Reaper

Chuckle. Ok, anyone care to actually answer the question? Maybe if I reworded it to "authenticity" the class clowns would sit back down? BTW, watch your back. I have you sighted in with a feld grau pair of trousers, and I'll give you both barrels if you're not careful. Wise-asses! Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey all. First, thanks for the new MDMP-2 MadMatt! I love the vehicles. My question here is which of the German winter uniform mods is more historically accurate (if either of them is at all)? The few pics I have seen of winter uniforms have been Heer, and they were plain white coats. I really liked the last winter uniform mod, but I wasn't sure how accurate the SS and airborne unit's camo patterns were. The MDMP winter camo seems rather dull (not poorly done, just subdued). If they are the more accurate uniforms though, that is what I will continue to use. Thanks for any insight. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey, As was said above, war is the continuation of politics by other means. It is the direct result of two reasoning groups of people failing to agree. In simplistic terms, think of two tribes on either side of a wheat field. Both feel they have a right to the wheat, and both MAY be correct. For a time they can split the field and thirve. But there comes a time when both tribes have grown, and now they require more of the wheat field to sustain themselves. Since both tribes face the same problem, and there is only one field, they are at an impass. Both need the wheat; both have rational reasons why the wheat should be theirs; but the reality is that there is only so much wheat (land) and both sides can't afford to share. Result: violence. As humans have evolved, the equation may have changed values (substitute gold or land or religious differences for wheat), but the result is always the same. The most expedient and long lasting way to resolve these types of conflicts is to remove the opposing group, permanently. A phrase I coined while taking military history in college was "Anyone who says violence doesn't solve anything has never been killed in a dispute." It really boils down to space. There is only so much of it, and some parts are better than others. Every group feels entitled to their own "space" but if its all taken already, they have to fight the current tenants for it. This could be for food, prosperity, freedom to pursue an ideal, etc... Obviously this is boiled down to almost inconsequential levels on this forum, and this is a subject which has filled volumes of text over the years, but that is my super-simplified take on war. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Shamelessly moving my post to the top, hoping it doesn't get lost amid the hamster chatter before it dies. Anyone? Bueller? =) Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Thanks for the quick responses. So the '+' is basically what I thought it was (thus the 2 extra tons on the weight along with the higher armor values). I am curious about the armor angle remaining constant with these +Models. I have encountered several illustrations in my web search for Sherman information that displayed catastrophic results caused by that field modification. Many of the illustrations showed that the modified armor was closer to 0 degrees which upped the chances of penetration (http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/bd/bd.htm) [click the link under M4 Sherman (Wibrin) for an example]. In the game there is no variation in angle between the '+' and non-plus models. Oversight? Abstraction? Just continuing to be curious. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey all, So I know my German armor inside and out, but I know very little about the various U.S. tanks (beyond the basics). Can anyone illuminate the 'W' and 'W+' designations at the end of some of the U.S. tank names in the game. The best info I have been able to find so far on the web is that it might mean 'wet' for wet stowage. What was this, and why do the vehicles with this designation have such heavy armor on the hull sections compared to those without. Were vehicles with this mystery designation common, or were they some sort of field refit? I'd like to get an idea of how often they saw action against German armor compared to their more generic kin. Thanks in advance for any insights. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey, Hrmmm, I always use officers to designate, and target with MG teams. That works fine. I am at work and don't have my manual on me, but can MGs set Ambush markers during the game or only during Setup? Maybe that is the issue? Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey, We are in a 2000 point battle, so 50 turns just seems to give the attacker excessive time to overwhelm the defenders at leisure. The other issue is that you never know what your map will look like. I've yet to see a QB with a river in it. I am only talking about QBs here, and I can definitely see having very long games in set scenarios, such as taking a bridge. What about the size of the map? Do most of you use small, medium, etc... Once again, thanks for any insights. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey, Only officers can designate an Ambush point. Units under the officer's command can then Target the Ambush point to join. Then Hide the units and sit back and wait. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan

Hey all, I'm new to the board, so "hello". I've recently started playing PBEM and I had a question for the old timers about game length. A game I'm involved in right now (no, this isn't a dig erazor!) is set to 50 turns for an Attack QB. This struck me as severely favoring the attacker (who already has more points). So it got me thinking about the average length of time/size of game ratio. Is there a "standard" for game length/size (10 turns per 1000 points) or something similar to use as a rule of thumb for QBs? I ask because I would like to avoid any accusations of gamesmanship that are unfounded. I like to think of myself as the direct opposite of a "gamey" player, but my experience in this area is lacking. If there is some sort of formula, are there adjustments to make for the type of game (Attack, Meeting Engagement, etc.)? Is adding weather and ground condiditions considered gamey in QBs? I could see things like Damp favoring the defender in an attack, whereas Clear and Dry seems to favor the attacker. I did search the archives on this subject but didn't turn up anything particularly relevant. And as a final note I would like to congratulate BTS on an excellent game (I've brought 3 friends into the fold already when they saw me playing!). Thanks for any insights or advice. Reaper ------------------ "We're in business, definitely!" Mike, Saving Private Ryan