Childress

So... you're asking BF for two different modes: 1- Traversing the gun to acquire a target, requiring last second micro-adjustments 2- Re-orienting the facing of the gun to cover part of the map Shirley, you can't be serious.

Because BF hasn't bothered to visually desegregate the swiveling time and TA process- it's a unitary event. The gunner hasn't finished just by traversing the barrel in the direction of the target.

AT guns rotate too slowly in CM: an ancient bone of contention. The complainers, including JasonC, are wrong. They ignore that the game incorporates, by necessity, target acquisition, the kind of detail that Battlefront would not get wrong. That adds additional seconds to the process.

Now, who would that be?

The more decentralized, the better. Edit: the quoting mechanic on this forum seems very wonky.

Ian, if you have spare time check out one of the numerous compendiums of Civil War letters. Many of the writers come from humble backgrounds and ,yes, their letters are often studded with religious references. But their writing skills and general knowledge put, imho, contemporary students to shame. http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/letters.htm

Teaching the Bible in lieu of ***** or ****** would represent a step up in the current curricula.

Acquiring a wargaming habit would represent a vast improvement in the mental lives of the young generation, if only for the history aspect. I won't say they're dumb as rocks, the evolutionary process takes millennia to arrive at that outcome. But they learn and know very little. A neighbor spent 2 years at Berkeley and he can barely read. The kids in that NK video can be considered victims. Blame the system.

There's a whiff of conspiracy about the dumbing down of the young generation. As Lenin remarked, 'Who Whom'? The members of these forums are certainly bright and well-informed. But we're mostly middle-aged guys. We escaped the US educational collapse- STEM fields excepted. I posted this amusing- and alarming- video a while back. In case you missed it.

You inspired me to check out the WoT forum. For such a- seemingly- goofy game it certainly seems to attract some impressively well-informed grogs. Who knew?

Ah, the good old days. There was- and probably is- a cottage industry in squeezing the maximum bang out of one's buck when selecting a QB force. Data tables were offered, relative values weighed and plaintive demands posted that BF re-visit the value of this unit or that unit. But the speed with which those values were revised from the top was exceeded by industriousness of the green eyeshade types who made an evolving science out of it. It was endless, getting it right proved to be a Sisyphean task. So BF gave up. For some reason, those controversies have more or less vanished from the boards.

Strongly dissent. And I recall that Steve agreed, citing the division between the simulators and the chess players. However, an ME match is a genuine test of skill and doesn't condemn one player to a passive role. Both sides can maneuver- a major plus.

I always imagined Meeting Engagements, CM-style, as unicorns. I.E., something that doesn't exist in real life. Think about it. 1- Did roughly forces equal collide during WW2 in a free for all? Sure. Particularly in the Desert, as Emrys pointed out. 2- Did these forces share exactly the same combat values? Unlikely. 3- Did the two sides KNOW, going in, that their force values were precisely identical? Never happened. Thus, armed with pre-knowledge, these hybrid matches play out in a curiously tentative manner. However, having participated in many dozens of PBEM MEs in CM1 against various members (who would accept nothing else) I can attest these are the best and most competitive players in the game. One assumes this hasn't changed in CM2.

Every commander should pin that maxim to his forehead.

It was a battle that shouldn't have been fought. And you did excellent work in recreating it. Going by some of the responses it seems I need to refine my tongue-in-cheek approach. I recall posting that virtually ALL the CM battles represent mistakes. By necessity. Unless it's a 'Meeting Engagement', a curious construct, imo, but one that enforces fairness and allows both sides to maneuver.

... not like an actual battle. For the most part. The scenarios- in any CM game- are constructed to be challenging, sometimes fiendishly so. That's understandable, players seek a challenge. The designer wants to show off his chops. However no commander ever sought a 'challenging battle'. A challenging battle is a mistake, usually resulting from an error in intelligence, non-forecasted events or general screw ups. SPOILER I twice fired up 'A Muddy Affair'. Results: an ignominious defeat and a marginal and bloody victory. Yeah, I know that battle was historically a draw. But then I checked out the correlation of forces at the start. The Allies are out-numbered and the defending Germs are behind walls and inside of structures. The mud tends to attrit the Allies' armor whereas the other side operates on interior lines, their own potent tanks on bog-free roads. It's soooo unfair. Would it be interesting to portray, say a campaign, wherein the offensive side duly pushes back the defender and the score determined by how efficiently the attacking side carries out its mission? Or would that be boring?

'There was a statue—it may still exist—of Hitler made after he came to power. It shows him in a suit of medieval armor but without the helmet.' It was a painting: Stalin favored, like Hitler, portraits and photos that showed him as an avuncular dedushka- grandpa. Both renditions were equally mendacious.

Phew. You were joking. I was just packing a suitcase of 'necessities', picturing myself in a jail sharing a cell with Bubba- on 10yr Wiki rap.

God God, you looked it up. Don't report me to the authorities, Michael!! It was just the 1st sentence of your quote. I know nada about that town and Childress was a distant ancestor- not my name.

As I understand it, it wasn't just the powder but the muted muzzle flash.

Of course, you're right. But the absence of the effects of the Germans' smokeless powder in the CM series always seemed curious. The inherent challenge that it posed to the Allies has been noted in tactical narratives. Not that it would be hard to simulate, just a modification of the spotting parameters.

Hey, quit dissing the Welsh! My great, etc, slave-owning grandfather founded Childress, Texas. Allegedly. There were several saloons in Childress until 1904, when a fatal shooting prompted the authorities to adopt local prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Population has been steadily declining since the 19th century.

Smokeless powder? Henry W. Johnson, Captain, Company F, 66th Armored Regiment:"The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernible to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance."Everette L. Harris, Corporal, Gunner, 2nd Armored Division:"...Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank has, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76-mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges."

Chris: in one of your- excellent- FB videos you pronounced Stug as 'Stoog'. Correct pronunciation is 'Shtoog'. Hearing your version nearly caused me to lose a filling. A bon entendeur, salut.