seal7

"you" being generic handle as well... Why "should" you run a search before asking a simple question? Maybe they'd rather play CM than dick around searching through posts when one of the CM Gods can answer their question quickly and easily? For that matter, how do you know they aren't trying to get an expanded answer on the subject matter found in their search? Maybe <gasp> they just don't have the Puma-like mental quickness of the typical CM player and are trying to get help? Instead of abusing newbies asking what might be an inane question to you from the depths of your infinite wisdom and CM prowness...how about either ignoring them or trying a civil answer? If you're gonna waste time making an abusive post, why not use the time to answer the fricking question instead? What's the point of having resident CM Gods if they don't exercise a little benevolent omnipotence occasionally? Subjective opinions like your examples...yeah, they're "fair game" in my non-searched opinion. By the same token though, I'm sure you can find a post where someone opined that "Germans kick butt ect.", and the reply has been to "search the archives cuz "joe smucko" conclusively proved that this was wrong in a post 4 months prior as everyone knows".

Example: "Flowers are nice". Posters would need to run a search on flowers and then itemize the reasons they agree/disagree with so and so, and whatzisname in posts # this, and post #that on thread such and such before their opinion gets a "better reception"? Maybe they're trying to state a simple subjective opinion and "join the community", not write a doctoral thesis in defense of it. Perhaps a keyword DB could be made, then people could search it to easily discover what the CM "I was here before the Alpha was even a gleam in the programmers eyes" Old Timer "approved" opinion on any given subject is, and eliminate all this messy interactive posting back and forth foo-foo?

I've also noticed an unfortunate tendency for any "new" poster who asks a question or even states an opinion being told to "do a search". You need to run a search before you can have an opinion? That and questions being met with "Oh, we beat that subject to death 6 months ago, and aren't you an idiot for not knowing that"..."run a search and dig through 6 months and thousands of BS posts and you'll find the historic and illuminating post so and so posted sometime or the other that'll answer all your questions, and if your opinion is different from his, well then you really are an idiot". So...basically, honest questions or comments about the game are often met with ridicule or pretentious twaddle from the "old timers", while chatting/flame wars are a-okay. Thus you get chatting and flame wars. Just IMO, of course. Dang, I forgot to run a search on that.

I set up some QB tests. Used 4 infantry platoon HQ's and 16 mortars in each test. Mortars divided into 4 sections, all regular. Each group of enemy armour was usually one of each flavor for each interation. Overall, indirect fire generated approx. 50% more hits than direct fire. With 81/60 mm mortars against fully armoured vehicles you have about a 25% chance of killing/disabling with an individual mortar before it runs out of ammo. The Brit 2" and 3" generated a significantly higher hit/disable/kill ratio...probably an average of 100% or even higher. Early Stugs, Sherman, Hetzers and Tigers(!) appeared more susceptible to mortar fire. Indirect fire against open topped/light vehicles is devastatingly effective...far far FAR higher than with bazookas/panzerfausts/PIATs. Units WILL move out of impact area to a turret down position if they aren't engaging a target. If they're engaging a target, they will often just button up. I THINK, but aren't sure, that they also fired smoke a few times if they could tell the general direction the fire was coming from. PROs: From my tests, mortars are a far more effective anti-armour weapon than launchers when used in indirect fire mode with open fields of fire, more survivable, "invisible", and longer ranged. Knocks the socks off open vehicles. CONs: Not really that effective against fully armoured vehicles...mainly a matter of luck. To be more effective you have to give the tank some "bait" to engage its attention and keep it stationary. Less effective in heavily wooded/urban areas. Slow moving if you have to displace. Expense vs launchers. One thing BTW, that I didn't "test", was the mortar HT vehicles in indirect mode. Shame they didn't give the the SP vehicles an indirect fire mode as well...definitely give the track mounted arty alot more flexibility.

I was playing "South of Sword" as the British against the AI and getting my butt kicked. Read this thread about the mortars, restarted, moved my 3" mortars to the 3 houses toward the center and hid them behind the buildings. Put Company CO upstairs where he had decent observation of the area where the German armour is concentrated. No other infantry weapons except a few MG's were in firing range. During the course of the game, my 4 mortars using indirect fire killed approx. 20 German armoured vehicles to include "open topped" AC's, HT's, Stugs, and Pz4's...and still had about 10 rounds apiece left to use on infantry. The mortars were the major killers of AT gun armed units, and I didn't commit my tanks until the mortars had greased most of the German AT gun armed units. Basically, my armor was only used to kill the leftover HT's and provide fire support for the infantry. To say the least, this is pretty "gamey". As is, I'd take an onboard mortar firing indirect fire over a dedicated tank destroyer anyday, let alone a AT gun. The German units would move to escape, but the first round was usually a hit. Direct fire against a tank usually ineffective...no kills noted. I haven't graduated to PBEM games yet, but since the it's often "one shot, one kill", it'd probably be effective there as well. [This message has been edited by seal7 (edited 11-01-2000).]