Where did all the funnies go?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

I sense that finally Mr.Slapdragon you are starting to see some sense. You have moved considerably from your original position which derided any suggestion that these vehicles should be included. Perhaps the increasing weight of evidence and argument is finally penetrating your smug exterior?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen, the above statements are just dodges, and you are trying to start a flame war. I think you are a bigot, but I do not think you are stupid. The concept here is not tough.

Take the 15 minute issue. Why 15 minutes? Because an operation that takes 30 minutes will only ever show up in the longest scenarios and at the end. Not exactly when you want your enablers to your assault to show up.

Several other things you just failed to read. No problem, when you have read them and reformulated your reply I will be happy to discuss why this system, and the related subject of veracity in historical research, are important.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Listen, the above statements are just dodges, and you are trying to start a flame war. I think you are a bigot, but I do not think you are stupid. The concept here is not tough.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your condescension is not necessary, Mr.Slapdragon. The only bigotted person here is yourself - you apparently dislike anything British, so seek to create an atmosphere of distrust towards anybody who seeks to redress the historical inaccuracies evident in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Take the 15 minute issue. Why 15 minutes? Because an operation that takes 30 minutes will only ever show up in the longest scenarios and at the end. Not exactly when you want your enablers to your assault to show up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 15 minute issue is an artificial constraint placed on scenarios, nothing more. I've yet to come across an account of a "battle" which lasted so brief a time. Engagements, yes, battles no. It might be a question of terminology, nothing more but it indicates we're not really talking about the same thing, Mr.Slapdragon.

Personally, I have no problem with longer scenarios if it means I achieve the objective. I prefer to be methodical about my approach to gaining an objective as against going bull at a gate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Several other things you just failed to read. No problem, when you have read them and reformulated your reply I will be happy to discuss why this system, and the related subject of veracity in historical research, are important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make severa big assumptions, none of which can be substantiated, Mr.Slapdragon. You really do more than teach journalism, you appear to practice it.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

You make severa big assumptions, none of which can be substantiated, Mr.Slapdragon. You really do more than teach journalism, you appear to practice it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I neither practice Journalism nor teach it. As a non reader, I understand how the profession will irk you, but reading is very important for serious discussion of simulation and history.

We can select a hundred of yoru statements here which you cling to (ever planning to answer Hof about the whole Pupshen thing? I thought not) but I will pull one more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Still missing the point - its not a matter of how often it was done - its a matter of the fact it was done and could be done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are some things that were done that, using this logic, must enter the game:

>> Drop an M24 tactically from a Lancaster Bomber using a skid. (Done once in 1945 and determined to be not worth the effort per "Airborne Operations of World War Two" 1957 US Army "fact file")

>>Convert a Lee-Enflied to an automatic rifle (limited issue in 1941 per Ezell "Weapons of the World"

>>Issue bottles of cooking grease as an antitank weapon (During battle of the Bulge, per "The fighting 117th" oral history)

>>Construct straw filled dummies to fool Germans into thinking a shifting unit was still in place. (October 1944, "Metz Campaigns". It did not work.)

>>The British tried out eliminating the reserve chute for many drops in practice, as a result their troops suffered more casualries (not so much deaths as hard landings from chutes that did not deploy right but could not be dumped for lack of a spare, "Inside the British Army").

I could go on, but each of these things could be modelled, including air dropped tanks, bottle of grease for weapons (or iron bars in the treads or several other Bulge tactics) or straw dummies or Enflied ARs replacing Brens. By your theory, it all should be modelled.

You are actually wrong in your assessment in all of the points, but as I said, you are shooting yourself in the foot, not me.

[Slapdragon]

Sorry, here is one that is so off the wall that it suddenly dawned on me that you have not really played CM all that much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The 15 minute issue is an artificial constraint placed on scenarios, nothing more. I've yet to come across an account of a "battle" which lasted so brief a time. Engagements, yes, battles no. It might be a question of terminology, nothing more but it indicates we're not really talking about the same thing, Mr.Slapdragon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes, the average scenario will be 30 minutes. Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives".

This is a major issue if you have not played the game enough to find out that the maximum battle length is 60 minutes. Maybe CM should have called them engagements, but the choice was based on infantry ammo loads and game playability.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Sorry, here is one that is so off the wall that it suddenly dawned on me that you have not really played CM all that much.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never claimed to play it "all that much". I have been playing now for about 6 months or so. I do have an alternative life, unlike yourself...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes, the average scenario will be 30 minutes. Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So? The combatants had union rules which limited them to 15 minutes at a time fighting?

As I said, its an artificial constraint. It does not represent any real period of time. "battles" or "engagements" can be 1 minute to days or weeks in real life, Mr.Slapdragon.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes ... Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives".

This is a major issue if you have not played the game enough to find out that the maximum battle length is 60 minutes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops! :eek:

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latter not being expressly modeled in the game. So what is the point again of having a device that allows the express modeling of crossing something that is not expressly modeled? Answers on a postcard...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well no sh*t?!! I never noted. More importantly, neither did Monty. Now if someone had only told him, this strange pre-occupation with the bridges in Arnhem, Maastricht, Son etc., and the delay in crossing the Rhine would never have occurred. He would just have thrown some fascines into the Rhine and walked across...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely successfully repulse the attacker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, let me think - oh bugger, yes. Well, IIRC the Germans seemed to do this an awful lot... The Odon, the Albertkanal, the Maas, the Rhine, the Weser, the Oder, just to pick a few. Gamey bastards. So, why did 79th Armoured not just prevent them from doing so (note - this answer maybe included on the above mentioned postcard).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Non sequitur. If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from above would increase dramatically.

Alternative means are not in the scope of the game. The rivers you see in the game (how often has that been said now?) are 20m wide. Again, what is the max distance a Valentine B/L can bridge? How many fascines do you need to bridge that?

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed.

The latter not being expressly modeled in the game. So what is the point again of having a device that allows the express modeling of crossing something that is not expressly modeled? Answers on a postcard...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might not be modelled in the game but that does not mean they did not exist, I'd suggest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges.

Well no sh*t?!! I never noted. More importantly, neither did Monty. Now if someone had only told him, this strange pre-occupation with the bridges in Arnhem, Maastricht, Son etc., and the delay in crossing the Rhine would never have occurred. He would just have thrown some fascines into the Rhine and walked across...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being rather silly now aren't you, Mr.Germanboy?

I'm not talking about the Rhine, I'm talking about the numerous minor rivers and streams and canals which existed to limit movement in NW Europe. It appears that like Mr.Slapdragon, you believe union rules apply

to battles.

"Oh, we've come to a river. There is no established bridge here! Time out! Union Rule No.105 states that we will only cross water obstacles at established bridges!"

*TOOOOOOOOT!*

"Bloody hell, is it knock off time already? Oh, well, back off home to the wife and kids. Next shift!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely

successfully repulse the attacker.

Hmm, let me think - oh bugger, yes. Well, IIRC the Germans seemed to do this an awful lot... The Odon, the Albertkanal, the Maas, the Rhine, the Weser, the Oder, just to pick a few. Gamey bastards. So, why did 79th

Armoured not just prevent them from doing so (note - this answer maybe included on the above mentioned postcard).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps 'cause it was the role of the 79th to make sure that this method of defence did not work by providing the attacking commander with more options than just charging straight ahead a'la the Somme?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier.

Non sequitur. If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from

above would increase dramatically.

Alternative means are not in the scope of the game. The rivers you see in the game (how often has that been said now?) are 20m wide. Again, what is the max distance a Valentine B/L can bridge? How many fascines do you need

to bridge that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

River tiles are 20 metres wide. Rivers can be wider. Even a 20 metre wide river should not be allowed to represent an obstacle, forgotten that the British specifically developed means of putting in place complete bridges, very, very, quickly?

It seems you're content with hitting your head against a brickwall, Mr.Germanboy. I'm not.

You keep harping on about the Valentine Bridgelayer - it was but one of the options available to an attacking British commander and{/B] it could be utilised in tandem to produce a longer bridge, BTW.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[/qb]

River tiles are 20 metres wide. Rivers can be wider. Even a 20 metre wide river should not be allowed to represent an obstacle, forgotten that the British specifically developed means of putting in place complete bridges, very, very, quickly?

It seems you're content with hitting your head against a brickwall, Mr.Germanboy. I'm not.

You keep harping on about the Valentine Bridgelayer - it was but one of the options available to an attacking British commander and{/B] it could be utilised in tandem to produce a longer bridge, BTW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I am not content with hitting my head against a brickwall, and like you, I would love to have an all-singing, all dancing game that allows me to go from the Corps level down to the squad level, letting me jump into game simulation whenever I desire, gets all the aspects right, models all the most obscure vehicles, and gets the modelling of even the most minute aspects of the war right. No argument there. But then I tweak myself, and think 'Hey, this is bloody damn good, I won't get everything, so there will have to be choices'. The procedure for choices has been outlined by BTS (it is what Slappy posted earlier) and so far I am not convinced about the need to have all this extra stuff when looking at the procedure. If I could programme a game, I would try to do mine, but I am afraid I can not. Therefore I am stuck with BTS choices. Which is not a hard life at all.

Now as for the quick bridging - I have not forgotten that. But what is the applicability to CMBO? 43rd Wessex and XXX Corps engineers took quite a few casualties when bridging the Seine at Vernon, but the bridge was not needed to stop this. Units that crossed in assault boats cleared the area. The Canucks crossing north got their tanks across on rafts. Again the bridging was not a CMBO issue at all.

So since the Valentine B/L is not the issue, what exactly do you want now? Have we gone from a desire to include funnies to a desire to include Class40 rafts and bailey bridges?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

To condense and slightly modify Jacko?s criteria :

1)It must be directly supporting of the battle.

2)It must be able to be used within the confines of the battle (the average scenario is 30 turns, so say 15 turns, or 15 minutes).

3)It must have some effect on game play.

4)It must fall into the realm of the codeable within the capabilities of the current game engine.

5)It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game.

6)Priority, can it be done in time for the game and is it worth it

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon, thanks for relating the discussion back to the game, instead of the pie in the sky approach latterly chosen by Mr. Whatshisname (sorry, can't bring myself to call you by a name that is clearly false).

Now unfortunately you forgot my favourite funny, the Buffalo, you Jacob's Creek drinker...

The Buffalo:

1) Yes, they could bring a platoon or vehicles directly onto the battlefield, if the edge was water, protected by armour, and give direct fire-support with an Oerlikon 20mm and a .50HMG (IIRC)

2) yes

3) More doubtful - you could just drop the soldiers of as reinforcements in a canned battle, and the fire-support is not that great. Also, they probably need a point to enter the water that is sheltered from observation/fire.

4) Well, we have armoured vehicles with guns and we have assault boats. So it should function within the limitations of assault boats (i.e. the AI could not handle them in water)

5) limited, since they were only used in clearing the Scheldt, and for assault-crossing the Rhine in March 1945. The latter not being a very interesting battle to make, if you insist on doing it historically. The former a very limited use, and it is doubtful whether they were mis-used as asault vehicles, since they would be more valuable as supply vehicles.

6) obviously not

Regarding CDL - they had an intended use as direct battlefield weapons, to blind the opponent, but were in all likelyhood never used as such. You can currently simulate them somewhat by having a scenario that was historically night set to dawn/dusk.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Simon, thanks for relating the discussion back to the game, instead of the pie in the sky approach latterly chosen by Mr. Whatshisname (sorry, can't bring myself to call you by a name that is clearly false).

Now unfortunately you forgot my favourite funny, the Buffalo, you Jacob's Creek drinker...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could easily see a snowballed clamor for DUKW's, DD tanks, and the amphibious-capable jeep too. (I believe that UK DD's were used in the Rhine crossings near Weser for one example beyond D-Day.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beazley's translation of Slap: "I was wrong to attack Kim and others for desiring to see funnies included in the game purely because I didn't believe they were important as they are British and I hate everything to do with the British as a true anglophobe should."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A textbook tactical doctrine. When logically cornered, resort to the ad-hom.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from above would increase dramatically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL....

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I cannot get the QB to go farther than 60 minutes. You must have that ultra special deluxe gold version.

You CAN make a 120 minute scenario in scenario design, but as BTS has stated before the average scenario length will be 30 minutes.

Think not? Check Der Kessel and the disk and average the scenario lengths. There is a good reason for BTS to say that 30 minutes is the average and 60 is the max (and code it into the QB engine). Infantry do not have enough ammo for more than that, and will run out of ammo sooner as is in tough fighting.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MBT AP FFS:

Perhaps the increasing weight of evidence and argument is finally penetrating your smug exterior?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

!

what evidence? where?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[/qb]

Being rather silly now aren't you, Mr.Germanboy?

I'm not talking about the Rhine, I'm talking about the numerous minor rivers and streams and canals which existed to limit movement in NW Europe. It appears that like Mr.Slapdragon, you believe union rules apply

to battles.

"Oh, we've come to a river. There is no established bridge here! Time out! Union Rule No.105 states that we will only cross water obstacles at established bridges!"

*TOOOOOOOOT!*

"Bloody hell, is it knock off time already? Oh, well, back off home to the wife and kids. Next shift!"

River tiles are 20 metres wide. Rivers can be wider. Even a 20 metre wide river should not be allowed to represent an obstacle, forgotten that the British specifically developed means of putting in place complete bridges, very, very, quickly?

It seems you're content with hitting your head against a brickwall, Mr.Germanboy. I'm not.

You keep harping on about the Valentine Bridgelayer - it was but one of the options available to an attacking British commander and{/B] it could be utilised in tandem to produce a longer bridge, BTW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boy Andreas, you have the poor sod blathering now. I feel bad for him living in a private world where physics, history, and logic are replaced by whatever the lastest training film he saw.

Let see. The first comment is crap, we can ignore it as it is meaningless, since no one has proposed union rules, only discussed the obvious limits to the game game that Mr. Kim wants to be a combination of "Origins of War", "Panzer Leader", and obviously from the way he and others talks about the Commonwealth cutting through Nazi's like a warm knife through butter, "Zulu". Well, when he gets to Freshman English Composition he will learn that when writing, you must limited your topics in order to successfull discuss a point, the same in games. BTS rightfull have removed the issue of strategic supply, strategic bombing, quality of pit toilets, tea deliveries, and a whole lot more from the war in Europe to make a game that focused on the company level infantry battle.

And now you propose that the Bailey Bridge and the associated bridges of this sort be added to what is a company level tactical game. Well, reread Simon's posts about adding it (he is after all an Australian so you can believe what he says).

The pigs take 6-12 hours to get constructed, they cannot be constructed without both banks being held, and they are not tactical elements.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

!

what evidence? where?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hof, this is the problem -- many of the recent arguments for uberBritish have been launched without a whole lot of evidence, or thoughts to how that evidence will be presented and placed before the peer review of board critique.

Much of it stems from a misunderstanding of how the board works among the old groggers like you. Every idea needs its tires kicked to see if it can be made better. It is called peer review. By not presenting any more evidence than a watched but not cited movie, and a list of manuals from which optimum set up times are derived (but failing to read the rest of the manuals to find out that you cannot just throw a bridge around without survey and planning) they insulate themselves from critique. Who can argue with a quickly dodging cast of characters who never have to defend anything because they never really say anything.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Translation = "I was wrong to attack Kim and others for desiring to see funnies included in the game purely because I didn't believe they were important as they are British and I hate everything to do with the British as a true anglophobe should."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not notice this one guys. Just wanted to bump it up as evidence that no real data is being used here and the case for funnies is merely being hurt by the same people who worship the things and the potted meat product the crews who ride on them eat.

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

!

what evidence? where?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's over there, in a box.

No wait, that's the ambiguity.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[/qb]I'm not talking about the Rhine, I'm talking about the numerous minor rivers and streams and canals which existed to limit movement in NW Europe. It appears that like Mr.Slapdragon, you believe union rules apply

to battles.

"Oh, we've come to a river. There is no established bridge here! Time out! Union Rule No.105 states that we will only cross water obstacles at established bridges!"

*TOOOOOOOOT!*

"Bloody hell, is it knock off time already? Oh, well, back off home to the wife and kids. Next shift!"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re-reading this, and coupled with your other comments earlier, I have decided that you are indeed clueless. You seem to have no comprehension of the engineering battle you clamour on about so loudly beyond the training movie you watched. I sincerely suggest you go and talk to an engineer about the laying of bridges under combat conditions.

Here are some clues, to help you on your way:

1) If bridges were unimportant, why did armies go out of their way to capture/blow them up?

2) If 79th AD was the panacea to all German resistance, why could the Germans hold on for months to defenses behind streams, e.g. the canals in the low countries, the Rhine, the Scheldt. 79th AD was present at all these battles, and materially influenced their outcome, but why not faster, if it was the be-all and end-all of combat engineering?

3) What is the deployment time of a Class 40 bailey bridge, and what are the pre-requisites for its construction (hint - the answer as to why existing sites with blown bridges were used is in here)?

4) If you have a game without anti-tank ditches and small streams, is there a need to model the means to cross these non-existant barriers in the game?

5) Why don't you just admit you are wrong, instead of continuing to have a go at Slappy? It gets tiresome, you know.

6) Have you ever seen a canal in NWE?

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

!

what evidence? where?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather think the evidence of numbers of funnies in use in 21 Army Group qualifies, myself.

I also percieve as Kim has, quite a sea change in Slappy's posts - he's gone from smug and patronising to nearly conciliatory. From outright rejection to semi-serious consideration.

I'd say that its about 2:nil, Kim's way at the moment.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Hof, this is the problem -- many of the recent arguments for uberBritish have been launched without a whole lot of evidence, or thoughts to how that evidence will be presented and placed before the peer review of board critique.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, this isn't an academic journal or publication - and thats your problem. Its a web discussion board where people are meant to be discussing a topic of interest, now trying to ram down each other's throats their own historical viewpoint.

Indeed, if you tried half of the things you've been noted trying here, in real academic debate, you'd be laughed out of even a first year tutorial downunder. Deliberate misrepresentation of your opponent's position, ad hominem debate, patronising, smug attitudes, tsk, tsk, tsk. You're no advertisement for the academic standards of American universities, Slappy.

I find it amazing that you've ignored the efforts of myself, Kim, Simon, John and others to point out the errors in how various weapons/tactics for the British/Commonwealth are related.

Instead, you appear to believe that CM is your personal creation and that you control this webboard.

No wonder Kim derides your attitudes and treats them with contempt. You are, to use a 'strine phrase, "a legend in your own lunchtime," Slappy.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I'd say that its about 2:nil, Kim's way at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I just wait and see him seriously address some other points then, shall I? E.g. what it actually is he wants, and why it should be in the game as the game currently stands... Or maybe see him address Simon's analysis of why particular vehicles are in and why not. Latest I saw he seemed to argue for the inclusion of anything up to Class 40 rafts and bailey bridges.

As you point out about the PAW600, deployment and numbers mean very little in terms of use, so do not qualify as evidence in their own right.

[Eumundi]

I cannot believe that so many people are mindlessly following Slapwagon and his campaign against the Australians and the British. Listen up Simon Fox, and Germanboy, and Hofbauer, maybe you should spend more time paying attention to your own affairs and less time slamming the commonwealth. I notice that the three of you like ganging up on Australians, is that a hobby of yours?

If people want funnies, BTS will have to give them funnies to keep their business. If you don't like funnies, maybe you just don't have to use them. The rest of us will enjoy them and win lots of games with them.

As for the Bailey bridge mister smart guy, have you ever set one up? If not then you have no place to talk. I think when it comes down to it none of you can prove that it was not possible to set up a Bailey bridge in combat, just like you can't prove that the Ark could not be used under fire.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I did not notice this one guys. Just wanted to bump it up as evidence that no real data is being used here and the case for funnies is merely being hurt by the same people who worship the things and the potted meat product the crews who ride on them eat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, I've wondered why your so voracious in resisting an effort to correct the historical inaccuracies for the British in the game. I think Kim has hit the nail on the head - you're anglophobic, aren't you?