GreenAsJade

Or go to WeBob and join up with lots of dedicated gamers...

Send an email to Hans and he'll probably email you 100s! I don't think you can ask Scenario Depot for many at once though.

Does visibility (length of LOS) actually change during the progress of a dawn battle? My opponent and I both commented to each other that we thought visibility of a particular dawn scenario we are playing was less at the beginning, but neither of us thought that it was something that actually changes as you go along. Is it?

It was only the fact that this occured on two visits to CMMODs (and presumably no other time) that made me think this connection might be somehow connected with the attack. OTOH, if CMMODs is the only place he goes (what else is there, apart from here?) then this is less of a strong connection

"Try this tidy Tunis Tigger" alliterates better. BTW, I had my first highly successful Wicky Strike the other day. Way hey! GaJ.

172.161.56.88 is not CMMODS. From here that host appears to have a host name of ACA13858.ipt.aol.com CMMODS is 64.233.222.42 A completely novice interpretation of this is that this other host is trying to attack you, maybe using your connection to CMMODs as the attack point. It's really great that you've alerted us to this: it could have been (still could be?) something that we are all vulnerable to. However in this case it seems to be something picking on just you GaJ.

Was this on arrival at CMMODs or when download a specific file? If the latter, which file? I have various PCs and laptops with different firewall configurations, and none have every complained about CMMODs GaJ.

Sure, if you're still looking for more...

Some of us finished the job before exhaustion set in, and are looking for more

Actually, I think its simply the case that the fast pair flush themselves out early, while the slower ones continue at the rate they started with. Once the fast ones are done, suddently the attention is on the slower ones. The deal was always "Finish by June", and that's the conditions we all signed up with, so no-one can really be down on anyone who budgetted their time to be able to do just that. GaJ.

Wanna try again, Melnibone?

And the topic that possible attracted the attention of JasconC in the first place : I defintely was going to run out of time if I used advance all the way. I'm pretty sure about that. I guess to be completely sure one would need to grab the map and advance a single squad across that whole distance resting as needed. Those slopes were really tiring the men - I think that was the issue. What I had no idea about at the time, and still really very little feel for, is when its OK to use Move and when your men are going to need Advance. In this battle, I think I incorrectly applied the "JasonC’s treatise on Infantry Advance Under Fire", using Advance the whole way, not appreciating that the treatise is talking about open ground. If there's any wisdom out there about when units using Move will and will not break when they come under fire, I'd be interested to learn it. Usually in my games any unit using Move will be doing it at a time when any fire will cause them to break , and using Advance will be at a time when there's no enemy within Cooee... GaJ.

At least I actually did something right here. That hill (215?) actually had a couple of MGs and mortars poistioned on it in a way that was out of LOS from the main basin yet could see through the saddle in front of 211 into the valley I was attacking. I briefly referred to them: I should have marked them on the map. I can see that I also should have included an OOB in my AAR, like Melnibone did. The tough thing about where they were placed is that they couldn't see The Gun. They were to the right of the one patch of trees on the back right of 215. There is a whole long ridge leading towards 208 that meant the mortars there couldn't be brought to bear on The Gun. :mad: That being said, I think "use mortars on guns" is a lesson I was still learning at that time. (I've subsequently discovered that 50mm is not enough too. :mad: There is so much to learn ). Cheers, GaJ.

JasonC - thanks heaps for the feedback. There's lots I'd love to talk about more or respond to at least. One of the later points you made was about the whole direction of attack: The problem I felt I had with going any further left was that any forces to the left of the arrow marked "Side Forces" came into LOS from the whole middle basin of the map! This would have meant (I thought to myself) that it would no longer have been a flank attack pressing to the back, it would have been a frontal assault. As I concluded in my AAR, a frontal assault was probably the best way to win, because the back flag was too far to press. But given the objective I had of pressing through the flank, I don't think I could have productively exposed anyone to the middle. (Those exposed would have needed covering fire etc etc and before you know it you might as well be attacking in that direction). That's what I was thinking, anyhow! Cheers, GaJ. [ March 19, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

...drives me up the wall at night! There is one extremely loud one in the paving outside our bedroom window.. Grrrr! (I wonder if we should have a "Fast ROW" next time?)

Beholders, if you ask a question and get a specific answer from someone on the team, why isn't that good enough? Everyone else chiming in with jokes is doing that because they know that these are the only other answer that there can be. If BTS haven't announced what it will be, then how can there be anything other than complete guesses, which are sure to be no better than what you have read so far? GaJ, constructive as always, I hope... [ March 18, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Let me say that I would not criticise anyone about anything to do with ROW. It's a fantastic gift that the organisers give to us, and everything they have done is more than they had to. No-one guaranteed that everyone's AARs would be published, even though that was kind of the assumption. The rationale for the AARs was that they were the small gift that the players give back to the designers. perfectly fair. On the other hand, it certainly was a bit sad beinig one of the unpublished people if you had actually put the effort in. That's why I was happy when I suddenly realised that I didn't have to be a disappointed person who's AAR wasn't published It's easy to publish your own! Cheers, GaJ.

For a while I have been feeling a little disappointed that some of my AARs are in the group that is not yet published on the B&T site. I did actually write them to be read by people. So... I suddenly realised that I can actually publish them myself. And so here they are... ... I'll be pleased to hear what you think, either here (if it's good ) or at the email given in the page above. GaJ. [ March 16, 2005, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Heh. I thought my announcement had completely killed all discussion abouty CMBO! And maybe it has!

j2d bumped my scenario balance table thread from the top with his CMMOS thread. Can't have that!

This is another good argument agains the proposal Cheers, GaJ.

Can you point to those accounts? It'd be fascinating to hear how it went in real life. GaJ.

Taking the question at face value, the thing that is gamey is that it is guaranteed that a unit going up the left edge will not come under fire from it's right. Going up the left side there is zero chance of fire from the right. Going up the middle there is non-zero chance. It would be more _realistic_ if this were not the case. The question _what_ fire should a unit be risking as it goes up the left edge of a conflict area is indeed one of the fundamental problems with the suggestion, and one of the reasons why I tend to agree with Steve that the proposed solution won't work. GaJ.

Not at all! What they do is make the _risks_ of going up the edge more similar to the _risks_ of going up the middle. YD's suggestion, at least, does not restrict you to going up the middle. It just makes it equally likely that you will come under fire from the side. This single thing that this is intended to change is that you could no longer go up the side knowing that you won't come under fire from one flank. IE the side becomes equally risky as the middle. That being said, I think that there are flaws in YD's suggestion, and I think it's right not to implement it as it stands. I'm chiming in here only because I don't like to see the wrong reasons for it not being implemented put forwards. The only right reason for it not to be implemented that I've seen put forward is this: The problem of edges is not big enough to justify _any_ solution being implemented. If we want a solution implemented, this is the point that would have to be debated. Once that point was overcome, then there would be some merit in debating potential solutions, and I would pose some of the issues I've seen with YD's solution at that time... GaJ.

Wow! Dramatic demo, all in one picture! Thanks!