MSBoxer

They.... from nowhere..... I thought.... eneral foru..... God help me I can'...... arrrrrrrgggghhhh

What kind of CM player am I? BAD

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb] Indeed this was one of the most profound differences between how ULTRA and PURPLE intercepts were used by the two allies. The US used its intercepts for revealling exercises like revenge (shooting down Yamamoto) while the British used their's to very carefully craft their responses to Axis movements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would class the most decisive battle of the pacific war as trivial and "revealing" "revenge". I have never heard of MIDWAY refered to in this manner but all 396 of my sources may be wrong. Perhaps it really wasn't the pivotal battle that turned the tide in the Pacific. If you are more interested in the ETO how about the intellegence that led to the persistant bombing raids on PENEMUNDA or the development plant for the ME-262. Were these revenge exercises? Sorry, I just can't stand inaccuracies held up to support opinions.

Thanks for the link I agree that spotting on the move may be difficult but that spotting from a stoped vehicle should be possible... Is this where I am supposed to say BTS please fix or do Somefink? At least for CMBB

I am sure this has come up before, but humor me. Why can't FOs call in fire missions while embarked? Is it just a side effect of embarked units not being able to fire?

Major, to answer your question as to why I would even consider Win 2K. Well I am a Web designer by trade and rely on my computer to work on freelance projects by night. One of my machines at the office runs Win 2K and the rest are Win 98 SE. So I am seriously leaning towards Win 2K at home because in my experience it is nearly impossible to crash. The reason that most recommend Win 98SE for games is due to the lack of support for multimedia devices in the early days of Win2K. True it is not intended to be a gaming machine, but it will perform that function admirably. Support is now arriving for higher end multimedia devices, and its management of memory is far superior to Win9x. My question here was basically to get more input from gamers, as to their experience with each system. To be honest at this point I may just go with a dual boot system, best of both worlds. One final note... At the office I run multiple monitors on each machine. Some games really take advantage of this. Understanding that BTS is a small outfit, it would be nice to be able to run it on a multi-monitor system without it crashing. I can see it now viewing an entire large map at level 3 view...drool... Edit - Stay away from windows ME like the plague. It is the most unstable version of windows since 3.1 Originally Win 2K was supposed to be a one for all system, both business and home. At a late point in the development Microsoft realized that they would be pricing themselves out of the home market and so rushed ME through. It is a sad hybid of win 98 and NT. After three months of constant reboot at the office I blew it out and put Win 98SE back on. [ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

OK, the time has finally come my new 1.2GHZ will be arriving within the next week to replace my aging Pentium I 200mhz. Question is which operating system should I put on it. I like the flexibility of WIN 98 SE, but the stability of Win 2000 is calling. Any experiences you care to share would be most appreciated. Specs on new machine 1.2 Ghz Athlon 384 MB Ram 40 Gig HD Generic 128bit 64MB 3D APG card (I plan to update eventually)

David, One final thought. If you state that my guns could not position themselves without your troops seeing them that would mean that you had the area under view for a period at least equal to the time that it would take me to place my guns. Now since you have no idea when my guns were placed this means that you kept a vigil for an extended duration of time. It would seem that if you had this area under survaliance for that length of time and suspected that you may be asked to take an objective in the area would you not place some guns in advance. If you were not there long enough to set up your guns then you could not be there long enough to insure that I had not set up guns in advance. All you know is that you have been tasked with taking a piece of ground, how can you be sure of what you will find unless the area has been under your scrutiny for a long period of time, and I maintain that if you had troops there long enough to ensure that I had not placed guns then your troops could have dragged a gun into place by hand while crawling, lord knows the NVA did it often enough. Mike

Juardis you are dead on. I would be honored to have you as my second in my dawn duel with David. You may hold the keys to my trunk where his unload pistol is kept

Sorry david I now realize that we will never agree... Therefore I challange you to a duel at dawn. My pistol will be unholsterd and loaded. Yours will be locked in the truck of my car

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spookster: Long ago, the enlightened members of this message board determined the golden rule of QBs: ANYTHING GOES...unless you have an understanding BEFORE the battle. (See search.) I am not sure what the argument is here?! :confused: Mr. Aiken likes 'em towed, Stalin's Organ doesn't. If they cannot agree to "common rules" then they should not play each other. This intellectual pissing match over "towed/not towed" is starting to stink. Where's the lock? :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spookster, please give me your address and I will send the SWAT team over to rescue you from the terrorists that have taken you captive and forced you to read all three pages of a discussion that you find so distasteful I thought we were just having a nice theoretical discussion with opossing viewpoints, had I known that we were stinking up the place I would have lit a match!!

David Wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My problem with this point of view is that, in order for it to be credible, then opposing forces must have just decided to advance on unoccupied terrain at exactly the same moment. For two forces to converge on a given point at exactly the same moment is highly unlikely, hence my aforementioned attitude towards VLs. For two forces to meet head-on is quite reasonable, and of course inevitable if they are travelling roughly the same axis in opposite directions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly the point I made in my first post. By it's very nature it is not historical. David Wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know the enemy is near as of the beginning of the battle. One does not have time to set up when one has a chance encounter with an opposing force advancing in the opposite direction. Battle is joined, and assets are brought to bear as soon as possible. Tanks can operate immediately, whereas guns must be unlimbered in the face of the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again as I said in my first point. If I am so sure the enemy is near my guns would be unlimberd within my FOC or setup box. To follow you view to it's logical conclusion the guns must be limbered and far to the rear because historically support weapons did not travel with the front line be a few hundred yards behind. They were then brought up where they were needed most. Therefore these wepons must be hitched and at the very edge of the map, or if you wnat real accuracy they should not arrive until turn 2 or 3. I still view the setup box as the stepping off point for the engagement, and therefore part of my area of control. Therefore my support weapons will be deployed and ready to lend aid to my forces as they advance on the objective.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: As has been the basis of my entire argument, if you had cared to read it, the 'front lines' in a Meeting Engagement have only been thus for the previous five seconds. The guns have been tagging along with the armour and infantry, and suddenly the enemy is encountered. Hence the name. The battle starts when both sides realise the enemy is straight ahead, and that's when you have to decide where to put your guns. The guns have no business being there, ready-deployed – they are simply part of your column. Of course it's dangerous deploying guns in the face of the enemy, but I wouldn't call it ahistorical. As previously discussed, Meeting Engagements are historically unusual, but not ahistorical. The problem of deploying guns under enemy observation is inherent in the situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here lies the problem. David is looking at this in a truely gamey sense (no insult intended ). He assumes that the forces have just reached their current position and are assured of meeting the enemy within the next few minutes. He reason for think in this manner is due to the nautre of the GAME. We all know that we will meet the enemy - that is why we play. Historically speaking it was just the oppposite for meeting engagements. Usually a small detachemnt was told to leave their FOC and occupy an objective. They had no way of knowing if they would make contact along the way or not. In my view this would ditacte that the prudant commander would unlimber his support weapons in the most advantagous position to cover his progress. The opposite case can also be made. If we view the FOC to be far behind the setup area then the guns must be hitched and would be unable to support for a long peroid of time. My biggest problem with David's argument is that on the one hand he states that he knows the enemy is near, yet on the other hand insists that his major support weapons be unable to lay fire on the enemy in the opening and perhaps most crucial moments of the conflict. It al depends upon how you view the setup box... is it the forward area of control...or is it just a peice of real estate that you decorate with your troops. [ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Thanks Boxer - I'll supply the passion, you go right on providing the rationale!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Only too happy to oblige. Just remember the magic letters FOC = forward area of control.

In my opinion unhitched guns are a valid purchase in a ME. By it's very nature the setup zone is the "Line of Departure" or the jumping off point for the operation. As the forward area of control with uncontested terrain before the prudant commander would unmount his weapons in the most advantagous position to support any potnetial operation into the aforementioned uncontested terrain. The nature of the ME dictates the unnatural and unlikely coincidence of thrusts toward the same objective at the same time. This however does not preclude the placement of support weapons within the Forward area Of Control. If you want to state that the setup zone is contested and that there can be no placement of guns then by logic since it is contested, there should be no mounted infantry and no soft vehicles. In fact the ability to place anything at will should not be possible. If you want it to be a strict advance to contact then all units should be in train or in combat formation, there should be no middle ground. Bottom line if you want to enforce the no unhitched guns then prepare to give up alot of freedom of placement in the goal of accuracy or "common sense".

What do you mean excuse??? I don't have to excuse or explain anything to my wife....I tell her how it's gonna be and if she don't like it then tough shi.... what dear? :eek: ...... nothing, just hanging out with the gang :confused: ..... O.K. dear what ever you say. Sorry guys gotta go! [ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

Disclaimer--- As a student of communications and a professional web designer/developer I offer these thoughts. There is no intent to lay blame, inflame, or insult. I just seek to shed some light on some issues. Take it for what it's worth...not much. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As a long time poster and someone who comes here on a daily basis for the last 15 months, I must say I'm at a loss for words. (This smiley means what it means MSBoxer, a frown!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a perfect example of what I was trying to get across. Read in one light it appears the JuJu is in agreement with me. Yet in another light it can be read as a condescending remark intended to belittle and insult. Without more clarity of intent it is open to the interpretation of the reader. I do not know JuJu and he does not know me, we have no previous examples to base our discussion on so we are limited to an highly ineffiecent and ambiguious means of communicating. Again my intent is to display how the same message can be read in a variety of manners, yet I believe that with a bit more care the message can be phrased in a manner to remove quite a bit of the doubt. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

As a long time lurker and a short time poster I am disappointed in the entire affair. I would hope that in the future people think before they type, nobody seems to understand that without visual cues the potential for misunderstanding is very great. That being said I am also not a fan of smilies. It is my experience that many people hide behind them, making a snide comment then putting a smilie after it so that they can claim they were only kidding. This is the highest form of cowardice in my book. I do not mean to imply that this is always the case, but it occurs much more often then you think. I am also disappointed in the course this thread has taken. If read in one light it may appear that some are preforming the hi tech version of a high five after ganging up on an individual and forcing them from the palying field. Comments such as those posted above can be read as insults to those offended by earlier posts. To mock someones emotions or reaction is perhaps the basest form of humor. Perhaps I am reading all of this wrong, I do not know anybody here on a personal level and may not be in tune with an inside joke. Perhaps I am reading the posts out of the proper context. But we need to consider that 90% of the visitors to any given website or forum are in the same situation. This is a new medium that is still developing it's language and protocols. One thing that is apparent is that we need to pay closer to the words and phrases used, without the visual cues and content added by inflection and tonal quality it is easy to read almost any emotion or intent in to a message. We need to understand that the readers mood may have more to do with the message that they receive then the intent with which it is written. I do not post this to insult or inflame, only to shed some light on the difficulties and hazards of this medium.

Thanks for all the encouraging words, both on CM and my new daughter. This is our second child, but it is amazing how much you forget after four years. You remember how to hold, and rock , and play. But the sheer volume of diapers and the fact that for the first several months you are a virutal slave fades over time. I guess if it were the other way around and we only remembered the work, there would be far fewer 2nd and third children. [ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

I would have beaten her sooner, but the gamey little girl brought out a huge force of JagDiapers. Have you ever fought those things???? They have the the most interesting armor. It appears to be water proof yet allows exhaust fumes to incapacitate any troops within 30 yards. If you should happen to breach the armor a automaitc self defense activates, emitting more noxious fumes with intermitent discharges of a vile biological agent. If you ask me I should get a decisive victory for just surviving this onslaught!! [ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

The great thing is that now the 4 month old has gotten use to the scream of incoming rounds. In fact she focuses her attention on the screen to see the pretty yellow/red flowers bloom. Gotta love it. [ 07-20-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

After a month and a half of sporadic play (a 4 month old takes alot of time) I finally achieved a victory that I am proud of. The scenerio is the advance on Caan. My british troops and 8 shermans chewed the snot out of the defenders. The Axis forces gave up on turn 28 of a 60 turn game. Final stats... 2 Sherms lost 37 KIA 6 (i think) Panzers killed 128 KIA At the end there were only 8 combat ready germans. As I said this may not impress many, but my wife and daughters thought I had just won the lottery when I let out my victory cry.