Jump to content

imported_no_one

Members
  • Posts

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by imported_no_one

  1. Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

    no_one, you'll be happy to know I'm almost done setting up. You should probably have it tonight or maybe in the morning.

    HA!I knew it was too good to be true,you turn teasing Maggot you! :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Who else wants a turn? :D *dangles a turn above all the wriggling brood* Make some angry noises if you want it tongue.gif

    GAGHRHRHAGAGRHRHAGGRHRHAGAGHRHRHAGRHRG :mad: :mad: :mad:

  2. More realistically than that,that is for sure.

    Simply playing an attack/defend scenario makes it tremendously more realistic than a ME(which,IIRC,didn't even occurr all that much IRL).

    A scenario or operation will give you a much more realistic map,and more importantly,will actually have you fighting for something of importance,not just some flags out in the middle of nowhere.

    A advance/assualt operation is also more realistic as it requires you to set your own victory locations.It will also make it so that the time alloted is not as much of a determining factor of who wins.

    Having to fight with the forces that are given to you is much,much more realistic than being able to buy your forces and cherry pick their every single detail.

    And the list goes on...I grow bored.Besides,I was wanting to piss some people off,not participate in a unnecessary debate of the obvious. :D

    Ps,

    :mad:

  3. Abbott,GAAHRHRHGAAHRHRHGAAGHHRGRHAH,wtf was that?!?!?! :mad: Don't get me wrong,that was a flattering review,but I wanted some anger,Maggot!I didn't do that to bloat my ego.What does it take to piss some people off around here and bring some anger back to the Waffle?!?!?!? aNGRY oUT lOUD :mad: :mad: Anyway,if you want to play another,or even test any new scenarios that you make,let me know.

    Pseudo,that is great news!I have only been waiting for(ever)a week or so :mad: :mad:

    Wallybob,sorry that you have jury duty.I would imagine that something as strenuous as that must seem like having a real job(for a change).You must be exhausted.I guess that's why the turns have stopped.

    Sergie,your idle threats of bayonet charges are all well and good,but I would settle for anything out of your cowardly,weak-kneed,limp-wristed,hiding-in-the-woods Finns :mad:

    [ November 12, 2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: no_one ]

  4. Originally posted by Abbott:

    No_one and I have been TCP'ing our battle here and there for the past couple of days. This is the first time I have played him...you guys could have warned me, this kid is pretty good! We are on turn 32 out of 35+ and victory is still undecided. {b]No_one had the more difficult job as the attacking German’s his tank gunnery has been excellent as I try to pick off vehicles here and there I get results like “Frontal penetration, no serious damage” And “Top penetration at weak point, better luck next time”. I hate games where all the die-rolls go against one player or the other. Grrrr….

    Abbott,I bet you got everyone all excited with this thrilling depiction of our battle.Well,don't leave everyone hanging....how did it turn out? >:-p :mad:
  5. Hehehehe,thanks for the complement;however,I think a little more credit is due.The "front penetration" was from a light gun against a halftrack(that's not all that rare).The top penetrations were obviously from molotovs,which rarely,if ever,do anything.Also,most of the individual armor engagements had me getting more than one shooter versus a single piece of your armor;it wasn't always like that,and I am sure that I have gotten lucky some,but nothing too bad,IMHO.You did/do,after all,have KV's,which some of my tanks can't do anything with,except for certain angles and distances.You also still have two out of three flags :mad: :mad:

    You,too,have been a formidable opponent.I still wish I had a few more turns(please?!?!?!) tongue.gif:D :mad: Anyway,are you ready/able to contiune playing? smile.gif

  6. Originally posted by Cuirassier:

    I will probably recieve a drubbing first time around, but that is how you learn I guess. Thanks again!

    Depending upon how good you are,and how good your opponent(s)are,it may take a few battles before you can hold your own.But,it will get better.Just don't give up.Always try and challenge yourself as much as possible.

    Maybe you and Vixen could play.You are really missing out,Vixen ;)

  7. Originally posted by Cuirassier:

    Thanks a lot. I'll experiement and develop my own tactics, though refer to others when I must. Also, what do I need to do to play some PBEM games. I have never played against another human, and I think that would be good practice as well.

    Well,I explained precisely how you setup multiplayer games in this thread,just the other day.

    And,to find an opponent you can go into the opponent finder forum here.Or,you could try here(this place is great for new scenarios and such also).

