Soddball

Could one of you come and retrieve Boo Radley? He appears to have got lost on his way here and is paddling around in the Waffle thread looking very lost. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: Post 100! :mad: :mad: :mad: Jamoomba is pleased!

Ideally, when someone downloads a scenario, I'd like them to receive a reminder in their email box to get them to review it, say a month after they downloaded it. Some of my scenarios at the depot had 2,000 downloads and only 1 or 2 reviews. Perhaps they sucked, but I'll never know because they weren't reviewed. I think just a reminder would be enough to get some people to review. Maybe the email could include a form which they can fill in and email straight back?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

For me it wasn't about reworking the engine. I just can't help but feel that the Sherman was penalised due to engine limitations in CM:BO, and when those limitations were lifted for CM:BB and CM:AK, the Sherman wasn't reviewed. I wish I had picked it up when CM:AK was released and then something could have been done about it. And I'm looking forward to the new engine, but I just get depressed when my Shermans get creamed so easily.

Rune, would your opinion be that a re-evaluation of the Sherman's turret armour rating to 'curved' is reasonable? (Theoretically, of course, we know it's not going to happen).

What a crap Haiku. :mad: :mad: :mad: Some good :mad: though. :mad:

Your sig looks good Andreas. It's all lies though. I only ever charge a fair price. Can we get back to the major point, though, which is that I don't suck at CM, BFC suck at making it which is why the ghosts of 20,000 Sherman Tankers are mocking me.

On the other hand (there's always that bloody other hand...), by the time they had climbed to altitude and formed into their "big wing" the Germans had already dropped their bombs and gone home. At least that's the way I've heard it. Hope you don't mind a little hearsay. Michael </font>

In recognition of this, Dowding was sacked following the BoB. Institutional in-fighting at its finest. </font>

No, not at all. In some ways 12 Group had the edge - they got sufficient warning of attack to allow them to get up above the Luftwaffe, and their bases were sufficiently far north that bombers were only escorted for a short while due to the 109's limited range. If you can find it, Kent Aviation Historical Research Society has produced a good book on the airfields of Kent "Kent Airfields in the Battle of Britain" which is very detailed. A vastly superior read, though, is Patrick Bishop's "Fighter Boys" which should be on everyone's shelf. Park and Dowding should IMO be in the running for Best Generals/Commanders of WW2.

It was divided into groups, 10, 11, 12 and 13. 11 Group covered SE England, 10 group SW England, 12 group the Midlands and 13 group from Catterick northwards. 11 Group was at the front of the action, but 12 and 10 group squadrons were frequently in action against the Luftwaffe.

Just a quick thought Erikin. Are you playing All Armour? If you're playing Combined arms, then the way to beat him on a 1,000 point map is to take as many conscript infantry as you can and leave the tanks out of it. Maybe take a couple of Zis-3 57mm AT guns (not conscript). How many companies will 1,000 points give you? 7? 8? How long do you think his ammo will last against 1,200 soldiers? Your opponent is cherry picking his situations, I think, to lean the game unfairly in his favour. I mean, he's specified the time when the Germans got one over on the Russians and before the T34/85 came out, which I think is very unfair. You could always insist on a 1941/early 1942 battle and take KV-1s. That would give him an education. Or tell him you want a balanced game. Or you could play all-flamethrowers on a night battle with fog. [ August 02, 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

Seconded on DD's work, the Field & Stream is truly superb. Juju's buildings and anything by Magua.

I had more long-lasting fun with CM:BO than with CM:BB. Magua's Normandy mods, Tanks Alot's awesome vehicle mods - the upgraded graphics turned that game from an ugly fun game into a beautiful fun game. It was almost fun to watch my tanks get blasted apart. It's also easier to play by a long shot. I found CM:BB the toughest. For toughness, try advancing conscript Romanians through heavy snow against dug-in Russians. Fun it is not - unless your idea of fun is 65 turns to advance 800m. CM:AK put alot of the fun back into the game - being able to play the 'good guys', and with the updated ballistics engine and the significantly improved models and graphics.

Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy", page 69 (referring to having to bale out of his Sherman on the approach to the beaches on D-Day): "But I was not even that strong a swimmer and, weighed down as I was by my sodden battle-dress, boots, gaiters and revolver, I would not have gone ten yards in the water on my own, let alone if I had been trying to help someone else." Stuart Hills was a tank commander (later troop commander and recon company commandeer) with the Sherwood Rangers. Further on in the book Hills refers to tank commanders in his company using sten guns to suppress enemy infantry.

Tut tut. 'Ungrates', not ingrates. Ingrateful is not a word. </font>

It's got a much better AT attack, but much weaker HE so if you're fighting armour it's a good bet.

That's hot.

Ignore the Peng Buttnugget Brigade. They're just jealous of us Johnny-come-latelys and the impact we've had.

You mean the one that's down? There's The Proving Grounds which has plenty of scenarios.

You mean the one that's down? There's The Proving Grounds which has plenty of scenarios.

You really know how to fill the hearts of readers with excitement. Maybe you should read out in a dull monotone all the names of the plants that grow in America. That would be exciting. Waltero is a mong. He's got the IQ of a breeze block. I can't put it kinder than that. I wouldn't waste my piss on him if he was on fire. What do you do next to entertain us Div H? How about reciting the names of all your pubic lice? God I hate you all. :mad: :mad:

A quick trawl through the archives throws up this thread, generated by our own beloved WineCape. Rexford's post from there: This refers to CM:BO. However, let me draw your attention to one sentence: "Since CMBO does not treat the area as a complicated curved arrangement with all of the peculiarities and vulnerabilities, a single vertical 89mm plate is used, which seems reasonable for wargaming." CM:BO didn't treat the area as a complicated curved arrangement, but CM:BB and CM:AK do have the 'curved' value for armour plate, and I can't help but feel that the Sherman would have been a logical choice for this 'curved' value.

I congratulate Andreas for being able to steal money from real people and spend it on banana-measuring specifications. When I am "Ruller Of Teh Galaxxy" there will be a special place for Eurocrats. JonS, if I could communicate properly I wouldn't be here. I'd be sitting in an office in Paris making up rules on how all businesses should employ three-legged purple people. WineCape, don't confuse MasterGoodale's Thread of Cheery Waffle with ....that...other...place. Ours is a place of mirth and savagery, and theirs is - just wrong. Anyway, back to my Very Important Point. It isn't just the Firefly. There seem to be a couple of models with this very clear slope. There is a Sherman with a 76mm turret front included in the game, but its armour is 76/0, not 76/30. Models of Shermans - slope very clear in some but not all. I've got a couple of other photos which are unclear or at the wrong angle, but there's no doubt in my addled brain that 89/0 for the turret front is wrong. Realistically, I know that there won't be a fix for this flaw this late in the game. But since the Sherman is the most common allied tank in CM:AK, I'd like it fixed for the next iteration of CM.

Depends on what your basis for measuring it is. All the best Andreas </font>