jbertles

This is ridiculous. We all agreed to play by these rules. 'Nuff said. Having said that, it's totally healthy to have a debate about the rules, with an eye to the next TOURNAMENT (Kingfish et al note my confidence that there will be a next tournament thank you very much you guys rule a labor of love doesn't even come close!!). But I think the second round must maintain the same rules. Having said that - Dawg - Come home boy! Timmy's in trouble! (for those of you grizzled enough to remember that) It's true that your posts torment the English language as has seldom been done before, but I agree with Nidan1 that they are refreshing. Plus if you only played a few PBEMs before coming in here then you are some kind of freaking CMozart or sumthin'. Leaving the tourney now is a little "I'm taking my ball and going home", so stick around and kick a little more ass.

Ha ha! I can understand why you say that, seeing some of the posts on this thread. Nice work. And I for one will probably play my ETO games using this mod pack. I might even change the snow and snowy roads....

OK, fair enough. When I update Bastognette will that get updated on your CMETO download at some point? Not to nitpick you to death...

Well. Here's my feeling about this. First of all, kudos to David 1 for an interesting and ambitious project. Second, I have no problem with my scenario (Bastognette) being used. As far as I'm concerned once a scenario is sent to the Depot it is fair game. Having said that, it might have been a good idea for David 1 to have sent an email to the authors. I say this in my case only because Bastognette in its current state is somewhat flawed, and I am about to update it at the Depot within the next few days. (I'll post a notice on this thread and on the CMAK forum when the update happens, and hopefully all that downloaded CMETO will update the scenario.) A few quibbles: IMO the light snow is too muddy at low altitudes. It seems there is no way to tell the difference between dirt roads and paved roads in winter. The well-metalled roads should probably not have the dirty ruts. That's about it for the moment. As I play with it more I'll probably have some more quibbles. But all in all I think it works pretty well, and the buildings look much better. Also, as someone who rarely downloads mods it seems to be a painless way to get modded without the hassle. Just my $0.02

Ug. Can't deal with chromatic solfege. Can't you put it in a form we at this forum can deal with? viz: M4 M4A1 M4A3E3 M4A1 *yawn* *yawn*.... etc.

It's true that a lot of my chatter consists of plaintive whining punctuated by derisive snorts. Of course deception was used in RL, but I doubt many opposing commanders have had direct lines to each other. I tend to think the email banter is outside the scope of the game and therefore no holds barred (although if I had a penny for every time I spent far more time on the banter than the turn it accompanied.... remember that nightmare-ish punning marathon, Andrew?).

Vadr: And now coming in from the bullpen, wait... no, it can't be... yes it is! It's Ted Kaczynsky! I guess he got tired of mailing bombs; now he's going to throw them instead! Hard to tell what he's got in that beard...

C'mon. We've all done it. There are two kinds of PBEM opponents: those who engage in turn-by-turn chatter; and those who don't. With the former, of course, this doesn't happen. But with the chatterers, there exists the possibility of spoofing with duplicitous propaganda: deliberately leading the opponent down the primrose path wearing rose-colored glasses. (I guess if you are foolish enough to believe what your opponent tells you then you deserve what is coming.) Still, even by hinting at possibiilities, you are sublty changing the nature of the game through the email text. So -- is that gamey? Personally, I'm all for it. Think of a poker game without conversation...

(blinks)

Doesn't make life easier for Mac users

Attention Group 10: Andrew Kulin (aka Ankulin) is having a motherboard replaced and will be out of touch for about a week. He wanted me to let you know (he's one of my regular opponents) that he is definitely in, but will have to have a slightly late start. CombinedArms, I know that you are in that group, so perhaps you can forward this info.

Yeah. I also find that dropping the .php file on an unzip utility gives you the .cmg file.

aka_tom_w and Parabellum: Thanks for playing! Sometimes the simplest stuff is the best. Although I'm no grog about shell penetrations, yes, it is difficult for the Hellcats to get consistent frontal kills against the Panthers. Flanking shots are another matter. That made the outcome much more dependent on the terrain. As I was telling Richie, this is one of the few scenarios that I have made that began with a computer-generated map. I've nearly always started a map from scratch. But to enable the Hellcats enough opportunity to zip around the defiles and try for flank shots I had to edit the computer-generated map to lower the valleys and raise the highlands. This gives the map a sort of pimply teenager look. And yes, playing the AI in this scenario can be deeply satisfying, but it's rather like whipping a crippled child. It was faaaaaar more fun to play against a human opponent. Sounds like you two should challenge each other! So... REVIEW!! It doesn't take long, and you have no idea what a warm and fuzzy little bit o' happiness you will give to a long-suffering designer...

