EZPickens

Best post evar! </font>

IMHO, this is utter nonsense. Why not outlaw the "red-star" associated with the rabies-ridden regime of Joseph Stalin? Or, for that matter, as the Confederate "stars and bars" is slowly hounded from view in the U.S., why not ban "old-glory" as well, as it is forever associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If we fail to take these measures, the bans I mean, then all we have done is bestow upon the winning side virtues that are far more apparent than real. Germans aren't evil, anymore than Russians or Iraqis. But, governments are capable of ENORMOUS evil, including those of the victorious Allies in WW2, and the U.S., today. So, by God, if you are gonna ban one regime's symbols, then damnit, ban them all. Let's establish an international "CMx" committee and get on with the purge, the sooner the better. EZ

If there is no preference file, it means that you haven't run CMAK since the game was installed or since you deleted the last one. EZ

Hate to sound like Meagan from "The Screensavers," but here's a tip: Create a shortcut to the prefrences file and then drag it to your desktop or the taskbar. When you need to nuke the pref file, right click on the shortcut, select "properties," left click on "find target," and then delete the file from the CMAK directory. Fewer clicks and less eyestrain! EZ [ January 11, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

More Lili Marlene: http://ingeb.org/garb/lmarleen.html Interesting versions are those by the 6th PzGrn Div and an auditorium performance by M.M.Dietrich. You can download any of the MP3s simply by right-clicking and doing a "save target as." EZ

More Lili Marlene: http://ingeb.org/garb/lmarleen.html Interesting versions are those by the 6th PzGrn Div and an auditorium performance by M.M.Dietrich. You can download any of the MP3s simply by right-clicking and doing a "save target as." EZ

I wanted to post this so prospective buyers would have some idea about what kind of results 2lb vs PzIII combat is producing. I set up a flat/dirt map drawn to approx. 1200 meters in depth. I set up several different OOB's (detailed below) for the Germans, and at the opposite end of the map located an equal number of Crusader II "tubes." I then ran tests for each OOB, at a range that never went below 1000 meters for any single tube. The test consisted of my simply setting back and hitting the "GO" button; I never interfered in any way. I also ran each test 5 times for each OOB to try and reduce the possibility of freak-results. Here's what I found... Kill Ratios (Br losses/German losses) 30xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 4/1 (avg) 30xPzIIIH vs 30xCrusaderII = 8/1 (avg) 15xPzIIIH/15xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 6/1 (avg) 15xPzIIIH/10xPzIIIG/5xPAK38 vs 30xCrusaderII= 10/1 (avg) Given the fact that the CrusaderII has a rate of fire that is approximately 50% higher than the PzIII's gun (which certainly does enhance the chances of the 2lb'r striking home), I don't understand what the beef is here. Armour play in CMAK is fun and well modeled, IMO. Its a great little game for those interested in the desert battles. EZ BTW: The Br armour did not once take a swipe at the PAK38's deployed in the last of the tests; this is but another indication that CMAK is well modeled in its use of AI doctrine. I'd strongly suggest a gentlemen's agreement among players in multiplayer games that an Allied player should never engage a PAK38 with a 2lb as long as there are Pz available for targeting at a like range. (edited last line of data table to reflect composition of Br force) [ December 10, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

I wanted to post this so prospective buyers would have some idea about what kind of results 2lb vs PzIII combat is producing. I set up a flat/dirt map drawn to approx. 1200 meters in depth. I set up several different OOB's (detailed below) for the Germans, and at the opposite end of the map located an equal number of Crusader II "tubes." I then ran tests for each OOB, at a range that never went below 1000 meters for any single tube. The test consisted of my simply setting back and hitting the "GO" button; I never interfered in any way. I also ran each test 5 times for each OOB to try and reduce the possibility of freak-results. Here's what I found... Kill Ratios (Br losses/German losses) 30xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 4/1 (avg) 30xPzIIIH vs 30xCrusaderII = 8/1 (avg) 15xPzIIIH/15xPzIIIG vs 30xCrusaderII = 6/1 (avg) 15xPzIIIH/10xPzIIIG/5xPAK38 vs 30xCrusaderII= 10/1 (avg) Given the fact that the CrusaderII has a rate of fire that is approximately 50% higher than the PzIII's gun (which certainly does enhance the chances of the 2lb'r striking home), I don't understand what the beef is here. Armour play in CMAK is fun and well modeled, IMO. Its a great little game for those interested in the desert battles. EZ BTW: The Br armour did not once take a swipe at the PAK38's deployed in the last of the tests; this is but another indication that CMAK is well modeled in its use of AI doctrine. I'd strongly suggest a gentlemen's agreement among players in multiplayer games that an Allied player should never engage a PAK38 with a 2lb as long as there are Pz available for targeting at a like range. (edited last line of data table to reflect composition of Br force) [ December 10, 2003, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

