Soddball

My invite hasn't come through yet so I assume it ended up in my junk mail, so if you guys could just send it again, that'd be dandy.

Threads are locked when they reach the 300 post limit because the board software is a bit cranky and can crash if threads go over that. I think it's also because some subjects have been discussed to death and BFC want more than just the same rehashed threads here. There are always alot of locked threads in the General Forum, because Dorosh has alot of interweb stalkers.

I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me: 1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus. 2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down). 3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter). Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play? And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me: 1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus. 2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down). 3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter). Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play? And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me: 1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus. 2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down). 3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter). Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play? And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

And what about gamey jeep flamethrowers? I want those to be included.

The new game will be set in Assyria in 3,800 BC!! Steve's above post confirms it!

No, and no.

I include a modified 'Play where they lay' set of rules for the big operations I create. My latest, Alpine Summer, is 40,000 points per side on an 8km x 3.6km map, 15 battles of 40 turns apiece. The scale of the map and the additional rules mean that the further one side advances, the further away their reinforcements are and the more work they will have to do to hold their position. I only allow setup anywhere on the field if both players have chosen to skip a night action. I find it works very well, forcing players to preserve their transport assets and pool them, and forcing them to provide AA cover against air attacks against their vulnerable supply lines.

Yes, I remember reading something (somewhere) about the StuG battalions pulling back their SPGs for repair after they had received several hits. there had been no armour penetrations but the armour damage from the big Russian shells meant they were out of commission untiul repairs were complete.

I have a photo in my "Alamein" book (Steven Bungay) which shows an Italian SP Gun in the desert with a hole the size of a dinner plate. The side hull plate has cracked like ceramic. Apparently Italian tanks were notorious for this poor armour quality.

The no-smoke ATI issue is no longer a problem.

One of my requests in the thread at the top of the page was for CMX2 to retain its scalability - that is, the ability to scale up. As we've seen, CM:AK offers the chance to play on a 32sqkm map. I've built one of these, and there's room for a division on each side. It's very time consuming to play, and setups are a exhausting, but it's great to know that the CM engine, designed at the company scale, is capable of offering play at such a large scale. I love it.

Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water!

The two finger salute reportedly dates back to Agincourt, but I think snopes.com debunked it. Too bad, it's a great story. Apparently, so the fiction goes, the French threatened to cut off the bow string fingers of any English archers they captured. When the English won the battle, the archers marched past the French prisoners and flashed their bowstring fingers. So the story goes. One of those stories you wish were true but probably aren't. </font>

Those Brits are suckers for 'tis true, but I never pictured Soddy as an opera-goer. </font>

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. Seriously, I was searching for some tank-based stuff on EMule and this one came up. [ August 29, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

Thanks for all the hard work translating it! If I get any more stuff like it I know where to come.

Because they found that their figures were slighly out. You need to pick up Lorrin Bird's research on the subject, which is what CM uses.

Holy smokes.

It's almost tempting to cough up the cash to play it more, isn't it?

I'm busy playing Urbane Dead. It's a hoot.

So your first game will model the Great Bakery Wars of 19th July, 1648, in the Funenhufel district of Old Amsterdam? I can't wait. Battle loaves, here we come!!

So, you can find the time to write a billion paragraphs of text but not the time to look through the tables of equipment (which are understandable) and the pictures of Shermans which clearly indicate which models were in use, and when?

So Jason, did you read the source I posted or not?