooka get close enough to kill an enemy tank? Was the tank out without infantry support? That's not exactly smart either... Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Cav, almsot every single response to my post was a strawman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hardly... because you can not or will not back-up something does not make my point a "strawman". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I *never* said that American tank crews had high casualties compared to the Germans. That would be stupid, since there are too many other variables to make such a comparison meaningful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Then what were you comparing them to? You simply imply the Sherman is a bad tank because of its crew casualties. When asked how those rates compared to other tanks you say it doesn't matter. Funny, the rates in the Sherman are important in respects to its effectivness but aren't in regards to other tanks... you were talking about a "strawman"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You brought that up, so excuse me if I refrain from defending an argument I did not make. I did say that in comparison to the available tanks, the crews were usually the limiting factor. You can read about Shermans sitting in depots in Britain because there are no crews for them, or Shermans being crewed by hastily trained replacements who did poorly once they got into a fight. Clearly a more survivable vehicle would address some of those issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have shown there were more tanks than crews, hardly a test of the tanks worthiness. At most you show the tank was over-produced. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: You two men, take a bazooka and a radio, advandance deep into enemy lines without any support and radio back all troop movements. Oh and if you see any tanks take them out. I know you will surely both die soon afterwards cause you have no support, but hey you may get a tank and help win the war. YEAH SURE, thats not gamey, highly realistic wartime move that one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a recon mission to me... While the two man bazooka team may not be the best choice, the two man one is. Recon is best performed with "the fewer, the better" in mind. Cav