Mind if I include this in my sig, Ms kitty? http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de/ EZ BTW: The CMBB Official Strategy Guide has two figures on the cover, both in a TC's hatch. [ December 09, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

You're right, Major B, its just my opinion; Its a personal preference of mine. My enjoyment of CM is inversely proportional to the level of infantry combat involved. I despise the micro-plotting involved with, perhaps, dozens of leaders, squads and crews. Its just too damn tedious to be rewarding. Close Combat fails as an armor game, IMO. The fewer the tanks in that game, the better. One or two makes for an interesting tactical problem. Ten or so, is kind of laughable, what with the lousy AI pathing for vehicles. Right now, I am thoroughly enjoyng CMAK. It allows me to simulate tank actions between British armoured formations and German KG (armour & PAK combos) in my favorite theatre, North Africa. Part of what I'm suggesting to our readers is that no one (developer) has really got it COMPLETELY RIGHT as to producing a wargame that does both armour and infantry in a fashion that I find both enjoyable and realistic. I am grateful to the developers for getting CMAK published. So far, its been a total joy and I would encourage anyone who was turned off by the infantry play in previous versions of the CM system to give it a try, a system, at least in the desert, where armoured warfare dominates. EZ [ December 09, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]

Then you have been wrong before </font>

As I've said before, this a tanker's game. CM personnel units larger than a PAK-crew annoy the hell out of me. Please, No PTO (CC can handle infantry action better, IMO). How about the Arab/Israeli Wars if we want some armoured combat? EZ

Solitaire play? Well, here's another improvement over the original, that makes solo play, a LOT easier. The die-rolling is drastically reduced (as in a square-root of the original,LOL). Its a tanker's game, like CMAK, that does a better job of modeling armoured combat than ASL, IMO. I picked up ATS on a whim, waiting for CMAK to come out, and solo'd it for two weeks before inviting a buddy over for H2H. Its probably the best boardgame that I've ever played as relates to armoured combat in the desert. EZ

Of course the 2lb can knock out a Panzer III, even the uparmoured versions, factory and field modded alike. The German "short" 50mm found in most of these vehicles had SLIGHT edges in both range and penetration; it also had a better round in the APCR (which was limited in quantity, BTW). Put an equal number of PZKW IIIh (a short-50mm derivative) and Crusader II in a gunfight and the Panzers will win everytime. The trouble for the German player will be that they will take significant, most-likely unacceptable losses in the process. That's not how the DAK won battles in the desert, BTW. They were outnumbered and couldn't win a battle of attrition (as El Alamein proved), rather it was their anti-tank guns, 88's and long 50's alike, that ate the Brits up. The PAK 38 was deployed directly in support of German KGs, right up with the Panzers, and in a fight it was difficult to see from a buttoned-up tank. It was also (wrongly) perceived to be less of a threat by Allied tank crews. So, a tanker given a choice of targeting a Pzkw or a "light" gun would go for the (easier to hit) tank. And of course this whole situation was exacerbated by the 2lbrs lack of HE. We see, then, a failure to mesh doctrine with ordnance that had disasterous consequneces for the Commonwealth through much of the desert war. The introduction of 75mm armed Grants changed this equation, BTW, and the tactical dominance of the DAK, if not ended, did turn the contests into the battle of attrition that I made note of earlier, one that the Germans couldn't win. And that is, IMO, the way that it was. EZ [ December 08, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: EZPickens ]