-Havermeyer-

bttt

Uhh... Kong? Got the setup done yet, or are you moping cuz the game AI bought you 5 kangaroos and 12 flamethrower teams. As to hardcore... shortly I'll post you some movies that will figuratively show Kong bent over my Hummel.

I couldn't agree more with this poster. Combat Mission will never be considered good, without the following: Campaigns, "core" units, blood and body parts on the ground, B-17s, actual ships off shore, BFG9000s, magic coins, potions, scrolls, word puzzles, X-wings, real-time multi-user options, first person perspectives, sex scenes, and the chance to buy a freaking Brummbar! AND ALL IN ONE GAME FOR LESS THAN $35 (INCLUDING SHIPPING)!!!!!!!! ...Otherwise, I'm not buying it until they issue at least 1 patch, and come out with CM(pi).

Exit? Exit the Demo? Leave Combat Mission? Do people... really... quit.... this... game? ...you can bring yourself to willingly quit the game? ...I mean stop playing? ....Use your computer for something else?

You know what I really like... ...carriage returns...

Kelley's Heroes... Experts?

I hate to say it, but Juardis did an experiment such as this and reported his results. There may be an aspect you are looking for that hasn't been addressed previously (or in Juardis' work)-- but it doesn't appear so. So, I hate to say it... but... do a search (and throw Juardis in the search string...).

Working on the second round of the www.theblitz.org tourney using the WBW et al. custom scenario-- and it looks like it is gonna rock! A quality production from a group that produces some of the best scenarios out there. Thanks! Just one caveat, though... The scenario will look even better with Juardis' troops littering the field, twisted in gruesome deaths and illuminated by the hulks of his burning tanks.

....words...words...words...words... ..words...words...tungsten!... words... "For the love of Pete-- Fire the damn tungsten!" Will likely no longer be heard in my house.

If you need someone from a reserve guard to step forward and play or finish a game-- let me know! Havermeyer, out.

</rantmodeon> I could care less about what the rest of the world thinks about our election. Add-up the time I spend on the crapper this week, and in the same amount of time the US will have created most countries entire yearly GDP! An Italian commenting on the state of US governmental affairs? The National Hockey League has a longer season than the average Italian coalition government. How about the British monarchy and its syphilitic progeny? Please. This country compares itself with itself-- comparing us to two-bit Euro has-beens is laughable. Put another $5 (38 Franc) litre of petrol in your Citroen and stick the 1.5 cylinder POS where the sun doesn’t shine! </rantmodeoff> Ah...hem... back to our regularly scheduled programming. (All smiles have been hidden in the crack of Hillary Clinton's ample posterior.)

!!NOTE THE TOURNAMENT HAS ALREADY STARTED AND IS CLOSED!! What do you think of the force balance? What of the map? (The map has advantageous terrain for both participants, IMO) Which is most important when working up the tactical approach (either on O or D) in this game: 1) The initial setup? 2) The time available? 3) Rate of offensive advance? 4) Use of a fluid defense? [This message has been edited by -Havermeyer- (edited 11-16-2000).]

Try Singling Shootout. Key to the Ami Success: *MOVE* every vehicle First time I tried, 4 were immobilized and a bunch more were temporarily bogged.

****ST LO SPOILER!!! * * * * * * * * * * So this M10... did it eventually get killed since it may have gotten immobilized in a disadvantageous locale? Perhaps... on the Road to St. Lo? On the other hand, I could be mistaking it for the poor vehicle lodged behind an impenetrable wall of smoke. Immobilized by chance? [This message has been edited by -Havermeyer- (edited 11-14-2000).]

Is it dead?

I change my opinion and opt for the no flag decision. I like the idea of map exit as adding to victory, but there are numerous abuses to that as well. I hadn't thought of a game without flags, but when setting up MEs I often wish there were no flags. It would be fun to recon and respond to the enemy, rather than having an inkling as to which way they would be going. This is actually how the operation works out-- and I have found the stress involved in fighting an operation greater. In addition to asset preservation, not knowing where, how, or when you will engage the enemy adds to the excitement.

If the rear flags are balanced this shouldn't give an upfront advantage to any one party. However, the terrain may dictate that one party can't reasonably grab the other's flag... Securityguard, my apologies for driving you insane-- I guess mentally insane is better than physically?

This thread builds on that started by Pillar in Tips and Techniques, but approaches the topic of meeting engagement (ME) QBs from a different perspective. The ME usually consists of a an array of flags near midfield. This often results in a race to the middle and then a pitched battle against a combatant in a pseudo-defensive posture. This tends to limit the role of maneuvering when promulgating an attack in an ME QB. Pillar's proposition of a more methodical probe/attack is how I would rather play meeting engagements (good thread, check it out). How do you perceive ME QB strategy changing if a significant (high point value) objective flag was placed within or near each combatants' setup regions? Would this reintroduce the opportunity to maneuver? I see it providing opportunity to reward those who husband forces for counter-strikes, or who can setup a pivot/thrust, or some other offensive approach. If neither side wishes to capture the rear flag, it becomes a wash with both sides getting the same allotment of points. Likewise, terrain may dictate the rear flag as unachievable. This may result in some fairness imbalance as one player may have a better line of attack on the rear flag. But war ain't fair. I think adding the rear objective would change the way both parties align their forces by introducing a free variable. This should cause a player to unbalance forces in the setup. Judging poorly will require quick response and maneuver. Anyone see how it would be otherwise? I like the idea of an ME-- but as it stands now, I have yet to play one that doesn't devolve into a pitched attack against a hasty defensive position.

The jagdT I purchased whimsically (it must a been the scotch). The terrain is all wrong and there are too many trees and its support is shaky. I've almost made up the purchase price though with kills. One more and it will be a fine purchase. If it survives it will a force multiplier for the balance of the campaign. I am a big proponent of infantry and rarely buy the behemoths (including T and KT and JT).