Eliminating The Ubertank Problem: Selecting The Right Parameters

[Guest MantaRay]

Funny, that a 2,000 point ME, where you can not buy "Historical" forces anyway can be called Gamey if you buy a KT. I don't know about you, but I think one unit is not going to win the battle for you anyway. I have a game going now where I bought 2 Hertzers and a KT. I think this is reasonable, and my oponent just killed one of my Hertzer with a Firefly. So now even with the ubertank, I am at a huge loss on my flank, and now way the KT can even do enough damage to win this battle. Now I must worry about him slipping a tank in my gap and coming around to flank him.

Allied success in the war wasnt based on their tanks anyway, it was won with massed artillery, Airpower, and lots of armor. In fact, if an Allied player bought all infantry, zooks and Artillery, he still can win against a 2 tank 2,000 point ME for the Axis. Not that it wont be hard to do, but I have always considered Infantry to be the only important asset in the last 5 or 6 turns of the game anyway. The Jagdtiger is the exception as it is a meat grinder for infantry, and almost unbeatable if he is supported on the sides.

------------------

"To step on walls of dead, composed of the bodies of his former friends and companions, makes not the slightest impression on him and does not upset his equanimity at all; without so much as blinking an eyelid he stolidly continues the attack."

-Colonel von Mellenthin on the wave attacks of the Red Army soldiers in WWII.

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

New Site of the PLA:Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Knaust]

I like to play with no restrictions on unit pick-up...it's funnier!

To make the thing fair I always like to play 2 mirrored games, i.e. 2 battles with same parameters and reversed sides.

My opponents always agree...so you can pick the units you like...and your opponent too can do that!

To make things funnier I tried random pickups...always with mirrored games.

[Warmaker]

Choosing a KT gamey? Please, enough of the whining. If I pay the heavy points cost for a Regular/Veteran/etc. King Tiger, rest assured that takes alot out of my little bank account. I play mostly 1K point games, so that adds up to a good chunk of my "value." If you're complaining that a lone KT knocked out a dozen of your soda cans just because the Axis player knows how to properly use and protect his most expensive asset then good on the Axis player and congratulations on overcoming the numerical odds. If the Allied player knocks it out because of good tactics and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his enemy, then good job as well. Don't throw a hissy fit just because an Axis player chooses big cats. What's next? Is choosing a Panther "gamey?" What would you rather have your soda cans face, 1-2 King Tigers or 5-6 Jagdpanzer IVs laying in a good defensive position? Or 6-8 75mm ATGs for the price of 2 King Tigers to knock off your Ronson Burners? I'll be happy to take that as well. Your beloved Pershing still can get ripped open just as easily as a Sherman by the 75mm. There's a plus/minus to choosing expensive equipment.

Personally, I firmly believe a properly used "quality" force can overcome the numerical odds. But that's just me, and all my Kampfgruppes are small. I even take extreme care of my infantry which I also hold dear as much as my panzers.

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[GriffinCheng+]

After reading and experiencing so many accounts M5 Starut "The Tiger Killer", I see not reason why buying a fleet of KTs and just rushing them forward to death. Well, you know, I don't buy a KT in QB at all unless it comes as is. It think it is a total waste of "credit". And fortunately, most of my fellow PBEMers are no big fan of KT/Churchill/Jumbo.

I think well the equipment price is pretty balanced and fair right now. It is all about how to apply them together. Which means, if you are a really good player, ubertanks or not is not really important.

Griffin.

P.S. OTOH, I really want to see a parameters review feature for PBEM/TCP-IP QB. I hate being cheated by OPFOR, say, I think it was CAME but turned out to be he had all armor and I am still CA.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today).

AAR:

7 guns in a 1000 point game. Throw in an uber map and a Panther and it felt like I was playing (name blanked out). Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs is the axis concoction to vic. We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out.

Interesting. After reading this and what Jason had to say, I'm flabbergasted. I had no idea there was so much disparity in units or how a "gaminess" exists in troop selection.

