jshandorf Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: In Summary... Slapdragon: I finally figured that the Americans, on an open map, are nearly unwinnable -- I have only fought one real player, Abbott... BTS: But a full platoon of Sherman Easy 8s is about as expensive as 5 Panthers. And it should be that way too, as the Easy 8s were a match for them... SClinton: I am not fully convinced that Shermans are really overpriced... Tank Man: Another thing, it sounds to me like people use Allied tanks in the way that Axis tanks should be used.... Dalem: Given no options but to use the wrong tool for the wrong job, then best be lucky... etc.. Well I have just started a large battle with Fionn where it looks like it will be my Shermans against his Panthers (Fionn's rule of 75's No.. The map is aprox 1800 x 2400 of small hills and farmland in the daylight and dry. He had 3000pts to spend and I had 4500. I'm not afraid, in fact I expect to do very well. Anybody willing to lay odds? Cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL... You are gonna die. I am just wrapping up a battle where Fionn was the allies. I had 8 tanks. 1x Elite Tiger, 4x Crack Panther and 4x Reg MkIVs. I also bought a Whirlwind. I had 15 platoons with numerous support units. I knocked out his only two armor pieces relatively early in the game, but that didn't matter much. At this moment I am in full withdrawl and I can only hope I can prevent him from pushing me off the board. Hahaha.. Good luck. You WILL need it. Oh yeah.. I will bet 50 dollars you will lose and BADLY. He only managed about 2 to 1 exchange which I must note is pretty good for a game against Fionn since he usually racks up 3 to 1 or better. It probably will get worse since he is bound to capture a bunch of my troops during my withdrawl... Sigh... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graaf Spee Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 One solution to the überpanzer-openmap problem is to always start two games with the same parameters, one for each side. So if someone really wants to play the germans on an open map he will also be facing them himself on the same type of terrain. Sounds fun? I dont think so. I always (well almost) play on maps with large hills and heavy forest. On those maps you can always find some cover while you are advancing. Try it if you havent done so already. Just my thoughts /Kristian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 Hi Scott , you posted on page 1 of this thread: "So, are you mixing US airborne infantry with US Army tanks? Generally the airborne had few tanks in their support... But ignoring this possibly gamey mix of forces:" Please explain what is "gamey" about this? The only time you could possibly call this gamey is if someone agreed to use Allied paratroop forces only, and then broke that agreement.US Airborne troops were supported many times throughout the European theatre with Sherman tanks, as well as other weapons belonging to the "US Army" of which the Airborne is a part.I'm not attacking you here at all,no offense intended, I'd just appreciate your elaborating on this theme a bit more.For the life of me I can't see anything gamey in it, unless it's the aforementioned breaching of an agreement.There is a force lock to prevent that in QB's,anyway. Thanks for an answer Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 23, 2000 Author Share Posted September 23, 2000 I don't think it is gamey, but it can be on the edge. I am facing Abbott right now and we agreed it will be an Airborne versus German thing, but he would be supported by tanks a la 17th Airborne. I used random and got a really weird but turning out to be nice force of Germans. What Scott is talking about is what I call cherry picking. Now my force is strange, Volkstrum and Gerbils in the same batch -- which I have never seen before, but it is not so weird. When you cherry pick you choose only Brit AT teams and tanks, only US Engineers and 50 cals, only Canadian APCs and make yourself a force that could never exist in real life in any way. That is gamey -- playing the ignorance of the engine. Now 82 airborne and 17 airborne both acted as line ground troops, but US Airborne were much more rare than regular infantry, and a player like Scott who plays quite a bit can get a little weary of always facing odd and unusual choices. Same with me, a KT once in a while is spice, but a KT every game (except of course when you know you have mud to face -- that is gamey as heck) soon becomes boring. Half of my fun is trying to figure out how to face Abbott's Churchill, and him trying to figure out my roving Panzercheck patrols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I don't think it is gamey, but it can be on the edge. I am facing Abbott right now and we agreed it will be an Airborne versus German thing, but he would be supported by tanks a la 17th Airborne. I used random and got a really weird but turning out to be nice force of Germans. What Scott is talking about is what I call cherry picking. Now my force is strange, Volkstrum and Gerbils in the same batch -- which I have never seen before, but it is not so weird. When you cherry pick you choose only Brit AT teams and tanks, only US Engineers and 50 cals, only Canadian APCs and make yourself a force that could never exist in real life in any way. That is gamey -- playing the ignorance of the engine. Now 82 airborne and 17 airborne both acted as line ground troops, but US Airborne were much more rare than regular infantry, and a player like Scott who plays quite a bit can get a little weary of always facing odd and unusual choices. Same with me, a KT once in a while is spice, but a KT every game (except of course when you know you have mud to face -- that is gamey as heck) soon becomes boring. Half of my fun is trying to figure out how to face Abbott's Churchill, and him trying to figure out my roving Panzercheck patrols. