K.A. Miles

Yes, you are right, I feel ashamed. OK, here's my stab at a guess: I think the first CMx2 title will be Vietnam.

Oh OK....What a relief! I thought I was going blind there for minute, in some sort of strange horror movie.

Not to be troublesome, but how close are we to completing the tournament? Are we still "on track" to be completed by the end of the month? Again, not trying to be pain, just curious. All my games are now completed, and I'm bored. I suppose I could work on a AAR or something.

Rather dissapointing, to be honest- but I guess I'll have to live with it.

What would be too "exotic", for instance? Sure, I think tanks should fall off cliffs.

Well said, Undead Reindeer! Jason- Yes, I have no doubt that players would use the whole ramming/smashing/crushing element to their advantage. What of it? Along with the ramming/smashing/crushing, I would like to see realistic "unfortunate" risks/consequences to go with such dangerous tactics. Sure, you want to send that tank crashing into a building to root out that mortar crew? Go ahead! *SMASH* "OK, we're stuck, what now commander?" Just give me the option, that's all I'm saying! Penalize me with whatever terrible risks and tribulations you can conjure up, but give me the option! I'm tired of my AFVs being ghost-like gun platforms. I wanna smash something!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Uh, yeah.... :confused: You guys are too "deep" for me. I'm just a poor country boy, and where I come from, someone being run over by a big machine usually smashs the poor fella. Sure, that doesn't happen very often down here, but it sure makes the headlines when it does. Hum, life is interesting, aint it?

I guess for me, it's not "did they do it often", but that "they did it sometimes". Yeah, maybe you would have to be totally nuts to ram that building with a tank. Sure, the tank might become immobilized, the gun damaged, and several crew members beaten to pulp--- but I want to have the option to ram/overrun/grind/smash/crush anything or anybody who gets in my way!

Yes, I've wondered the same thing. I want to be able to RAM something!

...by switching to Geico. Yeah Baby!

Hello Slyniper & everyone, Apologies for not getting in touch sooner. I was out of town the latter part of last week, and over the weekend. That would always be the way, wouldn't it... Anyway, I'm back now, and ready to be smacked in three successive games. I will be in touch with my three opponents today.

Hurrah for Kingfish!!!

Slysniper, I never received the email you sent out. If you wouldn't mind sending it again, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

If I Remember Correctly, it means just that! (IIRC)

Why not pick a particular campaign, and name the tourny with that name? Then you could run a series of games, within that particular campaign "theme". Just an idea, but no else was speaking up. I'll slink back to my corner now.

I tried translating the phrase using one of those free translation services, and here is the result: "First commanded, hold mouth." Hmmmm.... Maybe not.

I'd be up for it, if the scenarios are indeed "small", i.e. not very time consuming. Sounds fun though! I've never played CMBO multiplayer before. I came on the CM scene with CMBB, and bought CMBO as an afterthought.

Brilliant! I never would have thought of that...

Ooooh, I want one! :mad: :cool:

"Winning" and "losing" are relative terms, as is evidenced by a host of historical military engagments, where both sides claimed "VICTORY!" How about we swing just a little back-on-topic, shall we? I don't care whether I play as Russians, Germans, Hungarians, etc. I have a soft spot in my heart for weak infantry, e.g.: 1941-42 Russian infantry, Hungarians, Romanians, and especially partisans. Forget the machine guns, bring up the riflemen!!!

Well, I suppose we could run it that way. Then we could compare how badly I LOSE in each game! Seriously, I'm still a novice (and I only have 31 posts on the forum *gasp*), and playing against me would not decide anything (besides that I'm a loser, and I already admit that! ). What I had in mind was more of a "duel" type game. You and Wartgamer head-to-head. A third party "game moderator" (and I'm not volunteering, BTW) would design or pick a balanced scenario, and then monitor your PBEM progress. The results of the game would be posted by the moderator on the forum, making the results public. This would have nothing to do with anyone's self worth, or respect. The point of this duel would be challenging an opinionated man that you personally find repulsive. OK, Wartgamer, you blew it. You had a perfect opening to issue an honorable challenge, and you made it into a crude joke. I don't like you, or your style, but I don't like Dorosh either (there, I said it, I dislike you both! ) If both of you are serious about this, issue a SERIOUS challenge. Such as: If Wartgamer loses, he will add "Blitzkrieg is an utter myth." to his signature for one full year. Yeah, the example is lame, so be creative and make it hurt. Just don't lower yourself any further by issuing crude, unreasonable demands. Edit: and yes, I think dueling should still be legal. :eek:

Hear Hear! Let's settle this issue like gentlemen: Dorosh vs. Wartgamer - let's see it! Some type of meeting engagement would be good, with plenty of room to manuever. Wartgamer can demostrate his version of the popular tactic known as "blitzkrieg", while Dorosh can demonstrate his own set of tactics that are notably "anti-blitzkrieg".

Three cheers for the ExplodingMonkey! You tell 'em! OK, I'll shut up now.

I played a hotseat QB with a friend a year or two back, and my aircraft attacked in the first thirty seconds. As he was still moving in the open ground, the result wasn't pretty... The aftermath was so dismal, that he gave up and agreed to a ceasefire. Of course, I've played other QBs where the aircraft don't arrive until the last turn!