Still though, the topic I started was how to combat the Ubertanks by using terrain that eliminates the strength of those tanks which is "distance." All I've heard so far was how the Germans have better units per dollar spent and how some players have "stock purchases" because they have figured out what works the best, even within different nationalities.

You might be right about this stuff. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about players using SMG squads instead of rifle troops and disparities in unit pricing but that isn't what the topic is about. We've spun some sub-topics off the main one and people have basically lost focus of my main point.

I'll assume that what you guys say is true if we can move on and talk about one issue--"How to deal with the Ubertank."

I still say that by using a scenario with the right parameters (read my first post), this Ubertank problem will go away. After all, who would take a bunch of heavy tanks on a map with heavy trees?

------------------

Youth is wasted on the young.

[X-00]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today).

Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs is the axis concoction to vic.

B]

Don't forget to back the aforementioned with a JagdIV/70s and that is the system.

For research I've played a number (2 of the top 5, 1 of the top 10)of the top ranked technicians at TH and that is definately recognized path to victory. This combination is the "market" solution for winning on TH. If anyone has figured out how to beat this systemic approach on a consistent basis let me know.

Playing before November doesn't help too much. The substitution in Gjager for SMG.

And as Jason rightly suggests this won't be fixed until BTS recognizes that thier pricing system is out of whack.

That said the "technicians" will be seeking another "market" solution as soon as pricing is changed and the debate will begin anew.

[GriffinCheng+]

Yep, I suggest visiting Max_CM's Combat Missions sites and read all bout "armor tactics" there.

Griffin.

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I'll assume that what you guys say is true if we can move on and talk about one issue--"How to deal with the Ubertank."

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/

[grunto2]

Originally posted by X-00:

Don't forget to back the aforementioned with a JagdIV/70s and that is the system.

For research I've played a number (2 of the top 5, 1 of the top 10)of the top ranked technicians at TH and that is definately recognized path to victory. This combination is the "market" solution for winning on TH. If anyone has figured out how to beat this systemic approach on a consistent basis let me know.

Playing before November doesn't help too much. The substitution in Gjager for SMG.

And as Jason rightly suggests this won't be fixed until BTS recognizes that thier pricing system is out of whack.

That said the "technicians" will be seeking another "market" solution as soon as pricing is changed and the debate will begin anew.

has anyone at "TH" tried the U.S. M8 HMC? that's the allied 'supertank.' 58 points. in the fog it's very hard to beat.

Andy

[GriffinCheng+]

Well the UK counter Dailmer (sp?) AC works just like their US counterpart M8. Unfortunately, German has no such vechicle with similar capability. Lynx and Puma are pretty close approximation.

Griffin.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/

[Warmaker]

OMG, we're not going back into the paranoia of Axis players remembering the availability dates of their equipment and some sort of "hidden evil" within it? If you're relying on this argument for your losses you need to look closely on HOW you use your units, not just the TYPE you bring. BTW, SMG platoons are not the key to victory for most German players. I prefer my Waffen SS Panzergrenadiers and Pioniere, thank you very much. King Tigers? Though I'll pick them sometimes, I will almost always go with the old, reliable Tiger I(cheaper) if the services of a heavy are needed for an anchor. Point system out of whack since German units are point for point better? Lame excuse. You have looked at how much a King Tiger costs right? You get what you pay for. But the results WILL ALWAYS come out as to HOW you use your men and equipment.

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[von Lucke]

I wasn't aware there was an "Uber-tank Problem". My "Final Solution" is to discuss the ground-rules with my opponent before starting the game. You don't wanna see "Uber-tanks" on the battlefield? Say so, and get yr opponent to agree.

Problem solved.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by X-00:

Don't forget to back the aforementioned with a JagdIV/70s and that is the system.

For research I've played a number (2 of the top 5, 1 of the top 10)of the top ranked technicians at TH and that is definately recognized path to victory. This combination is the "market" solution for winning on TH. If anyone has figured out how to beat this systemic approach on a consistent basis let me know.

Playing before November doesn't help too much. The substitution in Gjager for SMG.

And as Jason rightly suggests this won't be fixed until BTS recognizes that thier pricing system is out of whack.

That said the "technicians" will be seeking another "market" solution as soon as pricing is changed and the debate will begin anew.

Great Post

Did you play them all as the Allies?

Do they "the technicians" always prefer the Germans?

What about this:

"We might need to start bidding for

axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer

players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for

losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis

has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in

Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for

axis to even this thing out. "

That sounds like most players have figured out it is easier to win with the Germans.

Is this true?

I have played alot lately against the AI and it seems like it is always easier to win against the AI with the Axis units.

How about the bidding system? When a bidding system is proposed it is because there should be some incentive (other than the questionable desire to be the under dog which is also ahistorical) to select the Allies.

I think this should somehow be addressed.

I'm not sure that changing the point values is really the solution.

But it is an interesting problem.

Does anyone disagree that it is eaiser to win with the Germans when you "buy' your own units if you know exactly how to select what you need to win? (like the top ranked "technicians?")

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Maybe what's needed here is a new handicap field where you can type in whatever value of a bonus you think a certain side should get. You want Allies to have 5% more points on a meeting map, no problem--simply type it in.

As it is right now, you can only grant more points to an attacker and the values given are very broad. Why can't you simply type in your own value for ANY battle be it attack or meeting? If a player was granted more points as Allies, I'm sure more people would be willing to take them instead.

We did this playing Close Combat 2. The Allied infantry didn't carry the AT weapons like the Germans did which was extremely important in that game because you only had so many slots to work with. Therefore, taking another AT team to make up for this as the Allies meant one less slot for a tank. Therefore, Allies were always given more points in battles so people would be willing to use them instead of the Germs.

I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the use of dense terrain to prevent the so- called "Ubertank Problem."

------------------

Youth is wasted on the young.

[John Kelly]

One eliminates this problem if one stays away from Quick Battles. Play historical or fictional scenarios and operations. Test them out first or play them blind. There are so many great ones to pick from. John

[Wreck]

Deadmarsh: in answer to your original question. I have some experience at TH now, including playing some "technicians" (and copying their strategy).

The use of the tanks w/ big armor is caused by two factors. One is in dealing w/ other tanks, and has been talked about here. But the other has not been mentioned yet: it is in dealing with guns. Using completely vanilla settings for a quick battle, what you tend to get is a map where both sides can, in their setup positions, see most of the map. (Raising the hills to modest helps, a bit, with this, but not always nor much.) And they also tend to have plenty of cover in the setup so that it is impractical to shell all of it or even have a reasonable idea of where a gun will be.

In a situation where you can buy a 75mm pak for about 1/2 of a decent tank, and it can often cover a good portion of the board, and you can only buy so much armor anyway, armor has a tough existence. The partial solution to this problem is (a) massive armor (to get enough time to at least back away from Yet Another Gun), and ( rarely moving AFVs much on the battlefield.

To deal w/ a lot of the gaminess at least as it exists at TH, I would suggest trying heavy woods. The idea is to cut down on the lines of sight from the setup positions. If that can be achieved, then at least a large portion of the impetus to super tanks will be removed. If tanks actually have to manuever a bit before coming into danger, we may see some manuevering.

A second way to deal with it, might be to remove trees, so that the setup hillsides are bare enough that there are few places for guns to hide. With hills and buildings to maneuver behind, this might work

Incidentally I am not too sure about the merits of villiage vs other terrains are. Villiages tend to have light buildings which are potentially death traps for infantry, again putting a premium on large guns. I would suggest that something more rural might be what you want.

However, this still would not result in historical tank mixes. But at least the "wall of guns" would be dealt with.

[This message has been edited by Wreck (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Homba]

I agree with Colonel, that the effectiveness of "the big cats" decreases in direct proportion to the addition of trees, hills, and buildings to a map- and that this is all you really need to pay attention to if you don't want them dominating a game.

As far as some of the cost disparities, it seems that every game has them, CM is no different, and it would be good if BTS adjusted the values a bit based on the general consensus regarding the more badly skewed units (ie- volksgrenadier SMGs).

The other point I wanted to make is that in my experience as a T-House admin and a lurker on this board, the general perception among our members (and CM players) is that, for a variety of reasons, the Germans are the stronger side, period. This bears out others' comments above, that "winning with Germans is like holding serve," etc.

At T-House we are toying with the idea of using a very simple Bidding system in our next tourney, which, if implemented, would work as follows: The first player in each pairing has a choice, either to play Germans himself with -10% force strength, OR let his opponent play Germans at no penalty (in either case, the allied player would be at full strength).

It is this simple because that's what we're limited to by the QB features. It would be nice if we could actually bid back and forth with points. ("I'll take the Germans at -10." "Oh, yeh? I'll take them at -20." "Then I'll go as high as -50, beat that!" etc etc...) I wish BTS would implement this as a patch for the QB generator. But for now we will use what we have, which is the -10% option. This system will face the bidding player with a tough choice- but he won't be able to whine afterwards that the German side was too strong. The -10% will essentially cost the German player (if he chooses Germans), about one platoon of men, give or take- depending on battle size.

I'd like to hear some comments on the above idea for equalizing the sides.

(We are also going to have some very structured QBs in the next tourney, which will limit player's forces to more historical mixes... and quash this creeping rumor that T-House is somehow hostile to "historic" CM.)

Homba

[Col Deadmarsh]

It is this simple because that's what we're limited to by the QB features. It would be nice if we could actually bid back and forth with points. ("I'll take the Germans at -10." "Oh, yeh? I'll take them at -20." "Then I'll go as high as -50, beat that!" etc etc...)

Name that tune! Sorry, couldn't resist.

------------------

Youth is wasted on the young.

[aka_tom_w]

The board game Axis and Allies had this EXACT problem for tournaments

and a system of "bidding" was implemented.

It had the Germans either giving up build points off the start or the Allies being granted extra build points off the start.

The bidding went on until a bid was accepted.

So the "name that tune" concept is not that far fetched at all

it works like this

One player says I'll take the germans and take the -10% off

the other player counters with I can win with the germs at -20%

the first says you can have them, now he is the allies and the other player plays the germans the down 20%

Same deal for the Allies

player one says I'll take the germans and give +10% for the allies

Player two replies, no I'll take the germans and give you +20% as the Allies.

Something like that.

I'm I the only one here crazy enough to believe that we need some system of bidding like this for tournment or ladder play?

-tom w

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I think curih has the best solution: Random weather. You really have to think hard about taking an uebertank if their is a chance that the weather won't be dry. And if you do take an U-Tank and the weather is not dry, you have to think extra hard about moving at a speed faster than Move, which exacerbates the slowness of the already slow tank.

This is also historical: during WWII, the weather was random. . Also, you hear lots of complaints about the performance of various tanks in mud/snow; it's nice to see that on the battlefield.

Re TH and guns: well, historically, guns were pretty effective against tanks. Having mirror games does have a certain appeal, though.

Oh, I tend to play rifle squads over SMGs; I tend to find myself fighting at longer ranges. This could be related to the fact that I mostly play in Farmland, not Villages.

[OGSF]

Seems to me that this "problem" of Ubertanks et al is really one for the TH folks to sort out amongst themselves. I don't encounter it, and I have played literally scores of PBEM games since May last year. Now and again a couple of Pershings will show up, a Jagtiger or whatever. But they are invariably part of a mix of units and of no concern.

I don't bother with the TH or any other ladder. I don't deride the folks that do, quite the opposite. But the very nature of a ladder is to win, and some folks will do whatever it takes.

Having played oodles of PBEMs over the last nine months, my sense is that the unit prices are about right. SMG squads too cheap compared to rifle squads? Bollocks. SMG squads don't have the range. There is more to unit pricing than the size of the gun or thickness of armour. Plenty of posts on that score in many other threads already.

If you don't like Ubertanks, don't play the folks who over use them. Or do what the Allies did in WWII - knock them out with fighter bombers. If someone has a formula for winning where they buy "7 guns and SMG squads" - kill the guns with artillery or mortars and thin the SMG teams at long range with rifle squads.

To paraphrase another saying; If you beat me with "gamey" tactics once, shame on you. If you beat me with them twice, shame on me.

OberGrupenStompinFuhrer

------------------

You posture more than Marcia Brady with books on her head and you chatter like a dolphin near the fish bucket. - Dalem

[Knaust]

I completely agree with OGSF. I see no gamey tactics in using a big tank...to my experience I lost some battles when I picked up a Jagdpanzer or a KingTiger...reasons?

1) Jagdpanzer can be easily penetrated by tungsten ammo and in v1.12 Allies have far more tungsten available

2) if weather is clear, big tanks are dead meat to allied jabos…you bet a lot of points on a big tank and...pooffss...no more big tank

3) if weather is bad, big tanks may easily bog down and immobilize in damp terrain… you bet a lot of points on a big tank and...pooffss...your big tank stays there out of battle

Anyway I know that there are different opinions…so I say it again...play 2 mirrored games to make true the saying of OGSF: If you beat me with "gamey" tactics once, shame on you. If you beat me with them twice, shame on me.

I don’t agree with Homba at least to my experience as far as Germans are the stronger side:

1) I played as Allies eight 2000pts allied attack games and I won 7 of them

2) I played as Germans eight 2000pts allied attack games and I won 4, lost 3 and draw 1

So all in all Germans won 5 out of 16 games: are they the stronger side?...maybe we can question if attackers are favoured.

[Abbott]

This thread started over a comment I made to a fellow asking about ladder play. One issue of my statement was taken out of context. Here is my original statement (in full)…

Quote:

Personally Thouse is the most user friendly CM ladder site I have found. Yobobo the owner is helpful and a nice guy.

As far as anything goes play the usual I run into (used to run into) was OOB's that were Churchill (152mm frontal armor) with a mix of British and US Airborne and Glider troops. King Tigers, JadTigers, Jadpanthers and Pershings abound as well. One of the newer tactics is the "Bum Rush" German SMG platoons in human wave attacks. Massive amounts of Flak guns at times may also be encountered.

Let me also say that I have played about 40 games at Thouse and since I learned to be careful with setups and opponents I have had some very memorable and fun experiences there. I rate the site highly and browse it often.

End:

(The above was posted when the question was asked, “What should I expect in “Anything goes type play”.

Let me clarify my feelings on this subject;

1. I like Thouse it is a very well done website. That should be obvious by my comments.

2. I do not think that someone who fields a Royal Tiger or heavy tank destroyer is gamey. I enjoy seeing them and fighting against them from time to time.

3. Selecting more trees or hills does limit fields of fire and makes it more difficult for heavy armor.

4. I do not like to use heavy tree coverage or large hills in every battle I play. Nor do I enjoy facing heavy Allied or German armor in every battle I play.

5. I enjoy playing the myriad of options that Combat Mission provides.

6. Shermans, Mark IV’s, Cromwells and such vehicles were fielded during CMBO’s time frame and I enjoy using them, fighting against them and seeing them and their Mods. On the field of play just as I do the heavies.

7. I put forth a suggestion a week or two ago in a different thread about offering player’s a choice of ladders to fit their playing style. This has spawned a host of threads and personal attacks.

8. I have apologized to Yobobo at Thouse for all the crap that post started.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-23-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

I would like to see some more comments about this suggestion:

"At T-House we are toying with the idea of using a very simple Bidding system in our next tourney, which, if implemented, would work as follows: The first player in each pairing has a choice, either to play Germans himself with -10% force strength, OR let his opponent play Germans at no penalty (in either case, the allied player would be at full strength)."

So the first player who gets a choice is offered this choice:

"Pick the Germans and you get penalized with a "-10% force strength" or pick the Allies and your oppoenent gets the Germans at Full Strength.

Wow!

I would rather not have to choose in that one. I would prefer my opponent take the germans at -10% and be happy with the Allies, BUT I would not be happy to Pick the Germans at -10% or Pick the Allies and go up against the Germans at full strength.

Its an interesting suggestion, but if I was given the choice to pick the force type, I would prefer to defer the choice to my opponent so I could get either the side at Full Strength. (Rules lawyer attitude).

IN the above proposed bidding system does the first player who gets to choose units have the option to defer or pass on the first choice of sides to his opponent so he can be sure he will get either side at 100%? If not the player who is forced to choose sides first appears to be at a slight disadvantage IMHO.

Sorry, just looking for loopholes as always.

-tom w

[Warmaker]

Oh my... OMG! Do some of you guys want cheese with that whine? Yes the KT is quite powerful but I have lost several in my games to opponents using the proper tactics for their troops. I've lost them to flank shots by a Firefly, a well conducted infantry assault. The Tigers/Jagdtigers I admit are powerful but invincible they are not. If you insist on sending your THINLY ARMORED Shermans toe to toe against German guns(ATGs/Panzers/TDs/etc.) expect casualties since they actually did have many weapons with excellent penetration. You can thank the Russians for forcing these developments upon Germany.

And finally, I sort of repeat myself for your best fix against our "supposed" ubertanks: 1.Finish eating your cheese and drink your whine. 2.Calmly sit down and think about how your recent battles have gone, win or lose. There's always lessons to be learned from even small mistakes. 3.Try to come up with better tactics or strategies for your units regardless of your favored force composition, whether it be infantry, mechanized, armored, or combined arms(balanced). Get inspiration for new tactics! Read After Action Reports and learn from others' experiences! Hell, some guys here even read modern military manuals to try to learn the basics for warfighting.

Remember, a bad carpenter will always blame his tools for his failures!

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Warmaker:

Oh my... OMG! Do some of you guys want cheese with that whine? Yes the KT is quite powerful but I have lost several in my games to opponents using the proper tactics for their troops. I've lost them to flank shots by a Firefly, a well conducted infantry assault. The Tigers/Jagdtigers I admit are powerful but invincible they are not. If you insist on sending your THINLY ARMORED Shermans toe to toe against German guns(ATGs/Panzers/TDs/etc.) expect casualties since they actually did have many weapons with excellent penetration. You can thank the Russians for forcing these developments upon Germany.

And finally, I sort of repeat myself for your best fix against our "supposed" ubertanks: 1.Finish eating your cheese and drink your whine. 2.Calmly sit down and think about how your recent battles have gone, win or lose. There's always lessons to be learned from even small mistakes. 3.Try to come up with better tactics or strategies for your units regardless of your favored force composition, whether it be infantry, mechanized, armored, or combined arms(balanced). Get inspiration for new tactics! Read After Action Reports and learn from others' experiences! Hell, some guys here even read modern military manuals to try to learn the basics for warfighting.

Remember, a bad carpenter will always blame his tools for his failures!

Many of us here are active duty or have military backgrounds. Many of us have read the manuals and have employed their techniques in the field, a few in combat. Many of us employ proper tactics in our gaming with Combat Mission. You have not said anything that is not well known to many.

To quote one of greatest soldiers of all time (Admiral Nimitz had nothing on this guy)..

“What’s with the negative waves man? Why don’t you say something righteous for a change?”

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-23-2001).]