Subvet

Triumvir, you make a good point. But they rank Beavis and Butthead above CM!!! :eek: :mad: I mean, come on! Is this a ranking of sales figures or of game quality? To me a game isn't great or bad because of the sales figures. But maybe I'm just weird.

Triumvir, you make a good point. But they rank Beavis and Butthead above CM!!! :eek: :mad: I mean, come on! Is this a ranking of sales figures or of game quality? To me a game isn't great or bad because of the sales figures. But maybe I'm just weird.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Read my lips. Ab-re-vi-a-tion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shouldn't that be "A-bre-vi-a-tion?"

I was never in the army or in combat. I do have a lot of experience in the dark out in the countryside though. One time two friends and I were running toward a barn. I ran straight into a pile of dirt. I did a face plant, a flip, and landed on my back on the opposite side. I was stunned and I had no idea what happened. A couple of seconds later one of my friends does the same thing and lands on top of me. A couple of seconds after that, you guessed it, number three lands on top of us. It is damn hard to see at night! I did a complete wipe out just a few yards in front of these guys and they didn't even see it happen. Another time a friend and I collided in the dark haad on at a full sprint. Man, when I recovered ehough to feel it, that was some pain! :eek: So yeah, I believe friendly fire at night was a real possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R_Leet: I own both a 7mm Mag (Ruger) and a Garrand M-1 (in pretty rough shape). The recoil of the 7mm is far more than the M-1. Part of the reason may be that the 7mm is bolt action, while the Garrand is semi-auto. Although, that said, I wouldn't want to have to fire either rifle for extended periods. Those soldiers in the PTO or Korea that had to fend off human wave attacks must have felt wounded themselves. I rarely put more than a 2 clips through the M-1 at any one time, because it is punishing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want to see some real recoil click on this If you want to see some more of these go to this website Ok, it is somewhat off topic, but I thought the people that would be interested in this thread would get a "kick" out of these movies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the exact opposite was true. I just read in "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II" that they were definitely preferred over the towed 17-pdr guns. It also says that they went on to be used in British anti-tank units until the mid-1950's. So I can confirm what the others have mentioned about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yeknod: Subvet Been meaning to ask. How'd yer get information to play games on CAL ladder (daily information from front)? Played it once, great idea. Yeknod <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're confusing the tournament house CAL ladder with something else. I can't remember the name of the thing that I think you are referring to at the moment. CAL at tournament house is pretty much the same as the regular t-house ladder but the games are played under a set of rules. You can see the rules on this web page for more info. Here is a quote from the CAL site: "The Combined Arms League is setup to offer players a league to play in that encourages tactical play style. We are trying to avoid "Powergamer" play that exploits weakness in CMBO’s game engine or force mix. When you sign on to play in CAL a set of Guidelines is in place to assist with CAL play style."

Another ladder: Tournament House Actually there are two ladders there. The regular and the C.A.L. ladder which uses special rules.

I've had good results with the Archers as well. I think a lot of people have problems with them because they simply aren't using them correctly. If you are complaining because they aren’t doing a good job against infantry 30 meters away it probably isn’t the vehicles fault. Comparing them to a firefly isn't really fair either, because people aren't taking into consideration the point difference. A regular Archer cost 99 points, a firefly goes for 164 points. The two have exactly the same gun, and both can get tungsten rounds. The Firefly obviously has an advantage with more rounds (especially HE), better armor, machineguns, a smoke mortar, transport ability, and better speed. The Archer is harder to hit, and has much lower ground pressure (which can be very important when wollowing in the mud). So yes, a Firefly is the better vehicle. But when you look at the points it isn't neccessarily the better bargain. It really depends on the situation and the player. Comparing them to a 17 lb AT gun is more fair because they are almost the same price with the AT gun at 96 points. The Archer has the advantage of mobility, and the AT gun can hide within the LOS of the enemy. Both can be taken out fairly easily, once spotted, if they stay in the same place. The AT gun can't do much about that, but the Archer can easily move. Also, you don't always have a good place to put an AT gun where it can cover all the avenues of advance. If the opponent come at you in the AT guns blind spot you're screwed. Again, the Archer can relocate fairly easily. Anyway, the Archer can be effective if you use it correctly. If you use it as a firefly or as a stationary AT gun you'll probably be disappointed, but that isn't the Archers fault.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tanq_tonic: You pay $$$$ for some type of game, most of which is an asset in an ethereal sense. Some of the assets are in the name ("Squad Leader") and some is in the copyright work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I completely agree with you on principle. Not just on the quote above, but your whole post. I just can't resist replying to the quote above though. I'd say that Hasbro has done more to reduce the asset that is the name "Squad Leader" than everyone else combined. Of course, like you pointed out, it is their right to do what they want with it. Unfortunately they used that right to run the name into the ground for a quick buck.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Has this happened to anyone else? How rare is it to see something like this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've had it happen once in awhile, although not with an AC. I've had it happen with Priests, Wespes, and Hummels. There is a problem with being able to get LOS through buildings when you get really close to them. I think this is usually what leads to the suicidal SPGs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fuerte: Still it is possible in CMBO. So CMBO should improve... it should simulate morale better. But nobody should blame players if they play like this, everything that CMBO allows is OK. And the player is that ultimate authority...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I couldn't disagree with this more. I ran into this attitude a lot playing Ultima Online. People used to exploit bugs and then claim, "Hey, the game allows me to do it so it is ok." Well, it's not ok. Sure, in a single player game nobody is going to care. But when you play another human then everything you do impacts his gaming experience to some degree. Exploiting the game system just because you can is going to make a lot of people mad or at least reduce their fun level. I'm not a hard core anti-gamey type. I don't mind a lot of the tactics people use that some dislike, and I don't mind unit purchases of pretty much anything except the unarmored AA vehicles. But there are just certain things like the jeep rush that go to far. I guess I dislike the attitude that it's ok because the game allows it even more than I dislike the tactic itself. I see it as being like the attitude that it's ok to steal as long as there is no way you will get caught. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Subvet ]

