sburke

Funny you should say that. I wish this were video rather than a screenshot. The team here smacked the Sherman. The Sherman crew bailed, the TC grabbing his Thompson. He emptied the entire clip at the Shreck gunner at darn near point blank range missing completely, whereupon the gunner calmly drew his pistol and dropped the TC. God I love this game. What you also can't see real well is the assistant is tossing a hand grenade (or possibly an AT grenade, couldn't really tell). Yeah it might be better for the asst to have an MP 40, but in this instance the asst never even fired his weapon. In another PBEM I had recently I had two guys with Kar 98s immobilize a scout car with a PF then proceed to trash the scout team that bailed along with the crew. It has a lot to do with timing and the position. If given any chance at all the crew typically has more weapons available and in some cases automatic weapons. Generally I use my shrecks at a further distance with less risk of close combat conditions, but I also have not lost too many engagements even up close and personal.

Best post of the whole AAR We never did resolve who the Shermen targeted first.

With the quad, it really won't matter if they are single file. Talk about an absolutely vicious amount of firepower.

touche LOL Regardless GAJ, thanks for the AAR. It was interesting, fun and it helped pass time till we see the module. My only regret was not seeing your FJ get up close and nasty on his guys. I am curious now to play some more with British paras as they seem to put out a lot of lead.

I've had an StuG crew bail and they were in bad shape. A little while later their vehicle was destroyed so I don't know that they would ever have been ready to get back into the fight.

extra long right leg? Can't you tell this is the special uber soldier developed in nazi gene tanks- it is a three legged double soldier. It is the early version so the rifle toting soldier has his right leg connected to the left leg of the SMG toting soldier. Later production would change that design flaw. either that or this is an example of why the early version of the game twister was recalled due to horrific injuries among players competing for the same dots. After all look at the face on that soldier, he is obviously in pain.

LOL lighten up. It took some guts to volunteer for a public AAR having no idea what it was gonna be like. How many of us like having the whole community dissect our every move while they know far more about what is going on? We should appreciate his intrepid love of the game.

Please do, this was funny as hell. Sorry to all you French gamers, but hey I laugh at jokes about we Americans too.

Oh, I thought he said Pot plants. I was wondering what the hell do we need that for, it isn't like the Western front included San Francisco.

Much as I have enjoyed watching Bil suss out his opponents forces from intel, I don't think it in itself is a deciding factor. You can always mess with someone by selecting forces then deleting units to confuse them. Is it worth the time.. I doubt it. I don't think Bill is positive that he only faces 2 Pzs. His detailed assessment did not include armor, just what infantry he is facing. What I think has been more important is his pursuit of intel allowed him to get an idea on what the enemy force was up to and what avenues of approach had been left unattended. Bil loves recon and does it well. He then develops his plan based on his recon. GAJ on the other had formulated a plan and enacted it with no intel. What he is finding is his force selection was for a different type battle than what he has got.

select any unit and you can see it's HQ hierarchy in the UI - you can select those HQs from the UI display. I keep forgetting that, but it is really useful for exactly what folks are talking about here.

LOL GAJ this made my morning. My bet is it targets the HQ that didn't say anything. Either their morale is way high or they are simply blind. Either way they deserve the first round.

It isn't that he doesn't like cats. He does like cats, too much and inappropriately.

Not sure I understand this and considering how confusing this thread has gotten I probably don't. I had thought we were discussing all crew served weapons and I was agreeing with Rake specifically about why I would or wouldn't deploy mortars and MGs in response to Jason's questioning why anyone would not deploy. What has that got to do with medium towed guns? Yes I get they have their own deploying/packing up issues but that was not what I was commenting on nor was Rake.

What scale are we discussing here? I have played and worked on several scenarios that are platoon vs platoon. As well I have played full battalion and even regimental size battles. The scale can be pretty far ranging.

Absolutely. Maybe I just run my forces completely wrong (more than likely true ) but I usually do not deploy unless I have a clear LOF/LOS to where I believe I have a target. Usually however if I am below a ridge line I will not deploy. The idea as you have pointed out being to reduce the amount of time it takes to get the unit to the position i want once I have gotten some recon in position to give me an idea of what I need to be doing. Time is critical, deploying without a viable target knowing I will be needing to move seems pretty pointless, detrimental in fact. I think we are up to $0.04

Commander: 'Gunner target ahead' Gunner: 'Can't see it, my views blocked' Commander: 'Driver advance, gunner call out when you see him. Gunner: Wait... wait, got him!' Commander: 'Diver halt' Gunner: 'Firing now' Commander:"oh S**t!!! Driver reverse, reverse!!! AN AT Gun is on our fl...." Tank 3 come in please.. tank 3 what is your situation....

IBTL!!! And the banning! Woohoo!!

Sure, I am curious and if I can't find anything obvious I'll pass it up the line. After of course I submit my in depth report to GaJ. Just call me Mata Burkee.

It doesn't appear that spotting was the issue. He had spotted it, the problem seemed more of the aiming...aiming....aiming.....ouch Variety. It would be nice to get a good look at that save and maybe turn it in for BF to look at. Bil is certainly capable of doing so. Maybe some other bug will be incovered.

I think Bil spotted just fine (he'd commented he had it spotted for a full 30 seconds), it was the shooting aspect that seemed to go awry. Most of the shooting issues that I have been involved in have usually ended up with a valid reason why return fire wasn't an option. I can't see a good reason here but w/o access to the save it is all conjecture.

well partly I think GAJ has a lot more to lose on a trade off. He needs to really be sure he doesn't suffer from the exchange. Trading a Sherman for a Pz IV would put him even more in the hole. He isn't really aware of the size of the force he is facing, but even with what he knows it isn't a good trade.

Depends on the judge

Isn't that the name of Jeff Dunham's dummy... hey wait a minute!!

I actually suspect most designers would prefer to hear that feedback rather than not. It is all a matter of how it is delivered and the depth of detail in the feedback. It is hard to do much with just "too much arty" if you don't understand the style of the player and how that might impact the overall design either.