Croda

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: Would it be acceptable tactics for the Confederates to use artillery crews in the assualt you mention if their cannon had been damaged or destroyed on Day 1 or 2? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well if you're fighting day 3, I'd assume you don't have that artillery. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I suppose that if I was a commander, I'd have higher expectations for a tank crew that was de-tanked. Now granted, this is a very uneducated opinion, as all I know about tank warfare I learned in CM, but I would like to see them lie low and either retreat when it was safe, or join the assault in some way when the infantry caught up to them. ------------------ "Nuts!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Go to the Peng thread, pick out someone who looks like he's a limp-wristed sissy boy who doesn't know tactics from toenails, and start insulting him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This also explains why he gets so many challenges. ------------------ "Nuts!"

Priest, we are agreed. I like the idea of moving the trucks around a lot to simulate there being more vehicles than there are. Not gamey, smart. I belive that you've got a feel for the spirit of the game, and I agree with what you are saying about new tactics. A good simulator (which we all agree CM is) allows you to not only do what you already know will work, but allows you to push limits and try new things. Because the simulator is good, it will simulate real world results to your new tactics. And that, for me, is the glory of it all: being able to recreate exactly, or totally differently a battle. Let me use a U.S. Civil War example. In the battle of Gettysburg, on the 2nd day of the battle, Lee opted to attack the Federals on a hill called Little Round Top. Regiments from Alabama assaulted this hill forever, 7 or 8 charges IIRC, but never took it, eventually succumbing to a bayonet charge by the 2nd Maine Infantry, perhaps one of the greatest moments in the war. The point is that many of Lee's Generals felt it was more prudent for him to go way around to the right, out of the sight of Northern Artillery, and take them from the extreme flank. He never did, and it may have cost the South the war. In war simulations I want to be able to go around to the right. I want to see what would have happened if. Not if I can abuse the game engine, but if I can out command the world's greatest commanders. That's what makes the game fun for me. ------------------ "Nuts!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by McAuliffe: ...An officer ?!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ya, general whatshisface. ------------------ "Nuts!"

The response from the Airborne officer in charge of Bastogne when his surrender was requested by a superior German armored force. ------------------ "Nuts!"

Jeff, isn't it great that we can support each other here, and then go blow holes in each other in another thread? Yes, you caught my point exactly. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't field an armed force consisting mostly of dismounted tankers with .45s, but in a pinch, it should not be considered an abuse of the game engine, or cheating, or gamey to use the tools that you have to win the battle. ------------------ "Nuts!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Now you will pay for your lack of vision!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Croda: Your sorceror's ways don't scare me. The Circle is now complete, I was once but the learner, but now I am the master. Now you shall see the power of this fully operational battle station! Shandorffffffff: I've got a bad feeling about this... Don't start quoting StarWars with me, young Jedi. ------------------ "Nuts!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I guess you've never met tankers if you think they are "soldiers" who know how to fight as infantry. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean? We Visual Basic programmers and tankers hang out all the time! My point is this, any soldier is a soldier when the going gets tough. If you recall from the dreadfully inaccurate movie "The Battle of the Bulge," it was ordered that mess cooks, quartermasters, bakers, staff officers, the works take up arms in the defense of Ambleve. My feeling is that a tanker holding a .45 and shooting at bad guys, is better than bad guys meeting no resistance whatsoever. Is this an extreme example? You betcha. But then again, if I remember correctly, war is an extreme measure in and of itself.

I don't know if there are any rules of engagement of any sort in this vile pool of putrescence, but shandorffffff, I'm going to enjoy beating you so much that I'd be happy to break precedent and compete against you twice, you strutting little peacock. The whipping you shall take in one game can be built upon exponentially with every other game that I am concurrently autopsying you in. And Evil Mythical Mexican Goat Boy: That is just exactly the motivation I needed to have my unarmed mortarmen charge your tanks with dirt-clumps. MaidServant? I think not! I'm going to mail the freshly extruded bowels of your men back to their families so they can hang them above their mantles in celebration of the brave fight daddy made during the war. And a few years from now, when they're all happy and cozy with their war trophy above the fireplace, I'm going to send them the pictures of me gleefully yanking said bowels from the soon-to-be-corpses, hand-over-hand. Yes, that's right, I said soon-to-be-corpses, because they will still be alive as I yank and pull and strain to tear those bowels out. And when the families get those pictures, they will cry and have a rotting, stinking, gory reminder above the mantle of you trying to claim me as your maidservant! ------------------ "Nuts!"

Tom, I appreciate your viewpoint, though mine is slightly different. (I also appreciate you bumping that thread for me, though I don't know that I'll get through all of it). My approach to the game is this: When I play CM, due to it's incredibly realistic nature (ie historical accuracy in the greatest detail wherever possible), I wonder how I would have handled these situations had I been a platoon/company/battalion commander in the ETO in WWII, and I imagine the game as a sort of "pseudo-reality" in which I can test myself. How would I have handled the Normandy Invasion? Could other battles have been fought better, and could I have won battles which were lost? This is how I play the game (and let me emphasise the 'I' as many others may not play that way, which is fine). I use this manner of thinking in all approaches to the game, and when people discuss gamey tactics, I use my mindset, and the "real environment" that I play in as the point of comparison between real and gamey tactics. With this in mind, I don't want to rush 5 jeeps at a suspected ambush sight, only to lose 5 jeeps and the lives of the men they are carrying. I see no point in it as there is surely a better, safer way to bust up that ambush. I will not use AT teams to scout, but I will set them alone in an ambush role. If a Sherman get's itself all blown up, near my lines, I try to keep the crew out of trouble. If it gets blown up in an area of contention, or behind enemy lines, where there is no fantastic avenue of retreat, then I will use them in my attack, if tactically feasible. When I was playing the demo, I was playing chance encounter as the Amis and used 4 crews together to take down some infantry...the combined power of the 4 crews at short range overpowering the already wounded enemy. So I guess I understand now why people view this as a gamey maneuver, but I happen to play the game with a standard in mind that if I deviate greatly from what I would do with the lives of real men on the line, then I have lost the point of the great simulation that has been created for us all. Hope that makes sense to you, and to everyone. ------------------ "Nuts!"