Ok, it's up - at the Depot, of course. Thanks to BigMik 1 for playtesting, and to Admiral Keth for the site. Enjoy, gentlemen! and let me know how it goes....

Which 37mm flaks did you mean? The unarmored SdKfz 6/2 (toast); the partially armored SdKfz 7/2 (another ridiculous vehicle that has to run around in reverse all the time); or the formidable Ostwind? Regardless, I'm sticking with the original cast of vehicles. They are really only supposed to be used as recon vehicles (which is why you have apx 1 per platoon - a bit fewer on the US side). I don't want any German ACs that could possibly take out a Hellcat, except by a lucky flank shot. Same with the Greyhounds - no use against the Panthers. The US quad-50 M16 MGMC is tempting, since one could probably take out a 250/9 ht, but no, I love the Greyhounds and am going to stick with them for the time being. I am open to further suggestions after it's been played. I have to admit, I really miss those wonderful 50mm Pumas - had some great recon battles with those in CMBO. The scenario will be up tonight - very shortly. [ January 11, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: jbertles ]

Well, that's one way to approach it. But with the numbers of Hellcats, and the bumpiness of the map: there is an excellent chance that the Hellcats will get flanking shots on the static Panthers.

3 big flags more or less down the center line aircraft, arty, infantry? Mere distractions! Straight out rootin' teuton armor-only murdelization. 1945 (only because that's when you first get Hellcats in CMAK). It could just as well be 1066 or 1968 in terms of reality. Forget any kind of pathetic rationalization. This is pure deathmatch. If anyone wants to get an early jump send me an email and I'll forward it to you. But if you play, please please please review!

To be exact: 18 Panther Gs, 4 SPW 250/9 vs. 40 M18 Hellcats (!), 7 M8 Greyhounds Just by sheer numbers it seems a slaughter, but in playtesting vs AI and PBEM both sides have achieved victory. And, a Hellcat ain't no M10. Sure, the armor is light, but they are FAST (fastest full-tracked vehicle of the war). Like cockroaches in the kitchen when you flick the light on.... Probably up by tomorrow or so.

What do you think? I'll soon post "Catfight" at the Depot. 4000 pts. of Panthers vs. 4000 pts. of Hellcats, with a few terrified SPW 250/9 hts and M8 Greyhounds thrown in. Hilly terrain, so It's no billiard-table OK Corral-style shootout. Pedal to the metal balls to the walls all out no holds barred cage match armor-only mayhem. Can you say "gamey"? Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!

I'm in the middle of playing this one with Richie, and it's been both a lot of fun and a serious challenge. You are going to love the incredibly detailed, possibly obsessive map. Also, the sheer size of the map forces you to think in terms of large-scale terrain-based strategies - something that you seldom get to do in CM. Git it while the gittin's good!

Assault boats. Put 'em in a canal, sit back, and watch your hair falling out. Talk about oxymorons! Jumbo shrimp Reasonable attorney's fees Assault boats

q

At the risk of blowing my own horn you might try "Wadi Yawant" and the sequel "Bridge Over Troubled Wadi" at the Depot. Just ignore the awful puns... And thanks Tooz, for recommending Dune(s). It is one of my favorites, if only because the terrain is so over-the-top (so to speak). Scenario Depot

Richie also has a Bulge scenario out in limited previews. See the other Bulge thread for details. It's got a really huge, obsessively detailed map. Great stuff.

Bastognette, a 1/3 size variation on the siege of Bastogne, has just been posted on the Scenario Depot (thanks and a tip o' the helmet to Admiral Keth). Working from aerial recon photos, official 101st Airborne maps and the contemporary paintings of Tech Sgt Olin Dows, Bastognette is an attempt to capture the atmosphere of the fields around Bastogne. Best played as PBEM, with Axis vs. AI playing pretty well throughout the playtesting process. Thanks to Richie and CombinedArms for playtesting, as well as to Forum members for help with US TD info. Note that your download may show up as "Click.php". Just open it with any Unzip utility.