wbs

LOL! My first wargame was ALSO Luftwaffe, and ALSO in 1973. I still own it, but don't play it (or the other 75 board wargames I own) nearly as much as I would like to because: 1) Lack of opponents, and 2) My wargaming time these days is spent playing CMBO/CMBB [ September 24, 2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

From Ari Maenpaa: Question: What was the "Continuation War"? Would I perhaps know it by a different name?

This editorial was in yesterday's Washington Post: Twenty Years For Shaving? Monday, September 23, 2002; Page A18 "An individual on an aircraft . . . who, by assaulting or intimidating a . . . flight attendant . . . interferes with the performance of the duties of the . . . attendant . . . shall be . . . imprisoned for not more than 20 years." WE ARE fairly certain that the drafters of this perfectly reasonable federal law did not have the heinous acts of shaving one's face or taking too long in the bathroom in mind when they wrote the word "intimidating." Yet if the Justice Department has its way, a man named Gurdeep Wander could face hard time for disregarding a flight attendant's request to stop shaving and return to his seat on a Northwest Airlines flight from Memphis to Las Vegas on Sept. 11. The incident itself, which caused the flight to make an emergency landing in Arkansas, appears to have been a regrettable example of understandable but excessive vigilance on the anniversary of the attacks. But charging Mr. Wander with interfering with a flight crew is oppressive and absurd. Mr. Wander and his traveling companion, a man named Harinder Singh -- who was released after paying a $500 civil fine -- are not likely Islamic terrorists. Both men, in fact, are Sikhs, about whom investigators have found "no ties to Al-Qaeda cells and no ties to terrorist groups," as the local U.S. attorney put it. They were on their way to a convention in Las Vegas. But because of a delayed flight the previous day, they missed their connection in Minneapolis, so the airline reportedly gave them shaving kits, and they spent the night in a hotel. The next morning, they traveled to Memphis and boarded the fateful flight carrying only the shaving kits -- their luggage having gone on ahead. They had the misfortune of boarding late, next to a Hispanic man named Carlos Nieves, and the three dark-skinned men apparently aroused the flight crew's suspicions. These suspicions grew when, the government contends, Mr. Singh and Mr. Wander failed to sit in their assigned seats. Then Mr. Wander crossed the line. The government alleges that with the "fasten seat belt" light still on he "asked flight attendant Deborah Summers if he could use the washroom." She okayed this but told him to hurry. Instead, he began shaving and -- though Ms. Summers knocked on the door several times -- "did not return to his seat as [she] repeatedly requested." Ms. Summers felt "intimidated" by this, particularly after Mr. Wander left the bathroom, and both Mr. Singh and Mr. Nieves sought to use it too. The captain decided to land the plane, and authorities detained the three men -- as well as an Egyptian who happened to be on board. In a climate of fear, people get suspicious. But it is critical that people be willing to back down when an error becomes clear. Instead, all too often, the scrutiny carries significant costs even for people against whom no charges are brought -- like the three Muslim medical students recently denied a scheduled rotation at a Florida hospital after they were stopped in a terrorism scare. The case of Mr. Wander is particularly ugly, because although he clearly is not a terrorist, he is being charged like one. The grand jury that hears this case would do a great service by refusing to indict. Shaving is not a crime -- not even on an airplane on Sept. 11. © 2002 The Washington Post Company ------------------------------------------- (Sigh) With friends like these.... I'd almost rather play the law of averages and take my chances with the terrorists.... [ September 24, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

Winning 100-0 in a 1000 pt. QB against the AI

I don't know if Aircraft count under the "Military vehicles" definition of this thread, but I have been fortunate enough to go on a flight in a B-17G Flying Fortress (and in every crew position except "Left Seat" and Ball Turret (as I was too big)). I have also been on a flight in the world's only flyable B-29, and I have also been on flights in 2 different B-25s and a German Heinkel 111. What Fun!!!

About a year ago, I read somewhere about a Soviet lend-lease Sherman tank that was found buried in a river bank in Chechoslovakia (sp?). I THINK it was the Danube, but I'm not sure. It was abandoned at the end of WWII, and the river had covered it up. It was found about 15 ft. underground, and about 5 feet in from the "current-Day" riverbank.

Hitting a HT TWICE (!!) with bazooka shots, and have the HT survive with "no serious damage'...only to kill both my bazooka teams on the next turn. Having a Sherman chase a HT armed with a damaged 20 mm gun. Started Firing at 250 meters range as I raced towards the HT. Miss, Miss, Miss, Miss, Miss. 150 meters, 3 more misses (this was a veteran crew, too!). 100 meters down to 50 meters..3 more misses. AARGH!!! 25 meters--MISS!, 20 meters--MISS!!, 15 meters--MISS!! AND THE GAME ENDS!! AARGH!! :mad: Adding 5000 pts of 105, 155, 8 inch, and 14 inch artillery to the Allied "Walk in Paris" scenario, and then watching EVERY building on the board get vaporized in ONE TURN!! It was so much fun to watch that I have permanently saved the scenario. Having my green bazooka team fire at a Panther 188 meters away (and hull down) with 2 seconds left in the game...The team miraculously scores a hit as time expires, kills the Panther, and wins a minor victory by 1%!! My opponent was PISSED! [ September 19, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

Steve G. (yes, Mr."Battlefront.Com" himself) has a collection of such vehicles tucked away up in his quiet corner of Maine.

Thanks, Steve

In the CMBO manual, it says that the underlying mathematical model the game uses to compute results is slightly different from what players see in the graphical presentation, or something like that. For example, the computer "sees" individual men in a squad get killed (and their weapons lost to further use), but the human player doesn't see things down to that level of detail. I don't have the manual immediately available, but perhaps someone else out there can elaborate on this, if it's relevant to the question.

Perhaps the one month delay is intentional. It may be a nefarious diabolical plot to give all of the US players a month to practice before the Brits get it, so that we can then run up the score on all of our British opponents

Ditto! Doh! Double Post... :mad: [ September 03, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

Ditto!

From Shep: There will be so many people trying to download it at once we'll probably cause a crash.

From Camicie Nere: I believe this was the V-3.

I recently played a scenario (Skull Island)where I had a problem with "Gun Damage" hits. It was the first time that I had played a scenario that involved prolonged combat between tanks and 20mm field guns (or flak guns). Because of the topological circumstances, combat necessarily took place at 500-800 meter ranges. I sent a Sherman up to take on the 20mm gun, since a 20mm gun can't penetrate the frontal armor of a Sherman. It should have been a slam dunk. The result: "track hit", and "Gun Damage" (over 2 turns) and thus a dead tank. Thinking it was a fluke I did it again, with the same result. I then upped the ante, and simultaneously sent a priest (with it's bigger gun) and an M8 Greyhound (to provide a distraction), and over the next five turns the forces went toe to toe. Result: the Greyhound was "Immobilized" and received a "Gun Damage" hit, While the Priest received a "track hit" and "gun Damage" hit. Both were abandoned. This was getting personal. I sent up another sherman, only to receive another "Gun Damage" hit. At that point I switched to artillery and killed the gun. Is it my imagination or is the incidence of gun hits seem to be too high? On what basis was the percentage of "gun hits" based when the game was created?

From Battlefront.Com: Oh My God!! Member#1 has appeared, and he is ALIVE!! All of those posts in the past that have speculated on the identity of member #1 have been answered. The "Masked Member" has been revealed.... [ July 10, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

My impression is that ALL of the command bonuses apply for both on-board AND off-board artillery. I personally believe that those who say that there is no effect are incorrect, but neither side of the issue has posted an authoritative answer. I think that we would need one of the game designers to weigh in with an answer. Anyone from Big Time Software care to comment?

From Norse: Do you make them from your leftover (from WWII) stocks of "Heavy water" and regular(i.e. "light") water?

Actually, I'm not sure which deal you're referring to--would you elaborate, please?

bumpety-bump [ July 02, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

This obituary was in yesterday's Washington Post: I had no idea that he was still alive. Another first-class soldier is on his way to Valhalla. He did his duty, and he will be missed. R.I.P.

Maybe this is the calm before the storm.......

From Zukkov: Right on!, Zukkov. My Great Great Great Grandfather and his brother were both officers with the Texas Brigade. One was with the First Texas and the other was with the Fourth Texas. They were both in action on July 2nd, 1863 at Devil's Den and Little Round Top, and fortunately they both survived the war uninjured (lucky for me). My Dad's best friend is a direct decendant of General Hood. They (The Texas Brigade)were some of "the fightin'est men there's ever been" [ May 18, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

From Le Tondu: No. That's just another conspiracy theory.