How about giving them an all armored clash in a city. All sorts of streets to navigate. "I wonder what's around that corner there..." And shandorffffffffffffff, you shut your cake whole! When are you going to learn that your mouth is for kissing my ass ONLY! and not to be used in sorry attempts to ingratiate yourself to the members of this forum through calling me a "sheep shtupper." Every here knows that PeterNZer is the only one here who has sex with sheep! ------------------ "Nuts!"

Allright everyone, I am quite confused about the gaminess (call it cheating if you like) of using vehicle crews for combat. They are soldiers, they are armed, they went through basic training...so what if they only carry a sidearm? What's the Lieutenant commanding your platoon carrying? If he's the only one left in your Platoon HQ, do you retreat him because it's gamey to only fight with a sidearm? Are crews tougher to kill than normal infantry? Who gives a damn if they fight it out? I'd like for someone to give me a decent reason why it is considered so heretical to use those crews. I can understand wanting to keep a sniper, mortar, AT team, FO out of harm's way when they've exhausted their ammo, because they have nothing left to fight with, but vehicle crews can fight back. I'd appreciate an explanation from one of our resident gameiness experts. ------------------ "Nuts!" [This message has been edited by Croda (edited 10-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I sincerely doubt Croda has ever scored with something that was not inflatable... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well close...they were certainly full of something when I was done with them. And Shandorffffff or jshandorfffff, or jgoshagacattttttt, the reason I sent you the same file back was because after watching the movie and seeing your troops pulled apart like patients in a Civil War field hospital, I thought you may want a do-over; a chance to make your moves again, perhaps with thought behind them this time. I take it you don't. I'll gladly resend your file this evening. ------------------ "Nuts!"

I'm gone for two hours and you all start talking about my crank. What's the deal with that? And cute little YK2 wasn't even a part of the conversation. And PawBroon! That is the last time I take a leak with you around...peeking over the wall again! I am sending all of your turns out now. A few of them have so much carnage in them that they may explode in your mailbox, so be careful...except for you shandorffffff. You just open yours up real fast like... ------------------ "Nuts!"

Jeff, it's nice to know that somewhere, there is someone who think like I do...and no it's not the hog receptionist either. ------------------ "Nuts!"

You bloody ape, I await your pathetic advance of troops mewling "I can't see, Sarge. Do you think they'll shoot us even if we can't see {BLAMMO} ARGGHHH!!! I'm HIT!!! My eyes! He shot me in my eyes! Momma! Momma! Please help me! The sunuvabitch shot me in my eyes!!" Sarge: Did anyone see where that shot came from?" Corporal Dip****: "Nope...maybe from over there where that snickering's coming from, it's kind of dark over {BLAMMO} Oh F*CK! My goddamm spleen is leeking onto the ground. MEDIC!!! MEDIC put my damn spleen back in! Momma!" Sarge: Did anyone see where that shot came from?" Lather, Rinse, Repeat. ------------------ "Nuts!" [This message has been edited by Croda (edited 10-18-2000).]

you sure you surrendered and didn't request a cease-fire? ------------------ "Nuts!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu: ...a consciousness raising seminar on the rights of lesbian vampires <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean there isn't really a seminar on lesbian vampires? ------------------ "Nuts!"

Speaking of wayward Cesspooligans... MEEKS GET YOUR UGLY MUG BACK IN THE POOL WHERE IT BELONGS! There's even a woman in there now. Times have changed and the veterans are getting soft, so get your vile visage back in the vat of versimilitude where it belongs! ------------------ "Nuts!"

HAR! ------------------ "Nuts!"

I hate to be an ugly American, but is this movie in English, or will the DVD version be subtitled? ------------------ "Nuts!"

I think I may have to add that to my sig file. --- I helped pop YK2's cherry! Won't my wife be proud. and Go berst your bubble, you talking to me with that large fonted salute? ------------------ "Nuts!"

I think so. The Video processor has to account for everything on the screen. The simpler the graphics, the easier to process and the higher the detail can be. The more involved the graphics get, the more there is to keep track of, and the less detail that can be handled. Think of it this way, if you play a 5,000pt QB on a large map, look at how long it take between turns for the PC to get the movie generated. Much of that is due to handling of all the 3d objects on the screen. Small maps have less to deal with, thus quicker processing. There's my take on it, though I'm sure there's someone here who can explain it better. ------------------ "Nuts!"

You know, the Cesspool used to be so clean-minded...now that there's a woman present it's full of nothing but sexual connotations and innuendo. Where has the world gone to? PawBroon, are you and I the only sane ones left? Ah, what the hell.. Take it off! Take it all off! ------------------ "Nuts!"

By the way, I stumbled on a little piece of info stating that yesterday was the all-ugly Meeks' birthday (no idea which one). I earnestly suggest that each and everyone one of you send him a happy birthday email wishing him maggots in his corn flakes for the year to come, and berating the little turd for daring to claim the cesspool in his own name. emeeks@oilbased.com ------------------ "Nuts!"