M. Bates

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>sorry but its the truth. Nothing helps cowards. But you know that dont you? Yahoooooooooooooooooooooooooo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How odd. I don't get this topic, I mean was anyone really questioning whether blacks served in WW2? I can't see how or why someone would do that unless they had an agenda or something. You can't say that the black soldiers were inherently more "cowardly", I expect that low morale or poor leadership are the major factors. I wouldn't fight so well if I had a racist superior and I was thousands of miles from home.

Toad, I looked at the page and it seems like everything is in place for some great games. I hope that the players will post some AARs to the forum for everyone to digest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Per the second to last rule: I have nothing but the deepest of respect for Great Britain, especially since I just finished reading "A Bridge Too Far", and totally admire Frost and his men on the bridge. I do think friendly rivalry, and I do mean friendly, will add to the experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, no offence taken, friendly rivalry is fine by me!! The winner can have the choice of a British or French beef sandwich.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see on his ladder that only the Netherlands and Arizona are signed up so far<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Toad, what's this Group Ladder? I am already playing games for Rugged Defense, but I didn't see anything on the front page for any new tournaments (surely the 2000 tournament is in progress). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FYI: I live in Boston, and play a turn a night on three PBEM games. I would love to add another Group game. Personally, as a Bostonian, I feel it is my duty to challenge the British Group immediately. However, there is no British group at the moment, which I find very peculiar. Did the tea party thing scare you guys off? Get your act together England! Paul Revere rides again!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's about time you colonial types got a good pasting seeing as you haven't lost any wars that I can think of!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While your picture is amusing, and I always appreciate any cheap shot taken at SlapDragon (just kidding), I think it appropriate to point one thing out. A little while ago Kitty posted some 'modified' Hampster and Cat pictures in an effort to bring some humor to our little community and someone ... I don't exactly remember who .... really got on her case for vandalizing the images of soldiers who may have fought and died during WW2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I remember that, in retrospect I was stupid on that. BUT this is a real life picture which was smuggled out of a top secret bunker, honest!!

This was taken, er, near the Great Parisian Offensive in August 1945. The brave fellow pictured here died when his Chinese-made King Tiger crashed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One other thing, in long range tank battles, I've noticed that if my tank happens to be Hull Down, for example, just below the crest of a hill, the enemy tank its targetting also comes up Hull Down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a known bug. As to the rest of your message, it seems that most people find the Computer to be poor on the offensive, but much better on the defensive. I hope this helps.

That's much better than the old one. If another Allied country uses the Jumbo, will the stars still be on the side?

It HAS to be the Jagtiger, no argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're shooting at the ground! THE GROUND I TELL YOU! NOT THE OTHER PANTHER! Get serious, set up a serious test and people will take what you say seriously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I might be shooting at the ground BUT THERE IS A MASSIVE TANK RIGHT ON TOP OF IT. I did not know that friendly units are invincible. Seems silly when in the real war an amount of soldiers were killed by their own side accidently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are doing a test, but you need to do a statistical sample and base the sample on the question "how accurate are German tanks in CM?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I already have!! 2 Panthers, 50 metres from each other and with varying targets but always aimed at killing the other tank. I bet that no one on this forum can conduct a similar test and suceed in destroying just one Panther over the course of 60 turns. Is anyone out there up to the challenge and able to post screenshots to the forum??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, I recommend *Not* using the hunt command when hunting jumboes. Why not? Usually the hunt command results in both vehicles being hull down to each other, and hull down jumboes are impossible to kill. Instead, I use view 1 and manually find routes of advance and hull down positions, then use the move command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh my God, an enemy Sherman Jumbo in some kind of hull down position does not bear thinking about!! Still, their 75mm ain't much to think about against my tank of choice, a Tiger.

Has anyone ever killed a Sherman Jumbo, with its front facing you with anything other than an 88mm? Even with 88mm I get lots of front turret deflections (understandable). Any help on tactics here? It's tricky if not impossible to out flank Allied tanks with German tanks ON AVERAGE, understand, since the Allies have nice fast turrets which does not help. The Sherman 75 seems to be something which Allied players can park on a hill and let it get shot at from the front without sweating much!!

Not only is there a minor problem with long range engagements, but get this: As a test I set up two German Panthers 50m from each other. Each Panther was given a ground target which was directly where the other Panther was. After 20 turns, all that had happened was that the Panthers had immobilised each other AT POINT BLANK RANGE. It was as if they were firing THROUGH each other at the ground!!

Not bad, actually. F***ing would have made it clearer but less forum friendly

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometime back, I made the suggestion that we should have the "Vehicles" column divided into "Transport Vehicles" (trucks, unarmed jeeps, basic model halftracks) and "Armed Vehicles", placing the up armed HTs there, and a new column called either "Light Armor" or "Recon Vehicles". In the latter case, some of the stuff that may be eligible for "Armed Vehicles" would go into "Recon".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! That sounds exactly right. I think that the current system of categorisation contains a few, but not many, anomalies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Use view 1, it's the only way to see some of the little hummocks and depressions which can hide infantry from a tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is very true about the ground depressions. But if my infantry is getting molested by tanks, then my plan has probably gone badly! I mostly use infantry to keep larger numbers of enemy infantry away from victory locations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do - I start by buying infantry and arty, leftovers to be divvied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it works for you then I cannot argue with that. But I always have the suspicion that if I can knock out some or all of the enemy's tanks, that I can go on to win. The anti-tank capabilities of infantry in CM are limited in that the terrain is not varied enough for infantry to get close to tanks regularly. As to what Tankersley said, well I think that the halftracks could be included with armour in a new category with a different name.

