Merkin Muffley

Nice points Yes! Exploring this further, I just had a Soviet Churchill start firing on a 37mm that had its armour arc set much nearer. I had set this up with gentle crest usage at about 170 metres, but the Churchill started firing at about 225m. I didn't even realise there was an alternate keyhole as it looked to be obstructed by trees. Because JC has painted himself into a moralistic corner, he can't entertain any exceptions to his rules. Because the gun is gaining (in this case) major crest benefit it is necessarily my fault. Yet if all had gone to plan I would have explored the impact of minimal HE fire directed immediately in front of the gun's location. I deliberately chose the 37mm* as it wouldn't have an earthly of killing the Churchill, and the Churchill because its HE is pretty pathetic. * Don't forget to strip off its hollow charge though. Yes - and have mortars. Again, the Stalinist line seems to be that you must rule out anything that might help. I am quite happy for JC to have his library of restrictions that he uses. Some seem quite sensible - unit selection, for example. Guns in trenches behind crests would appear to be quite controllable - as in don't do it. But mobile guns. Really? Is it credible that I can and should check every possible crest implication? I am certain that JC micro-manages his units. How long does he take ordering in a 1500 point game? I have no idea. But I guess he takes longer than those who don't micro-manage their units. Typically I take a minute, or a maximum of 2. I don't do this through laziness or for semi-instant gratification, but because I think that the compromises forced on non-micro-managing actually make for greater playability and (sometimes) possibly even realism. Once a fire-fight starts there isn't the time to finesse all the tips and tricks that JC, amongst many others, has documented as maximizing your units' impact.

JC: I am happy that you stick to your guns and post something useful like this most recent post, but as your post that I commented to made no mention of the kink issue I wondered whether your introduction of a very weak "realism" argument meant you had moved on. The straw man?

I take it that the arbitrary moving of the argument to "it's not realistic" means that you have been persuaded by the demonstrations here that apparently invulnerable guns (kinked LOS) are in fact vulnerable after all? Nice footwork. Your straw man is risible.

Slow down in a built-up area.

Thanks Redwolf for the helpful clarification. In practice, then, although this can occur in any battle-type, the probability is that it is the defender in an attack/defence scenario who might benefit from this flaw, either by design or ignorance. In either case the only real solution is to resort to mortar fire (which you would like to think an attacker has) or to flank the position. I think it is a measure of this game's greatness that it satisfies both the players who turn over turns in < 2 minutes and have an eagle eye's view of the game, and those who spend scores of minutes carefully placing their units. I think a lot of the misunderstanding here stemmed from people coming from those different styles.

The specific question being posed was guns being manoeuvered. Seemingly this never happens...which is patently false. Should your guns find themselves in a position of unfair advantage then you are at fault - a cheat even - despite the fact that the end result is not of your own making, it is mere coincidence. As is often the case, playing on huge maps can nullify many of the game engine flaws - how can you reliably position your guns to gain this unfair advantage if you can't be certain of the line of advance, for example. But sure, there are undoubtedly scenarios where this game engine flaw comes in to play - knowingly or unknowingly. Part of the answer is to be aware of it so that you don't waste time pursuing an unobtainable hit. And to be aware of it so that you don't repeatedly play people who systematically use this flaw in contrived scenarios that permit no other solution. But if I come across a gun that has been man-handled to the crest of a hill I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and start calling someone a cheat. And I think it is offensive for JasonC to state that someone he has never played likes to cheat.

JasonC, nice attempt at pretending you actually play with others, but I think you've merely confirmed that you play with yourself.

Matthew Cook - very impressive. A flash slideshow is here. His site and work is here. There's also a link at the bottom of this interesting read to his book. Just £10 from the Army Benevolent Fund charity shop, or £13.50 if you want to contribute to Murdoch's coffers at the Times Online Shop. ...actually the (again, interesting) read here says: >Matthew Cook's exhibition, Sketches from Afghanistan, is at the Ministry of Defence from Thursday, 20 October. A 64-page catalogue with a foreword from HRH Prince of Wales is being sold in aid of the Army Benevolent Fund.

I almost bought one when I was in Vietnam, but thought it was probably too many dang Dong.

Yup, they were first across the Finnish line.

Perhaps he's confusing a "use by date" and "sell by date" or "best before date". At the back of each tank there should be a small tamper-proof sticker with the price and "use by" date. Or I might have it confused with something else.

The Churchills at Longstop Hill being a notable exception. See the Operation Torch excerpt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Irish_Horse Your earlier comment still holds good: it isn't just power to weight.

But there is more to tank mobility than power to weight ratio. The Churchill, for example, having very modest figures, yet being able to deal with unkind terrain that would defeat other tanks.

menu selection: Options|modify installed programs (select program) Modify is where it all happens. You've probably found that already, but if not... Have you tried a re-scan (from the option next to modify?)

Link works using http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/default.asp

Coo, some cutting.

Being a very rare visitor to the CMSF forum, and an occasional visitor to CMBB, I thought it quite interesting to have the topics raised here. I can see why participants to the huge thread in CMSF might feel jaded (I sped-read some but not all of it) but I don't think that it should preclude the raising of interesting anecdotes here.

Hmmmm, nice Belvoir.

The dance group got on the old steam-train. "Too-too!" it went as it left the station. "Too-too!" It was so much fun, one of them just had to "too-too" too. It turned out she had two tutus too, but by then the Man Who Didn't Care For Spelling was looking very bemused.

Than see here http://balldroppings.com/js/

Title: >offers nerve gas to Hamas? Article: >offered to supply Hezbullah Is this like calling a Kiwi an Aussie?

Wooly thinking.

Agree totally with Silvio regarding the two latest Bond films. Also, and don't want to ruin it too much for people who haven't seen it, but a Bond film where the threat is the partial take-over of the water utility in Bolivia...it's got more in common with playing Monopoly than it ought to.

The order - not as posted - is 1, 3, 2 and reflects the joys of internet tourism.

>to pick up a free lady As long as she's not too heavy. What with you being old...er than some.