dieseltaylor

Whom surely! @ ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabiha_G%C3%B6k%C3%A7en Born 22 March 1913(1913-03-22) Bursa, Ottoman Empire Died 22 March 2001 Ankara, Turkey

wiki Surprising huh!

Nice One : )

Sorry I posted that before seeing Brit's post. I am not upset. I think the other guy does a very good job on exploring the game system - I honestly do. And I am sure D3 understands that statements are better accepted if there is some figures to back it up*. And he does not jump down other contributors throats** so much - I exclude myself from this restrcition as I think lively debate actually helps better thinking. * Our different percentages in the opening moves for successful city taking showing the benefit ** The loading of transports appearing so often as a comment would tend to show that it is not intuitive. D3 says its very powerful and that is good - and just means the explanation is skipped by many or not sufficiently explained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_artillery From the wiki piece you will see the paucity of shore guns versus ship actions. The only one of interest being the Toulon guns vs. a battleship in which the BB won. And there was a reason for the duel .The Dardenelles Gallipoli action shows how not to go about the matter. Thread on shore batteries at Dover: http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12290-big-guns-dover.html As for a fleet to chase of a fleet this from WW1 BTW as I have a distaste for typing strange phrases would D3 do? I think if you check carefully I have always asked you for information to give body to your assertions. You being the only one who knows how many times you have played are the only source. As you see from the above links all the information you might require if you doubt my assertions is freely available.

I understand the situation but it seems to me that given all the other design problems - particulalry borg spotting it is not a problem to worry about. If it is hulldown in RL then only the barrel and the top of the shield is a viable target so perhaps 3 ft? to shoot at. http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/29420-how-effective-were-those-heavy-towed-t-guns.html And nowhere on a board is a ATG going to be hulldown from all positions so I am relaxed about it having given some thought. Whether sceanrio designers need to conside it when there are fixed positions is another matter - I suspect it depends on what effect they are trying for : )

Happy to play a large game. Don't hold with house rules myself. You may set up a CMAK ME choose my Nationality and set me up unrestricted with random casualties. : ) I will send you my address by BF e-mail.

I was not aware of that as I thought it had been sorted in one of the versions?. Is it the same in CMAK? In the sense that borg spotting is also unreal is this a matter of compensating design faults? I am loathe to introduce any sort of house rules which cannot expect to be monitored in game. And what happens if you are screened in one angle but open in others from your slope?

I think it was the gassing and suchlike that was the problem for most people. The big problem for the West is the bizarre idea that killing people by execution is somehow more abhorrent than killing as collateral damage or using overwhelming firepower to kill a native defending his country and lifestyle. So taking hostages for better behaviour from leaders to prevent more bloodshed seems quite sensible. It is the leaders who make the problems.

Null: Your understranding of EoS may be fine but your understanding of history sucks. BRO was correct in that historically nailing ships from shore guns was a hard trick in the period say 1890 to the arrival of nuclear tipped shells or guided missiles. Anti-shipping fortifications have never really been tested as without invading what is the point of a ship duelling any battery that can hurt it? Even the coastal batteries at Dover and the Pas de Calais were fairly impotent at stopping ships using the Straits which are a mere 20 miles wide. Risking ships to bombard for a reason is documented. More than soft skinned artillery was crushed by capital ships firing during the Normandy campaign as Tiger battalions were also beaten up. In early wars you kept a fleet in being to protect your coasts so complaining about BB's being too powerful seems to ignore history. They were dammed powerful. Of course the arrival of small subs to lurk in coastal waters and powerful torpedoes, and then the aeroplane altered the equation on whether a force of BB's was required as a the only appropriate counter. The game has too many technology advances to comfortably accomodate them all under one set of rules. Apparently the 1900-1940 is not trialed but the 1900-2050 is what people are playing and having a problem with making sense of.

Quality critique, my heart warms to who ever made up the list. A more potent example of the level of political heights that the right-wing* aspires to one could not have hoped to see. In fact its just Soooo good I almost think its inspired black propaganda. Rather boringly the awarding committeee were looking at Obama on the stump and his preparedness ahead of election to extend hand of friendship rather than a fist.

If you make things fun people will change their behaviour: Nice thinking : )

: ) Good restraint ..

If you don't have many guns given the map size/hills it is also thinking how easy is it to relocate the gun/guns if the approach taken by the enemy is going to negate them. I play on huge maps and accept on smaller maps you would rarely have much re-deployment opportunities. Of course if you play on small maps it does mean your opponent knows pretty exactly where your entire force is concentrated ..... The plus side of small maps is artillery becomes more useful which helps the Russians.