Wow! :eek: I've seen some clueless people in my life but this guy tops the list. He is now at the top of another list, the list of people that I will never play (which is a very short list by the way, with only two people on it). I'm amazed at the restraint the forum users have shown so far.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think the TacAI considers AT teams very hot items. Any unit will target them if it has an opportunity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Michael. I've had an infantry only force that insisted on targeting enemy AT teams even though there were more important (more dangerous) enemy units near by. This is why it is "gamey" to use your AT teams to draw fire. The TacAI just can't help targeting them over just about anything else. So yeah, it is a limitation of the TacAI that we just have to live with at least for now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: The M1 Garand has the same qualities as the Lee-Enfield, but gives up some accuracy in favor of semi-auto fire. Really, just a different design philosophy: The Brits (and most other major players in WW2 --- excepting the Russians) prefered that their soldiers aim their shots (bolt action rifles) and stressed marksmanship. The Yanks went for the volume of fire (semi-auto, keep the enemy's head down) philosophy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is no doubt the Enfield was a great bolt action rifle. But the Gerand was better as the main weapon for your average grunt. There is a reason armies left bolt action rifles behind. The volume of fire philosophy proved to be more effective.

Your going to download the warez version for what reason? You already paid for it, right? If it's only been a few days calm down.

Could those mice take out the big german cats?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Hehehe, anybody ever use the Russian anti-tank attack dog units in TOP2 ? -Bullethead<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is TOP2? Tigers on the Prowl? How were they modeled in that game?

What the heck is a puch??? :confused:

Ah, the lighter side of the dog mine debate, lol!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Didnt the US in the past train dolphins to detonate underwater mines? I saw a doco on it way back and cant remember any details. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The U.S. navy used dolphins, sea lions, and beluga whales. I'm not sure if they were used to detonate underwater mines, but I know they were used to locate them. They were also used for security to guard against enemy combat swimmers. They were used in Viet Nam as well as the Persian Gulf. The Soviets also used dolphins in their military.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Is this a feature of the game itself that I've not seen, or a custom-crafted way of playing I missed? DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is a program you can download and use to make the final turn random. It helps eliminate the final turn flag rush that many of us hate so much. Basically you don't know which turn is the last one until you play it. As for Louie's questions I can't answer them as I haven't used it yet. Where can we get this from?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Ooops! Not a single reply in 24 hrs. :confused: I thought this would generate at least some interest... Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, thanks for the post. It isn't that I'm not interested or not appreciative of your research, I just didn't have anything to add to it. So don't take the lack of response to mean we didn't care at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: I'd be much more scared of some vicious little lap-dog catapulted in through an open hatch somewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, especially if it landed in your lap! Talk about a critical hit on a weak spot! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: Kamakazie attacks actually were very ineffective. Their largest success was damaging one fleet carrier and two escort carriers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but that is not correct at all. They sank a few escort carriers and a bunch of other ships and damaged many ships. I'm not saying that they were hugely successful or anything, but they had more success than you imply.