Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About athlete

  • Rank


  • Location
  • Occupation
  1. The scenerio is almost done, but I like the map. Can it be saved somehow?
  2. By the way, is there a way to save the map at this point? I kinda like it.
  3. It's possible...he uncharacteristically took an aircraft in this encounter and it's gone, plus he's got at least two tanks dead, and one I suspect has a dead gun, and at least two atgs are kapput...so I'm not sure how much AT equipment he has left, let alone in position to repel from the direction I choose. The only thing is that Panthers are expensive; I could lose one of them and the points would be on his side...there's only 5 turns left or I might start moving troops toward the intersection and try and actual assault...i.e recce, tank/inf co-op, prepatory arty...etc... I think I'll w
  4. Well, this is what happened/is happening. Swung my tanks and one platoon of inf to the south to climb up the side of the ridge and sweep across, had the other two platoons assemble west of the town in a good observation position. I 'assaulted' the ridgeline, took out a Wolverine and a couple of squads of inf, then set up 3/5 Panthers to cover the town, and sent the other two up the ridge, lead by an L24 equipped HT and the inf. L24 bought it from a gun at the top of the hill, but arty quickly returned the favor. Inf swept through the squad of inf assigned to cover the gun. Tank
  5. To me the difference between adding the realism of terrain effects and mechanical reliability is this: The game is supposed to simulate a set of circumstances such that two players can overcome thier own forces' and the terrain constraints to achieve an objective. Terrain effects are tangible constraints/risks that ought to be factored into any plan. On the other hand, mechanical unreliability can't practically be planned for after you choose your forces. Look at it this way; the relative cost of a late-model Tiger that you can deploy as part of the combat force could be considered
  6. Well, the game starts with us on the e and w. The hills are passable.
  7. Short version (and he might be reading, so I have to be a little cryptic). 2000pt mtg engagement, it is a QB and the map worked out to be essentially hills running n/s on both the e and w sides of the map creating a big valley running n/s in the middle...the objectives are in a town in the valley. Now, assuming roughly a platoon of tanks, some off map arty, a couple of on 81mm mortars and a company of inf, how would you approach the scenerio?
  8. You are not interupting anything. Yes, this is a common notation in history, regarding the bodies at the radio station. I'm not sure where it originates, but I'd be interested in finding out.
  9. Sorry, my bad; perhaps a poor articulation. I agree with you. What I meant was that my view that an opinion can't be wrong is based on the caveat that the person has some capacity to reason. i.e. if people want to use the extreme examples of ludicrous 'opinions' then okay, opinions can be, well, stupid/wrong I guess; but those examples are usually not opinions as much as they are incorrect facts. Your hypothesis that you could hide behind a pint and not be hurt by incoming tank shells is wrong. (Although, that said, in Canada we'd be loathe to shoot at someone if it meant risking injury to
  10. Well, for my part there is underlying assumption of the capacity to reason when I say an opinion can't be wrong. I suppose if we want to tread on the side of lunacy... There were Christians that refused to fight Gladiators because they believed that God commanded them not to commit murder. Subject to this OPINION, (or interpretation of the facts), the Brits and the French ought to have trusted in God to punish Germany for any percieved crimes against humanity on judgement day, and allowed themselves to be destroyed and ascend into paradise. Somewhere between this extremist view and the other (
  11. I'm aware of what you meant, and it's funny because an opinion can't be wrong; in my opinion. I'm done with you. You are not worth responding to anymore. It's painfully clear that you don't want to debate, you want to insult and prop yourself up by trying to annoy me. If it makes you feel good, fire away.
  12. No, I said PROOF, not just a statement or an account. I want to see documents produced or discovered by objective third parties, accounts by eye-witnesses that are named, something of this nature. I anxiously await your response.
  13. I'll tell you what, you dig up proof that Germans dressed up two prisoners like Polish soldiers and shot them and I'll give you the proof you want of the atrocities in Danzig. Deal?
  • Create New...