Have you tried knocking out an ATG in a trench? One minute!!!! A mortar needs is LOS to the ATG - with clever siting not a given and trenches are not a necessity. As I have predominantly played CMAK for the last 5 years my memory is hazy on my CMBB battles but ATG's are very effective in CMAK and I use them a lot. I can recall in the overtime of a game knocking out two crack Easy Eights with a Inf 75mm gun using HC. They should have not been so intent looking elsewhere. Very satisfying : )

This really sucks: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/business/08drywall.html?_r=1&em Sixty to one hundred thousand homes ruined and not even taking into account health issues. Ouch!

Winning 5 against Elites - batting 60% plus would suggest to me the AI is weak or that on a smallish map the AI's "plan" does not develop if there are too many close competitors. Just a thought. Thanks for the detail.

Yes that one is an irritation. Why would you build a shipyard but not queue a ship!

Ain't they clever. I am gobsmacked. http://www.eigenlabs.com/roadshow/ and watch the video for all powers incorporated into the instrument. Some very slick camera work and overall visualisation in these little videos: How they are crafted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y752aGV32Xc&feature=related The Keyboard The Arranger

And how many are fundamentalist and how many are secular? Rather like a global figure for Christians this really does not reveal what lies behind the nominal tag "Christian" Reveals the difficulty of trying to start to breakdown the total for deeper research.

And your point is? The thread is about resources and there are some interesting postings from people reporting their experiences. Funding research is simple enough for an idiot to understand. If resources are crucial, then your starting position presumably can be fatal. I don't know but I do know the AI is not very aggressive in expanding at the easy level? Expansion though is a separate subject compared to aggressive military action and in the game I quoted the lack of development is surprising - particularly given how bereft it was of iron. This suggests an AI problem. The question I am curious about know is how many players should be on a map this size for optimal play ? Null how many games have you played with 7 elite AI and what have the results been. Judging by your heavy garrisoning you must have lost one or two. Have you won any?

I have no problem with people buying Hetzers and Panthers when I played Allies providing it is on a huge map with some undulations and trees. In this particular instance I think his TD's and halftracks were actually not well used because my flanks were not turned nor a major feature secured. I believe the enemy is entitled to bring to the battlefield anything that is on the purchase screen. After all warfare is trying to get the best match-up against the enemy force. BTW if he had chosen British my force choice would have looked just adequate as Hetzers find Churchills a problem and Panthers fall to 6lbers and 17pdrs. Hetzer top armour is very poor so an invitation to mortars and aircraft. Also they carry little HE and not a lot of MG. Just have to know your enemy : ) Lastly is that you don't have to fight tank to tank, just get your objectives and let him worry about evicting you. Or let him get them and you already have a plan to make it expensive to defend. Just the fun of the game!

I find it hard to gauge how big the problem is as, obviously, the number of Ai players on this small map must have a significant bearing on peoples comments. I have briefly played one multi-AI game. I have finished one where te sole AI player resigned on Turn 96 when I attacked his sea based resources on turn 95. I was astonished to see that his game total resources were if I recall 80 gold and 440 iron togther with reasonable amounts of food and oil. At that stage I had 4000+ of everything and perhaps 1000 gold. Seems from comments here that this could become a resource luck of the draw game. Those acid comments on non-resource preferring gamers now seem, in the light of resource luck, to seem unfortunate.

Agreed , if you are playing me buy Hellcats. I do have a recent game where my Panthers and Hetzers disposed of a mix of Hellcats and M10's [and halftracks]. Mortaring to make therm move out of cover was fun : ) I think I lost two or three Hetzer's but those were to ATG's fortunate enough to get slight angles. I think I killed about nine TD's and a similar number of halftracks. On a huge map mobility was actually more useful than in most CMAK games. Given my tanks available I think playing as Americans was a bit hopeful and would recommend playing the UK - apart from the lightweight infantry they have the better weapons. Even so in 1945 the UK infantry does get a little more potent. And they have better affordable planes just to scare the Axis you might one.

East eights! Hellcats being opened top and very lightly armoured are , in my view, a waste of points compared to tanks. End of war you get five EE's for 8 hellcats and I would buy the Shermans. Speed is rarely that useful on the BF battlefield but protection against light guns is.