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well,I can see the annoyance and frustration cherry picking can cause, but perhaps these things should be spelled out prior to the actual selection of forces? I too grow tired of playing someone who's chosen 4 tigers, and a halfdozen 88 AT's as part of his defensive force .Regarding Airborne troops and US Army weapons/AFV's,I have a particular mix I like very well, that is not gamey at all.I will never understand how any satisfaction can be derived from a win that comes as a result of a jeep rush,or cherry picking forces, etc., unless it was agreed ahead of time that anything goes . By the way, it is well known that Volkstrum and Gerbils fought side by side many times, especially at Gerbilville Bridgehead,where Goring's luftwaffe Gerbils distinguished themselves with there " just lemmings swimming in the river" deception,so there is nothing wrong with your force mix.What I find both ridiculous and appalling are those that insist there were SS Hamsters on the Ost Front, and now clamor incessantly for there inclusion in CM2! Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: ...if the point system was historically accurate then either Men & Material would cost less or we would get more points (i.e. the point system is NOT historically accurate)... ...The point system was designed arround performance (again NOT historical accuracy) , i.e. a tank with X amount of armor would cost less than an a tank with (X+1) amount of armor all else being equal. Points have nothing to do with logistical issues or rarity factors. I stand by my statement and think you are wrong when saying the point system is historically accurate... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn´t explain myself clearly... I agree that the individual unite cost doesn´t take very much in acount the logistical situation (i.e. How many Parshings actually sow combat !? ). I think the intension is to give the player the option to make a fair fight (i.e. "x"(allies)_"x"(Axis)) or to make an historical one (i.e. "2x or +"(Allies)_"x"(Axis)). This way, the game by default, is fair and leaves open the historical option. If the defoult was the other way arround I could foresee much problems between players in PBEMs, specialy the ladder ones. Remember that the game simulate at maximum 60 min battle... even if the Axis win the battle, right after it, probably the same axis force will endur another attack by new allied forces (i.e. planes or more Shermans)... João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only counter I have found to the US dilema in open ground... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> try t8s with machineguns, flamethrowers, and bazookas, then drive right in amongst the german vehicles. support those with some m8 hmcs. only 58 points. whether it works or not isn't the point; it sure is 'spectacular' either way. =grin= using the above units i've had mixed results against germans with heavy armor, but i certainly don't lose _every_ time. sometimes the germans are waxed terribly. it is most always great fun at the moment of first fire... lots of 75s and .50 cals going off.... in one losing effort i manged to: immobilize both a tiger and panther outside of los of the main objectives. knock out a halftrack or two knock out a platoon in a building (28 men were eliminated in two turns of fire; one turn a 75 set the building on fire, the next turn my approaching infantry mowed his fleeing infantry down). so after great initial success, i still lost, but the point is, i've always found lots of fast-moving american firepower to be a good antidote to just about anything. and yes i do think shermans are too expensive because i never buy them in qbs. the only tank i get is a green chaffee if it's late enough. i don't buy any tanks because i think they're _all_ too expensive, except for the chaffee and perhaps the lynx. what would be cool in cm2 would be if they had 'skeleton' AFVs and infantry. then you could buy various ammo, experience, and the leadership modifiers with additional points. so i could buy a veteran sherman m4 and pay extra for a stash of 't' rounds, however unrealistic that might be. so every flamethrower, mg, and cannon shot would have a specific price. come to think of it the leadership modifiers are already done, and the same goes for experience. so all that's remaining is for the ammo to be 'priced, piece by piece' so a for instance a commander can pay extra to deck my dudes out with demo charges and panzerfausts in the QBs. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 --For Americans, I am developing my fog fighting skills .