This Todd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland: The faces on the two pictures are different. Of course, I know why none of you noticed that! Jonathan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Better check the prescription on your glasses again. Both pictures are clearly the same person. -- Todd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The Lord General is fortunate indeed that he is less significant than annoying; to coin a phrase, "not merely dull, but a source of dullness in others". He benefits from appearing at a moment of crisis, so that his pretentious drivel may be overlooked. Compared to whatever a "This Todd" is, he is positively readable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hm. Well, see, I felt that my post was quite easy to read. Succinct. Short. To the point. However, in the future I'll attempt to use shorter words with fewer syllables for your benefit. Never overestimate the readers. -- Todd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: ..Well as any smoker will tell you...nobody likes a quiter <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nobody likes a whiney lamer with an inflated sense of self worth either. But that never stopped you, did it? -- Todd

Are you the young, hip-swinging Elvis, or are you the old, fat, drugged-out Elvis? I'm just curious. :/ -- Todd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina: So what you are saying is that you flew of at the deep end, slagged off your oponnent publicly, dragged him thru the mud kicked him while he was down and then decided to check and see if it was an accident or not ......Hmmmm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, come on now. I never mentioned his name, and the point of the post had far less to do with attacking him than with: a) criticizing those who turn off fog of war for multiplayer games INTENTIONALLY, and offering suggestions for how CM could prevent accidents and/or differences in philosophy from wasting PBEMers' time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Time to calm down, relax, take a chill pill and be happy The best way to settle it would be to send him a new setup and make sure you win.....or lose and be forever sorry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't mind if I win or lose. It's wasting over an hour setting up a stillborn game that really bothers me, mistake or not. Now I'll go back to my other fully fogged PBEM games whose settings I know nothing about other than what I'm told. -- Todd

It could indeed have been by accident. The individual in question seemed surprised to hear about the fog of war setting in e-mail. Which again begs the question... wouldn't some feature showing the settings be nice? It could have prevented us both from wasting our time setting up. -- Todd [This message has been edited by This Todd (edited 11-01-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: Hindsight, of course, but I strongly recommend you spell out the rules for PBEM before you start. It does save a lot of bruised feelings down the road.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The rules were spelled out pretty well... we'd agreed on terrain, the type of attack, the number of points, etc. That it would utilize at least partial fog of war seemed like a no brainer. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to the why, only your opponent can answer that. Perhaps he inadvertently set it that way. Ask him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know if it was inadvertent at this point. Yet another reason, though, why it would be nice to see those settings ex post facto. In case of an error like that, it would save everyone the time of placing units only to discover that the settings are incorrect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Explain to him you just don't play that way. If he can't accept that, you probably don't want to play him anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well of course I don't want to play him with settings like that. I was wondering, actually, why anyone would want to play a multiplayer game with fog of war off. It turns CM into QM... Quake Mission. There's a whole lot of mindless death, but there's not a whole lot of strategy. I'll avoid playing a PBEM with this individual in the future, but the time was already invested in setting up units. That was my biggest gripe. -- Todd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by securityguard: i did after i read your post -sg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank goodness you felt the need to spend more time commenting on it. Do you actually have anything constructive to add to this, or are you just trying to increase your post total? -- Todd

Securityguard, it's apparent from your post that you're someone who doesn't mind wasting your time. Too bad we aren't all that way. -- Todd

Why exactly would someone ever want to play with no fog of war in a multiplayer game? I ran into someone tonight (who shall remain unnamed) who wasted my time by having me set up a 2500 point attack. With all of the units at my disposal, it took quite a long time to place them all. I eagerly load up the PBEM file and... I see every single one of his infantry, tanks, vehicles, artillery, guns, and more. He apparently failed to mention that this was a game w/o any fog of war... not even partial. Why would ANYONE set up a PBEM game like this? It doesn't force realistic tactics, and it's not fun. Since I know where all of his infantry are hiding, I can just have any of my five 81mm spotters (yeah, five... hehe) to blast him off the map. Very exciting. If I may, I'd like to suggest a new feature for CM2 or for future versions of CM: a way for the person who doesn't set up a PBEM game to see all of the settings. That is, at the setup stage it would be nice to see a simple list explaining that it's a medium-sized attack game with moderate forest, few hills, and it's set in a rural area. It would also list whether or not attackers or defenders have bonuses or penalties as well as the fog of war setting. This way a PBEM opponent knows immediately whether or not to invest the time to play. Thanks, Todd

Well, there you have it, MadMatt. Kitty and I are playing the latest version of the Team DeSobry operation, and we're still running into strange start lines. As well, Kitty seems to be running into this problem quite a bit in almost all defensive operations, not just this one. Is this a bug? Or an undocumented feature which can be explained? It's a real bummer to successfully defend what the operation instructions told you to defend, only to be penalized for not having aggressively expanded territory by recklessly attacking superior numbers. -- Todd

D'oh! I'm not sure which version we're playing. Kitty, do you remember where we got this scenario? -- Todd

<punt> Just ran into this same problem tonight while playing a PBEM Ardennes-Team DeSobry campaign. As Allies, I'd narrowly but successfully held off the Axis advance from three different directions in the first battle. Some of the Axis troops advanced to close to Noville from the Southeast, but they were held in check or repulsed by a firmly entrenched Engineer squad, a light machinegunner, and some light tanks. Next comes nighttime and snowfall and I find all of my troops/tanks/reinforcements BEHIND Noville, forcing me to make a mad dash for the city to reestablish my previous defensive positions. The result? I get ambushed by a bunch of Germans who've now occupied the buildings I had, just a turn earlier, filled with Allied troops. This was an unpleasant turn of events considering I'd just spent the entire previous battle sacrificing troops and tanks PREVENTING the Axis from taking the city. Seems almost like a wasted effort in retrospect. Is this typical of campaigns where someone must play defender? Would higher ups have somehow called for a general withdraw to reorganize troops despite the surviving troops maintaining excellent defensive positions? In other words, is there a good reason for CM giving up this territory to the Axis, or is this some wackiness in how it figures out boundaries for campaigns? Inquiring minds want to know. -- Todd

Is there nothing that someone, somewhere is not offended by? The very thought offends me! Poor taste isn't illegal, Mr. Bates... if it was, you'd have been locked away years ago. -- Todd