First of all, if you are looking for a troll, then look at one of my earlier posts, because this is a serious point. Recently I have been playing PBEM opponents where they use Greyhounds as light tanks, by harassing infantry and destroying buildings, and suchlike. Also, I have has some success against the AI by using Greyhounds by German 75mm halftracks against the computer forces. So my argument is that these vehicles should be listed under "Armour", or "Armor" depending on your origin. I don't know what definition of armour has been used, and it is certainly better than any definition I can come up with, but take the halftrack armed with a 75mm gun (251/9 I believe). It's armour plating makes it impregnable to infantry arms fire, except of course for bazookas, but then that is true for all tanks. It's 75mm gun can destroy any Allied tank, with a side shot there is no doubt at all, and I find it is ideal for ambushes. It can also reduce buildings to rubble. The Greyhound with its 40mm can also do great damage with its fast turret with great speed. To finish then, I realise that if someone is maxxing out on armour and then supplementing this with mobile tank-busting support, they are missing out on some other area. To counter that I would say that who ever spends less than their limit on armour in the first place? Very few players I would imagine. ------------------ "War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker." - Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

Problem is, WW2 Online will cost X amount of money to play each month, and a lot of people may not be prepared to pay that. It would be nice to have a "sector" type WW2 game that does not have to be paid for every month. If there was a way of publishing 4 inter-linked Combat Mission maps, with roads which are common to each map or something, then this would be a kind of multi-player Combat Mission.

M. Hofbauer, before you have studiously and nastily picked apart an innocent PBEM topic started by me, simply requesting PBEM games. And now you are picking on Rob/1, you must be really proud. Below are a selection of M. Hofbauer's friendly comments: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a chatboard ?? now there's a concept...and it's called oxymoron. btw congratulations, your unceasing efforts finally paid off, you made the signature list of epochal statements. ------------------ "Rule#7: All players must follow the rules." (Rob/1) thanks for sharing this with us, Rob. However, I am a little bit puzzled because your great page says quote: ------- Full rule list is now posted.And there are only 3 postions left in the campaign so if you wont to get in on it now is the time. Postions still avalibe 4 Allied PT.HQS, 3 Axis PT.HQS All Axis postions are full. -------- so, how many positions are avalibe? all axis positions are full, yet there are three open. add to that the 4 open allied positions, and you get the "only 3 positions left" as your opening line suggests. Aha. So that's why all positions are full. I hope your posting of this thread will spare you the masses of emails that surely rocked your email account. Luckily you made this post, otherwise all those aplications would've blasted your storage limit. thanks for starting all those mega-post threads on this board, I think they are really important. are you using 3 x 2 km maps? that should be funny... maybe they even find each other some turn if you make it a 70-turn hide-and-seek...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, RE: the Battle of Berlin. Well, there's a good reason this wasn't included in a game about the Western Front - the Russians captured Berlin The Western Allies weren't directly involved in the Battle of Berlin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Damn, brain meltdown!! I had just finished a book on the Battle of Berlin as well <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, D-day is dull. go make your own scenario if you really dig it, (or try one off the net). I mean, as germans, you sit there trying to kill everything, which means not moving and hardly touching hte units. As the allies you just run guys up a beach and hope they don't die.. well don't die much. How fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, the first 25 minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan were so boring weren't they!! C'MON with an even better graphics engine, I would for one would love a D-Day simulation. Mark my words: when the Meditarranean Front game comes out, people will be making many, many D-Day scenarios!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And incidentially while D-Day was probably *one* of the most important days in the Second World War, there is no logical argument that can be made that it was *THE* most important day or battle of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why I said this: "D-Day is arguably one of,"

I think that there should be another Western Front 44-45 game in a few years time for these reasons: 1) This is probably everyone's favourite theatre of battle, and a new game would benefit from an improved graphics system and better play mechanics. 2) D-Day has not been simulated in full 3D yet, and is an omission of this game. D-Day is arguably one of, if not the most important days in WW2 and so I would like to play it using a CM-like engine. Whether any other game company simulates D-Day in 3D is up to them, but if they did it would probably be a click-and-fire style game like Close Combat, rather than the grand overview provided by Combat Mission. 3) The battle for Berlin was missing from this game. If included in a future Combat Mission, the new 3D buildings which are sure to come would be ideal for Berlin, and all kinds of interesting sub-missions involving the bunker breakout could be concocted. 4) There are other factors which I am sure other people can think of but which I have not listed here. Anyway, just my opinion

Turn limits are annoying but necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the order is already completed and you've changed your mind, click on the unit, then click the final movement "cube" way-marker, then hit backspace. You can backspace repeatedly to delete several waypoints this way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You don't even need to select the cube, just press delete/backspace to remove the latest waypoint.

Looking forward to the photos. Also... this is from the Bovington Tank Museum's website (www.tankmuseum.co.uk). The Restoration of The Tiger We have been awarded a grant of nearly £97,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund towards the restoration of our historic World War 2 German Tiger tank. The work will be carried out in Bovington at ABRO (Army Base Repair Organisation) and will take about 12 months. The project will complement our existing programme of attractions which is unrivalled in the southern region. All our visitors will appreciate the public benefits of this project since both the indoor and outdoor aspects of our site are accessible for wheelchairs. Technical quality is assured since the work will be accomplished to the highest standards by two firms with the best experience in the field; subsequent maintenance will be undertaken by our own workshops where staff have proven ability in the operation of historic armoured vehicles.

Well, that can happen. I would tend to say that rushing at turn 23 out of 25 is very gamey. I don't give a stuff about gamey tactics generally, but rushing towards the end is unsporting and ungentlemanly.