    There is also the Peng and Waffle threads,but you may want to get some playing experience first ;)

    Multiplayer CM is great.I guarantee that you will enjoy it,as well as,learn a great deal from it smile.gif Just make sure to play with your growlie face( :mad: ) on :D

  8. Look through all the archived forum postings dating all the way back to '99.There are tons of good tips and such in those.

    JasonC has done numerous tutorials around here;you could do a search for some of those.

    Search the net for actual military doctorine.You will find that their practical application works pretty well.

    Learn for yourself through experimentation.That is the best way you will learn,and you may even figure out a better way of doing it,instead of learning to imitate someone else.

    Good luck,have fun!

  9. Hey no one - I don't like the tone of your post.
    That's the funny thing about the written word,it is open to interpretation,and unfortunately assumptions.

    Are you saying that the impact of a squad in a building when it collapses isn't substantial? What do you base that on? In the dozens of times a building has collapsed on my troops it has often totally wiped out the squads or if not severly mauled them.
    Yes,I am saying that.For every example of your poor fortune I can present examples of my apparent good fortune where I have had squads,hqs,teams completely unharmed by a collapsing building.Rarely,if ever,have I had any full strength unit(other than HQ's)be completely eliminated when a building collapses.In most cases ,if you had a full platoon in a building(on the bottom floor),some of the squads would take maybe 50% casualties,some 25%,and some will take little to no casualties.

    Thus the gamey part, as I see it, is intentionally targeting a structure, then hitting it until it has ** which is clearly availabe from the targeting line, and then not hitting it any more. If this building is an objective, which can be the case, you have effectively denied that location to the enemy, because they can't put troops in it (unless you don't think a collapsing building hurts troops, which I vehemently disagree with, why do you think that they run out of it when it gets to **), that is gamey.
    What is stopping the other player from using his own assets to go ahead and level the building before sending anything in.Then,when there is a giant dust billow,he can stroll on in.

    Typically flags represent logical or important areas.That is why there is a little flaggie there.If you think that IRL actual forces are going to be polite so that you can casually take this obviously important area,then you are crazy.By damaging it,but not destroying it,yes you are denying it to the enemy--which is *intelligent*,not gamey.And if the enemy should never aquire the building of importance,then it is still standing and somewhat useful to your forces,should you capture it.

    In a way,how is this any different than something like a scorched earth policy?If you can't have it,why are you going to let the enemy have it?

    The act of destroying a building, isn't. Putting it on the edge of destruction and stopping so that you can smash it right at the end of a scenario and denying it to your enemy to artificially impact the time frame, is gamey.
    I know nothing of this,but to be honest,if you are waiting until the last second to snatch the objective,then you are being gamey,too.In the exact same way,by taking advantage of the gamey knowledge that the battle will end in a turn or two.

    I do know that stuff like this is why I play variable ending battles,though.

    Flamethrowers are a different story. I don't remember in my analysis of their deployment major sections where they talk about using up ammo on your own locations to deny them to the enemy, they were generally used to reduce enemy strongpoints and were viewed as rare and valuable assets. It would not be a typical doctrine to deploy them in the way discussed (sure it could happen, but far from typical), and that is why I call it gamey.
    I don't really have an opinion on this,as I have never used any in this way.But,again,you mention that they are "rare and valuable assets" and if someone wants to waste them doing something like this,then fine.However,if by doing so,they make it completely impossible for any enemy units to get around,over,under,etc to capture the objectives,then yes,it would be gamey.
  10. Originally posted by Abbott:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

    Abbott,I did not get the other email,but I did( :eek: )get the one you sent today.I should have it done shortly :D :mad: :mad:

    Great! Maybe we can get to chuckin' TnT now that the storm here has passed. It dumped about an inch of ice and four or five inches of snow. Today is only cloudy and cold so far... </font>
  11. Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

    Having flamethrowers burn something with no enemy around just to deny it to the enemy is pretty 'gamey' - in that, would they really burn all their valuable ammo on that in the real world.

    Yes they would. Somewhere in an account about Manstein, I read about "sealing their flank with a wall of fire" - I think that actually refered to open fields.

    Also, accounts of Festung Breslau, for example. Many buildings there were set on fire or demolitioned to deny the enemy cover, or to clear fields of fire.

    Not gamey at all. Just applied combat engineering. </font>

×
×
  • Create New...