Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 Mr. Reese: You never did answer me: How is anyone going to prove that something is "possibly gamey"? I mean you made a big point about asking me to 'prove' this, please elaborate on how it is possible to prove something is "possibly gamey"? Or you could avoid the question again... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see that I can't have a normal conversation regarding the finer points of anything "grognard" with you Scott.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is because you have yet to try to have a "normal conversation". Frankly after the hostile tone of the multiple emails you sent me that only stopped when I blocked your email address, how should I interpenetrate this thread? I am trying to steer this thread away from those openly hostile emails you sent me all because I called your scenario "less than historically accurate" (gee, those are tough words). But it is hard when you continue to play the 'innocent one' that has no agenda. Sad thing was I was warned by people you would do this, I guess they were right. It appears that you do not have a problem with cherry picking and that is fine. Neither do I, once in awhile. But in the dozen PBEM games I have played I have seen: More King Tigers than Stugs and PzIVs combined; More German Gerbs. and Para infantry than Heer; More Jumbos and Pershings than M4a1s. Hell, I won't even get into the combinations of units I have seen in a single battle! The bottom line is that these formations were rare. So rare as to constitute something a-historical. Why is it that some "grognards" go berserk if they have to do battle with a vehicle whose armor specs are off by 2mm but seem to have no problem doing battle with JadgTigers supporting German Mountain troops and Volkstrum? Armor supporting airborne does not even begin to approach the cherry picking I have seen, but the fact is armor supported the airborne boys far less than their ground pounder cousins. Anyone can name times when they had ample armor support, that is fine and I never questioned this. So what is with the 'straw man'? But if you can't find twice as many times when they did not have the level of armor support that the line infantry had, then you are lacking in your research. The sad thing is that none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread, something I thought I noted quite clearly. As a matter of fact there is a thread dedicated to this very topic going on now. ------------------ 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...
Dick Reece Posted September 25, 2000 Share Posted September 25, 2000 I'll say it once more,I'm sorry, you are right about everything.Once more, please forgive me.I'm apologizing so that you may get on with the real purpose of this thread. You are right,you always have been,no doubt you always will be,and I am wrong.I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.Forget about this,get on with your life, as I am trying to do.I only post this so you won't waste anymore of this valuable thread space proving me wrong and exposing anymore of my numerous faults. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 27, 2000 Author Share Posted September 27, 2000 An update on the Sherman thread: my Volkstrum are eating Sherman's for breakfast. They are not very good against infantry either unless you have a way of wasting the Panzer Fausts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 Ahh...if you are talking about our game I think that the limited visibility (ie < 30m) may somewhat hinder infantry support tanks... ------------------ 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...
shags Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 I love this game! 'Tis a shame that not every game has such a mileau (gotta be spelled wrong, of that I'm sure) of die hard gamers, or maybe not. Wargaming is a special genre, that's for sure. Ya'll should take it out on one another on the virtual field, where this here rivalry means something! I would be more than willing to moderate. shags "I am the effect."--Nietzche (I need to do the signature thang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 30, 2000 Author Share Posted September 30, 2000 Scott and I are currently on the field of honor, where his virtual butt is being kicked -- but it is down to the wire and could go the other way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Getting back to the issue of tactics on an open map, I don't recall anyone mentioning smoke. If you don't have cover, make it. (I must confess I am notoriously lax about using smoke in CM. Do as I say, not as I do...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted September 30, 2000 Author Share Posted September 30, 2000 Smoke was the traditional allied answer, but US artillery is way to expensive to buy for smoke use in smaller battles. In attacks I use it. but not often in the smaller battles. I "real life" every US engineer platoon had smoke generators and US WP and smoke rounds were very plentiful, far more than in CM -- it is just that in pricing them this is not yet accounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 And don't forget the inherent smoke rounds that some of the Shermans carry. They don't last long, but if you time it right some of your guys can fire off the smoke and provide the 'cover' while the others dash forward. Personally, I like the 81mm mortars for the US. At around 85pts and 200rnds each, how can you go wrong? ------------------ 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...
Recommended Posts