Firefly

EU2? Is that a computer game? If so, no. I actually hate board games and computer wargames (CM series excepted). </font>

Yes, I used the term Commando Comics generically, Commando were only one brand. A lot of the stories were based on real-life events albeit glorified and sanitised. My reference to the Frederick E Smith book, which I think was called A Killing for the Hawks, to being the first military history book I read was a reference to military history aimed at adults, I remember a children's magazine called Look and Learn that would have articles on famous battles and a couple of books for children on VC winners. I also can't remember when I first read The Shetland Bus, which was a best seller in the UK in the late 50s/early 60's.

I've never heard of the site before and I'm a PC games junkie. The reviewer appears to be under the impression that CMBO is a new release, which doesn't say much for his knowledge of PC games in general, most professional or semi-professional reviewers would be aware of the game's history even if they hadn't played CMBO before. They would also write better English and not feel the need to explain the difference between RTS and turn-based games to their readers. I suspect it's just another one of those 'here today, gone tomorrow' amateur review sites that often spring up on the 'net. BTW who are Mannacom, whom he thinks are the publishers? [ October 05, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

If you don't count Commando comics and Captain Hurricane (who dealt with Tigers by ripping the commanders hatch off the hinges and giving the evil Nazi TC a good old British sock on the jaw), probably around 1965-66. I'm pretty certain that the first book I read that could be called 'military history' was a book about WW1 air aces by Frederick E. Smith, because I'd just read the Biggles stories set in WW1.

That's the only phrase of Gaelic I do know. Now apologise to the fair YK2 for using such language in her presence :mad: :mad: :mad: [ October 05, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

Personally I'd split two (or even three) squads and send forward the two half squads without LMGs, using the two half squads with LMGs to provide covering fire.

Can I have notice of that question? And a Gaelic-English dictionary?

Ok let's go for a triple http://www.theblitz.org/

Oh I wouldn't deny that, but if the Aliies had lost control of the Med, it wouldn't have made life for the Russians any easier . The war in Italy also tied up German troops that could have been sent east otherwise, whether they would have made any difference is open to debate.

Oh I wouldn't deny that, but if the Aliies had lost control of the Med, it wouldn't have made life for the Russians any easier . The war in Italy also tied up German troops that could have been sent east otherwise, whether they would have made any difference is open to debate.

And the other side was probably saying something similar in Gaelic .

Yes, but as the average CM battle is battalion sized, or regiment/brigade sized at a push, it would make little difference to the game. It would make a difference in an operational game. Also the amount of troops involved in a battle doesn't really impact on the importance of the battle, the size of the armies at the Battle of Hastings was tiny even compared to 19th century battles, but the history of Britain and probably large parts of the rest of the world could have been quite different if the Normans had lost. [ October 05, 2003, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

Yes, but as the average CM battle is battalion sized, or regiment/brigade sized at a push, it would make little difference to the game. It would make a difference in an operational game. Also the amount of troops involved in a battle doesn't really impact on the importance of the battle, the size of the armies at the Battle of Hastings was tiny even compared to 19th century battles, but the history of Britain and probably large parts of the rest of the world could have been quite different if the Normans had lost. [ October 05, 2003, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

As somebody who has spent far too long reading Usenet, I doubt it's a case of him not getting it. Derailing threads with feigned expressions of outrage at a joke or similar innocent remark is an old tactic employed by trolls and because people can't resist responding, even if it's only to extract the urine, they achieve their ends. How many suggestions for CM:AK scenarios have there been since his latest intervention, for instance? I doubt BFC would let him get away with it if they weren't busy with CM:AK, which is probably why he timed his entrance to this board when he did. DNFT is a more boring response than poking fun, but is far more effective. [ October 04, 2003, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

Rommel once took over command of an AT-Gun, during Crusader IIRC. Very brave, but he should have been back at HQ, where his staff were running round like headless chickens. Because of rapid advances, senior officers were often caught up in the fighting, both General O' Connor, on the British side and General Cruwell on the German side were taken prisoner and another British General (I forget his name) was briefly taken prisoner, but managed to escape shortly afterwards. O' Connor also later escaped, but that was from a POW camp. [ October 03, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

COG, I'm very sorry to hear about your bad news. You and your wife have my sincere best wishes and I truely hope that 2004 will be a better year for both of you.

Ha! I had a 9.6 connection at work when everyone else in the office had ISDN. I also had a 386, while the others had Pentium 2s. I didn't take the hint though and they had to sack me. [ October 01, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

If it's not already in I'd like to see something on 50th (Northumbrian) Division's breakout westward through the Italians after the Gazala battles, spearheaded, IIRC, by 5th East Yorks. Another one that could use exit zones.

OK I'll try to get something over to you later today. Feel free to abuse me, I'm quite used to it, most of my female friends seem to think I'm a pillock as well.

Librarian Grog! I demand a setup. </font>

Oh I'm no expert on BB software, but this one does have a disconcerting tendency to flit between dimensions. Only the other day some idiot spammed the SC forum and managed to resurrect a forum which everyone thought had died and gone to Bulletin Board heaven. I think it's probably part of L-Space.

Well I've read the accusation from the anti-Monty camp that his plan for the attack at El Alamein was initially Auchinleck's plan, but I've also read from the pro-Monty camp about how he turned Auchinleck's defeated and demoralised 8th Army around and meticulously planned the counter-attack. The Monty vs. Patton stuff in France usually ignores the fact that Patton was pursuing an enemy falling back on the Rhine, whilst the British and Canadians were attempting to sieze the well defended Channel ports, as well as ignoring that Monty and Patton were at different levels of command.

IIRC, we didn't get a CMBB forum until the game was released. I'd guess the same will apply to CMAK, probably because the guys are too busy finsishing the game to mess around with the board.

I'd be very surprised if a Beda Fomm scenario isn't one of the scenarios on the disk. I don't have any inside kmowledge, but virtually every game that has featured the Desert War in the past has covered it.