--- dude, i played this one with some t8s, jeep .50s, chaffees, greyhounds, and m8 hmcs with m3a1 halftracks and engineers loaded to the gills with flamethrowers, and won 3 times in that battle in pbems against the germans. it was a 2000-2000 meeting action we'd let the scenario editor design the map. each board was slightly different as some players added a few trees. i believe visibility was 80 meters. anyway, i went 3-0 in the fog with ami cavalry. that wasn't the first time and it probably won't be the last. in the fog the cavalry can manuever into this sort of 'ship combat' where all of the vehicles from both sides are 'swirling' inside of 100 meters of each other - and when the visibility is often less than 50 meters - all of those american guns going off appear from my research to be irresistible. research indicates that out in the open (clear, high visibility) it's often more 'dicey' for the 'cav.' andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 23, 2000 Author Share Posted September 23, 2000 Your data would be fun to see. I still think that their is a conditional unbalance between force numbers, but the only way to test numbers is to do a series of tests that would take 20 people 10 games each to finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please explain what is "gamey" about this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slapdragon has already answered this. But please note what I actually said: "possibly gamey", and I stand by that. And for the record you know as well as I do (I hope) that the airboys received much less armored support than the infantry on average. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The only time you could possibly call this gamey is if someone agreed to use Allied paratroop forces only, and then broke that agreement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that would be out and out cheating because it violated a 'rule' set before the game began. This part should be clear to anyone, IMO. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 23, 2000 Author Share Posted September 23, 2000 Scott has it -- everyone you fight is not airborne, and the airborne are not normally born into battle riding Jumbos. Oh yeah -- a recent flame complained that I do not give my name and thus am a wimp. My name is Steve Jackson. Also, for a warning to my friends and enemies, don't play the race card on me -- I don't care which one. If you are a racist I don't tell me, and don't make racist comments on any forum I am on.. about Jewish people, westerners, eastereners, or Lithuanians. I do not like it and you will not win an argument with me that way. I am not talking about historical comments about a countries fighting ability either. Luckily it has not happened in this line!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 Yeah, and don't no one start arguing about the size of their Johnson's either. Luckily, thanks to the internet and technology, there is now a scientific way of resolving this age old dispute: http://www.durex.com/scientific/sizes.html ------------------ "Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben" Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf") Bruno "Stachel" Weiss [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 09-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 23, 2000 Share Posted September 23, 2000 Hi Scott,you said: Slapdragon has already answered this. But please note what I actually said: "possibly gamey", and I stand by that. And for the record you know as well as I do (I hope) that the airboys received much less armored support than the infantry on average. Scott,throughout a large part of Normandy, and the bulge,the Airborne fought side by side with the "Army", and received plenty of tank support,along with everything else the army got as support. I guess it's just a difference of opinion, which is fine.My argument is that sometimes so many rules are imposed on a match, that it's no longer really a game for fun,but a chore.I find this particular definiton of "possibly gamey" play, by you, totally ludicrous. Now before you get mad,I didn't say that to be offensive,I just think you're way off the mark in your judgement.You're absolutely entitled to have the same opinion of my belief, no problem with that here . As to the racist thing from slapdragon, I wish I knew where that particular ball came from ,I was watching left field and never saw it arrive! I thought we were talking about Shermans and Airborne, not races and religious beliefs,etc. you guys have a good one, Dick [This message has been edited by Dick Reece (edited 09-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 23, 2000 Author Share Posted September 23, 2000 The racist thread: On a different thread, I was trying to show how you need to be skeptical of so called "research". People often use a particular savant, or a document with no vetting, to "prove" something scientifically. At one point I said that many Soviet documents are looked at with a certain disdain because it was very difficult in the old Soviet system to communicate effectively, especially in the Stalinist era. A "gentleman" on the list for some reason thought by Soviet I was referring to a race of people called "easterner" so he wrote something like "Westerners all think..." I do not like to generalize people, I was talking about a system of government, and calling westerners ignorant is a racist comment. The real reason he is getting so mad is he was not equipped to argue science, and when faced with the kind of picky skeptical reasoning involved, he melted down into a flame war. No way am I going to play flame, but then he devolved into this "all westerners" crap, so I said - so be it. I just did not want this thread to devolve the same way. PS: Why is science a dirty word? Maybe I will get a fortune teller to back me up next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 24, 2000 Author Share Posted September 24, 2000 I have posted an offer for collaboration under the title "Ten Seconds to Midnight". It is to get together OOBs and other information on the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted September 24, 2000 Share Posted September 24, 2000 Jeff Heidman, You said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say Fionn cleans your clock, unless you can get Mike Ditka on your side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very Funny! But what if he only has a mini-Ditka? ------------------ CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Author Share Posted September 25, 2000 I wonder how much the Gyros on the Sherman help it. I rarely get a chance to move one at speed, so I have no personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Mr, Reese: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find this particular definiton of "possibly gamey" play, by you, totally ludicrous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well... I must say that I find it 'ludicrous' that you would pluck my two word statement of "possibly gamey" (bold added) out my post and call it a "definiton", then key on it for two posts. So 'ludicrous' actually, that it appears to me like you are trying to pick a fight. You wouldn't be doing that behind all the smiles would you now? Sorry, I have better things to do. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Mr, Reese: Well... I must say that I find it 'ludicrous' that you would pluck my two word statement of "possibly gamey" (bold added) out my post and call it a "definiton", then key on it for two posts. So 'ludicrous' actually, that it appears to me like you are trying to pick a fight. You wouldn't be doing that behind all the smiles would you now? Sorry, I have better things to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble. Sorry I said anything.Why would I start trouble deliberately ? I think your answer speaks volumes, you've not yet proven your statement regarding the Airborne forces and Armor support.I asked you to clarify/prove your statement.Since you can't, you insinuate I'm starting a fight instead.At no time was I "latching onto" anything, I was joining in the conversation in general.I'll say no more,and leave you with your erroneous beliefs about WWII.Funny how people are starting trouble when you can't prove your point. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bull, you know, and I know why you are still pissed. You got your panties in a wad because of my (very mild) criticism of your Pegasus Bridge scenario, our only other communication, ever. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry I said anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No you are not. You did exactly what you wanted to do, it just did not have the intended effect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why would I start trouble deliberately ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is as clear as 'day' to me. I just don't feel the need to drag that old crap out again, do you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think your answer speaks volumes, you've not yet proven your statement regarding the Airborne forces and Armor support.I asked you to clarify/prove your statement.Since you can't...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Prove" what? Are you asking me to "prove" that airborne units were supported by armor less often than standard infantry were? That is something that is so well known, it is a joke. If a "published scenario designer" needs me to prove that for him...well, that speaks volumes IMO. Or perhaps were you suggesting that I prove that something is "perhaps gamey"? How could anything such as this ever be "proven"? So, what was the point of your posts? You got 2-3 clarifications and explanations from Slapdragon. and myself...and yet you continue to harp. Gee, what could be your motive? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At no time was I "latching onto" anything, I was joining in the conversation in general.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The conversation had nothing to do with the two words you selected to make an issue about. No, you were the only one that even mentions that. The conversation was about Shermans being over-priced. Please see the title of the thread if you are still confused as to the topic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'll say no more,and leave you with your erroneous beliefs about WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I did with your beliefs about "Pegasus Bridge". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny how people are starting trouble when you can't prove your point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shall I post a link to the now locked "Pegasus Bridge" thread for a real good example of this by you? Funny thing is you would not even stop after the thread was locked. Let it go, I have no issues with you. I simply did not like your scenario and said so in a most neural manner that I still stand behind. Let it go. My comment "perhaps gamey" was simply an off-hand comment regarding "Cherry Picking" if you still have not figured that out. Please see the other thread if you don't know what that is. The reason it was 'off-hand' is because it was not the focus of this thread...until now. If you want to argue about "Cherry Picking" lets do it over there. If you really want to open up the old "Pegasus Bridge" issue, then be man enough to just do it. Don't start picking my words apart in other non-related threads trying to start something. This is childish, pointless, detracts from the topic at hand and irritating as Hell. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Ok, before this becomes the first Annual Scott and Dick celebrity Smack Down let me just weigh in with a couple of points. #1 Maybe it's me but I can see no initial venom in either one of your posts to each other. Perhaps you guys should just step back, go to your neutral corners, have a nice little break and come back without all the predisposition to fight. #2 About the Airborne and Armor argument. Well here you are both correct. Scott is right that by default the force makeup of a Airborne unit doesn't allow for heavy armor vehicles. Kinda hard to paradrop a Sherman Easy Eight from a DC-3 ya know? Dick is also right though. There are many occuranaces in WWII where Airborne units DID have some pretty potent big friends riding shotgun with them. Take the 101st and the 4th Armored boys at Noville for just one example. The key to handaling gamey issues and play balance is BEFORE the battle begins. Talk with your opponent and lay down some ground rules. Hell, Fionn and Maruader Mel have started a PBEM over Beta Maillist and I thought my brain would hemorage from all the rules that they set for each other. But one thing is for sure, there will be NO unfair advantages in that one. Just because you will try every tactic in the world to smash your enemies face into the ground doesn't mean you can't set a few boundaries on play ahead of time. Have fun people and remember, its a GAME! Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission CMHQ-Annex Host of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: Shall I post a link to the now locked "Pegasus Bridge" thread for a real good example of this by you? Funny thing is you would not even stop after the thread was locked. Let it go, I have no issues with you. I simply did not like your scenario and said so in a most neural manner that I still stand behind. Let it go. My comment "perhaps gamey" was simply an off-hand comment regarding "Cherry Picking" if you still have not figured that out. Please see the other thread if you don't know what that is. The reason it was 'off-hand' is because it was not the focus of this thread...until now. If you want to argue about "Cherry Picking" lets do it over there. If you really want to open up the old "Pegasus Bridge" issue, then be man enough to just do it. Don't start picking my words apart in other non-related threads trying to start something. This is childish, pointless, detracts from the topic at hand and irritating as Hell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hahahahaha, I see that I can't have a normal conversation regarding the finer points of anything "grognard" with you Scott.Let me end this now, by apologizing for anything I said in the past regarding Shermans, the Airborne, or Pegasus Bridge.I sincerely mean it.You are 100% correct in everything you've ever said regarding these subjects, and no doubt many others.I stand chastened and chagrined.I hang my head in defeat and shuffle away.Please accept my apologies, and forgive me for my stupidity in disagreeing with you.I wish you well,have fun above all.I mean that sincerely. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawyer Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 "Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble." Dick Reece is correct. He has plenty of trouble already playing PBEM with me. He may be a little nervous, however. Hehehehe...... I agree with Matt that Dick and Scott both made valid points. I didn't detect any hidden agenda in Dick's posts. I can tell you firsthand that Dick uses the Chinese restaurant method for selecting units: Pick one from column A, one from column B, one from column C, etc. Then mix it all together and blow everything up with much gusto! Very cool to watch, and seems to work well so far, but it ain't over till the fat lady sings, eh Dick? Cheers Jake ------------------ Just call me Lucifer 'cause I'm in need of some respect.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: "Not hardly Scott,I don't need any trouble." Dick Reece is correct. He has plenty of trouble already playing PBEM with me. He may be a little nervous, however. Hehehehe...... I agree with Matt that Dick and Scott both made valid points. I didn't detect any hidden agenda in Dick's posts. I can tell you firsthand that Dick uses the Chinese restaurant method for selecting units: Pick one from column A, one from column B, one from column C, etc. Then mix it all together and blow everything up with much gusto! Very cool to watch, and seems to work well so far, but it ain't over till the fat lady sings, eh Dick? Cheers Jake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gawd , it's the attorney from hell!! Help us all.......arrrrgghhhh Jake, Bubba's comin fer ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 25, 2000 Author Share Posted September 25, 2000 Yep yep yep. And I think Scott's point, which I agree with, is not that it is a never issue, but a rarely issue. One of the problems is that when you see a rare thing every three games you start to tear your hair out. Abbott almost kicked my but with an Airborne / Armour combo, but I knew in advance he was doing it. I pick a combo of standard infantry and Volkstrum once in a while (cannot pick to many Volkstrum because you rapidly run out of support weapon space) just because no one ever picks the poor citizen soldiers. Yes, only 7 in a gang gets them geeked easy in fire fights, so stay away, but you know what, I like to have something other than a Sturmkompanie once in a while. It is like, if we all were moderates, then no odd combination would be weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts