Treeburst155 Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 This is the official thread for WineCape's SECOND wine tourney. All stats and updates for this tournament will be posted here. This and any tourney specific thread I start may drop several pages back at times so just do a search for "Wine Tourney" and you'll find it. For clarification of tourney rules click here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019311 Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Wines that are going to the winner of Tourney II below. I'll give some background on the wines later here @ this thread ... The Morgenhof Premiere Selection 1997: Vergelegen Cabernet Sauvignon 1998: Hazendal Shiraz-Cab 1998: Longridge Merlot 1998: Fredericksburg Classique 1998: And a white wine, the Baroness Nadine Chardonnay 1998: Treeburst155 will keep us updated on Tourney II here. Sincerely Charl Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Am I right in thinking that: A) Tourney II is still open? That it has a 90-day time limit for 10 games aswell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 4, 2001 Share Posted June 4, 2001 Wow. Winecape, you should be awarded for "Conspicuous Generousity Above and Beyond the Call of Duty, Under Combat Conditions." Thanks for your ongoing sponsorship of the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 4, 2001 Author Share Posted June 4, 2001 Soddball, Tourney II is closed, but it does have 11 people in it so each person will have to play 10 games. Our benefactor, WineCape, had requested that a friend of his be allowed in so it was done. The 90 day deadline is not set in stone, especially since there is now an extra game for everyone to play. We'll just see how things progress. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Mike_D Posted June 5, 2001 Share Posted June 5, 2001 I have sent a contact to all players. I would like to thank WineCape for their support. And wish every player the best of luck. Mike_D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevetherat Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 I hope I'm putting this in the right place. I'll steam ahead regardless. Chaps! I have a minor, but still annoying, problem with my e-mail thingy. I have recieved many challenges from the hoard of baboons in the Tourney II but I am unable to respond. So, here, I respond to your gurgling squeeks in one go: "What? You beat me? That makes me laugh more that 1001 tickly fingers wringling about my belly. Give up now. If you have a face (which is VERY unlikely) you better save it now." In other words, I will respond to all your e-mails as soon as I can kick Outlook back into gear. StR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Let us know if you need us to resend Rat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 I also lost some emails over the past two days - if you have sent me something and not gotten a response since Wednesday, please resend. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 9, 2001 Author Share Posted June 9, 2001 My cable modem ISP is down for the count. I mean it is knocked out cold and has been for days now. Until further notice my email address is RCMein@aol.com. I'm changing my profile to reflect this. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckle Posted June 9, 2001 Share Posted June 9, 2001 Right you ugly lot, I have games started with: Fangorn Tincan StugIII TankBuster MrSpk MikeD - (just about started now, our mail dosen't seem to like eachother.) i am waiting for responses from: Gashford Sledge Marcus StevetheRat * i'll mail you slackers individually to try and kickstart a response from you... really, we should be dying-a-lot (or at least sneaking-waiting-for-contact-a-lot) by now. *StR - alright, i read your post above... but quit making excuses! you can try and blame outlook, (it is made by microsoft after all) but we know you are scared... now stop blubbing and GET TO IT! AAR's and updates will follow... I look forward to the inevitable demise of my opponents. ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Mike_D Posted June 10, 2001 Share Posted June 10, 2001 i am waiting for responses from: Gashford Sledge Marcus StevetheRat * The rest are well underway.. well except for mrspkr.. ya get my messages now mrspkr? mdahms@carolina.rr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Mike_D Posted June 10, 2001 Share Posted June 10, 2001 well, mrspkr.. bad news.. got the following: ------Transcript of session follows ------- mrspkr@bigfoot.com 550 Access denied returned mail..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevetherat Posted June 12, 2001 Share Posted June 12, 2001 Hello folks I'm making this official here, although most of you will have already recieved an e-mail from me explaining. My girlfriend and I are buying our first house. It's a three bed townhouse with an extended kitchen, just what we've been hoping for - and we weren't even looking very hard! Obviously we pounced on it like tigers (the furry ones!) are going through the legal procedures, etc. This is going to take up a lot of time so, regretfully, I have to pull out. I hope you all have a lot of fun and may the best man win. Good luck to you all and thanks for your encouraging replies. Mike, old chum, sorry about any extra work I have made for you but this is an opportunity I can't miss out on. I hope you understand. Good luck all! StR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted June 12, 2001 Share Posted June 12, 2001 Hey! Wait a second! Did the Cesspool nominate StevetheWOODENBAT to represent the pool!? Bah! What folly! He sucks! With the nomination from Marlow himself I hereby put myself forward as the offical "second" to SteveMyAssIsScary. I have been waiting for a chance at Fionn's throat! Grrr... Yap Yap! Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 12, 2001 Share Posted June 12, 2001 Hey shandorf ya GIT that is some other tourney. Fionn isn't playing in our little kaffee klatsch right now. You want the Invitational Tournament. Alright then, back to the pool with ye . . . move along, that's a good lad . . . [edited to provide link for shandman as he is too ignernt to look it up for himself] [ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 Wine mod or wine battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 13, 2001 Author Share Posted June 13, 2001 OK, StevetheRat had to pull out of the fight due to real life. Good luck with your new home, Steve. Obviously that means the rest of you have one less game to play to get the prize wines. My cable modem is back up so you can send game scores once again to Mikeman@cablelynx.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 Rules interpretation requested: Under CAL rules, German Volksgrenadier and SMG squads are not allowed (presumably because their incredibly high rate of fire gave them an unfair advantage over an opponent). Does the term "SMG" squad extend to other German squads whose arms are at least 40% automatic weapons? A VG SMG squad has 288 firepower in close. A VG Hvy SMG has 256 fp in close. A Fusilier squad has 249 fp in close. A Fusilier SMG squad has 324 fp in close. A Sturmgruppe squad has 283 fp in close. A Motorized Infantry squad has 236 fp in close. A PzGren. squad has 245 fp in close. All of these are signicantly higher than an allied rifle squad (1944 version), which has a mere 161 pts (if Canadian or British) or 209 pts (if AMerican or French). It seems to me that if fairness is the reason for prohibiting smg squads, then these squads should also be barred. I need a clarification before I send out a setup tonight. I am not trying to start a flame or debate - I just need a ruling from Treeburst or Winecape. MrSpkr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike8g Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 If I read those CAL rules correctly, SMG troops are not generally forbidden, but limited to a reasonable amount (3 platoons, which is still too much. 3 squads would fit better). Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike8g: If I read those CAL rules correctly, SMG troops are not generally forbidden, but limited to a reasonable amount (3 platoons, which is still too much. 3 squads would fit better). Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right - that's what I menat to say - are the aforementioned squads included in the "thou shalt not have more than three plaootns of" group. BTW I do agree - three platoons is too much. Three platoons of German SMG infantry will have at least 2500 fp. Three platoons of British/Canadian/Polish infantry will only have 1650 fp -- the Germans enjoy a 152% advantage in firepower here. Three platoons of American infanty has about 2022 fp - here, the Germans enjoy a 124% advantage in firepower. In a scenario with 2000+ points, that would not matter; but in these small ones (1000-1500) it can be critical, particularly when using Recon rules (which deprive the Allies of cheap Shermans to back up the infantry). That is why I want to know the ruling. MrSpkr [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 The Sturmgroup don't nesecarily get their high firepower from SMG's rather the get it from having 13 troops in each squad. Im not entirely certain but I believe they only have 1 or 2 SMG's per squad. Also terrain could be used to even the score a bit by selecting moderate trees and a village map. Also you left out the german mountain troops (which im not going to attempt to spell here) almost half of the squads troops carry SMG's I believe. Maybe a limit in realation to points should be implemented in the cal rules i.e. 1 company for every 1000 points up to a maximum of a battallion (3000 pt game to 5000 pt game). Actually 1 company for every 1500 points would be a better rule. So a 1500 - 2999 point game would have a max of 1 company of SMG type units. 3000 - 4499 point game would have a maximum of 2 SMG type companies. 4500 - 5000+ point game would have 3 companies max (battallion). Whataya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike8g Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Sturmgruppe squads have one SMG per squad (like Motorized Infantry and Panzer Grenadiere) and two or three MP44. Therefore they do not fall under the SMG rule while Gebirgsjäger should. Their 10 men-squads have 7 SMG with them. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike8g: Sturmgruppe squads have one SMG per squad (like Motorized Infantry and Panzer Grenadiere) and two or three MP44. Therefore they do not fall under the SMG rule while Gebirgsjäger should. Their 10 men-squads have 7 SMG with them. Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 'Scuse me? What exactly do you think an MP44 is, a watergun? The machine pistols are just as deadly. IMHO, the limitation should extend to units whose makeup is more than 40% automatic weapons. If limitations or bans on these troops are deemed too harsh, then the allies should be allowed to mix airborne troops with any one other force type - heck, after D-Day, they rarely fought without armored support eventually making its way through to them (MG took a while to get there, and so did Varsity, but they did just the same - look at MG after XXX Corp caught up or the 101 fighting with elements of CCA of the 10th Armored Division). If that limitation were removed, it would be much fairer or more even. However, it is simply foolishness to claim that an MP44 or a pair of MG42's doesn't count - they do. IRL, the Allies would rarely attack into such an enemy without heavy artillery and/or armor support. Doctrine called for hte liberal use of artillery to soften up these types of enemy troop formations. Just my $0.05 worth. As it stands now, with the CAL rules limiting you to one force type, the Allies are at a significant disadvantage (particularly the British/Canadian/Polish, whose fire power is far outstripped by the German MG-Infantry units. Obviouslym the Allied player can choose airborne to bring things a little closer to even, but at the price of having ZERO armored units. Not very sporting, I would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Well MrSpkr that would definatly exclude Sturmgroups from the SMG list then because their percentage of SMG's or SMG like weapons would be 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts