QB Armor pts CM1.1

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Do you want me to prove that I have agreed with you in the past once, or do you want me to prove that it has not happened more often?

I am waiting for BTS to state their position on this issue, then I'll be able to give you mine.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Yes AND no here.

When the Sherman was designed and put into production the American army "thought" they had one of the best tanks in the war. They believed this so much they keep repeating it like some mantra and basically anyone who trianed in the vehicle believed it also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One caveat: When the Sherman was deisnged and put into production, it *was* one of the best tanks in the war.

Sadly, this was in 1942-43. They did quite well in the North Africa campaigns, and were arguably the best tank seen in that theater until teh Tiger came along.

The real injustice was that between El Alamein and Normandy the Sherman barely improved at all, while the Germans went from largely 50mm armed PzIIIs and short 75 armed PzIVs with weak armor and so-so mobility to the Panther.

Jeff Heidman

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Those are all tanks.

The Germans certainly had something that had exactly the same intended role as the M18. Several things in fact. They went about in a very different manner, but the role was the same.

Once again we have been distracted from the original point. That original point was that it was fair to compare the 200 points given to the German to the 300 points given to the Allies for "armor" purchases because the *purpose* of the units that you could buy with those points were the same when taken as a whole.

Design were radically different, but the reasons for buying the units CM labels as "Armor" were similar.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off the M18, Priest, and M4 are not all tanks, neither is the Stug or Stuh, except in the grade school definition of the word, sort of like the word gun means something to shoot a bullet with, but my HP and a Barrett 50 are two different animals. CM lables them as armour only because they meet the larger definition, not because they are all alike.

Those point differences, as they stand, are too small to mean much, or to effect play balance. If German players fall like flies before the US I might say different, but we have no evidence that will or is happening. I see it as a historical change, thus the main argument should be historical unless play balance is changed. Which comes to Cav Scout's point that the points are still the same.

As for the M18, I was unaware that the Germans developed any 40mph+ hit and run tank destroyers, but would appreciate any information you have on these weapons and when they were used. Perhaps you are referring to the Pak47 putting a 47mm on a mk 1 hull, but I do not believe it was a hit and run weapon, although I could be wrong about its speed.

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

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

Lots of people do. I can show people frame by frame the Zapruder film, I can show them the test results and ballistic matching for the bullets, I can show them a 3D image of the bullet cones demonstrating that the Repository was the only place the bullets could have come from. I can let them see the time needed to fire the shots, can identify the shots on the police dictaphone recording and match those to the Zapruder film, then let them try an old Manlicher-Carcano to see how long it takes to rechamber a bullet. I can provide Oswalds marxmanship records, including refirings by other skilled shots, and then someone will say:

but what about the movie and those gay guys in New Orleans....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiousity.. How did they explain away the fact that they "found" the "magic" bullet in JFK's stretcher and that it was barely scratched or even deformed?

Just curious.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Yes AND no here.

When the Sherman was designed and put into production the American army "thought" they had one of the best tanks in the war. They believed this so much they keep repeating it like some mantra and basically anyone who trianed in the vehicle believed it also.

Then came the Normandy invasion and I think we all know what happened there.

The Americans believed they had a good all around tank that could go head to head with the German armor unfortunately they were wrong. I have read many accounts and have seen live intervewis with TCs who said that they actually believed they had a chance against the German armor up until they actually ran into them. It didn't take long to dispells THAT illsion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Sherman wasn't designed to fight other tanks, it was a "breakout" tank.

The Americans believed they would have tank destroyers fight enemy tanks and have the Sherman run around in the rear causing havoc.

Cav

Henri · January 18, 2001

Look, I really have no idea if the change af armor points is better or worse, if it favors the Germans or the Allies, if it is more or less historical.

But I WOULD like to know what was the rationale for making the change. Obviously it was to prevent the Germans in meeting engagements to have as much armor as the Allies, but WHY?

I am flabbergasted that after 10 pages of discussions, questioning of motives, flame wars (gawd, even Oliver Stone and the JFK assassination have popped up...), such a simple answer has not been forthcoming.

Or IS there an answer?

Henri

=================

"Gertrude, Gertrude, before you die, tell us: what is the answer?"

"What is the question?..." (and Gertrude Stein died)

Panther131 · January 18, 2001

Ok... you obviously know alot more about history in general then I do. You are probably right.

But, why does the U.S. hold documents away from public eye to consume? I know I am not the brightest bulb around, but there is alot of controversy surrounding it. Keeping documents away from the public tells me that the U.S. is keeping them away for a reason. Maybe there is information that the the U.S. believes that the public is not ready to accept.

Here is another example...an I truly believe this. The amino acid Tryptophane which acts as a mood enhancer or anti depressent has been banned for use in th U.S. The reason was that it was found that Tryptophane caused a few unfortunate deaths. However further research showed that these few deaths were caused by a particular bad batch made by a certain drug company not tryptophane itself. However, tryptopaphane continues to be banned in the U.S. even with its proven positive results.

This, while in european countries, it is used with success. I don't know the full details of this, but it is just one example of not being so by the book and final authority written paradigm. (as we all know, paradigms do shift however with time)

Its kind of like how in european countries alcohol can be purchased by children, and in thier society there does not seem to be an alcohol or substance problem like we see in the U.S. But if you asked the U.S. (just look at our policy on cannibus) they would vehmently throw all these "facts"(paranioa? control?) at you saying that all of these reason's are why we should not allow it.

I mean, for krist sake, cannibus could be used for so many great things including the possibility of saving our wild life (Trees) by using the small weed to produce paper products. But according to the U.S. this wont happen becouse appantly they have become the final authority.

I dont know all I am saying is take it with a grain of salt I suppose. There is just alot more going on then meets the eye ya know

Jeff Heidman · January 18, 2001

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

First off the M18, Priest, and M4 are not all tanks, neither is the Stug or Stuh, except in the grade school definition of the word, sort of like the word gun means something to shoot a bullet with, but my HP and a Barrett 50 are two different animals. CM lables them as armour only because they meet the larger definition, not because they are all alike.

it is not a grade school definition, it *is* the definition, and as I pointed out, it is the *relevant* definition to what is being discussed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Those point differences, as they stand, are too small to mean much, or to effect play balance.

they mean that one player gets to buy more armor than the other, and one gets to buy more infantry/vehicles. that means enough to some people, myself included.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

If German players fall like flies before the US I might say different, but we have no evidence that will or is happening. I see it as a historical change, thus the main argument should be historical unless play balance is changed. Which comes to Cav Scout's point that the points are still the same.

It is more than a historical change, it is change in the way that the primary means of PBEM games are set up.

Certainly I have yet to see a historical argument for the numbers given, or *any* historical argument for the numbers as they stood prior to this change.

I doubt there was any such creature as a defined "combined arms" unit to begin with. The purpose of those ratios were merely to enforce a certain level of consistency in force selection between players who agreed that they should be used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

As for the M18, I was unaware that the Germans developed any 40mph+ hit and run tank destroyers, but would appreciate any information you have on these weapons and when they were used. Perhaps you are referring to the Pak47 putting a 47mm on a mk 1 hull, but I do not believe it was a hit and run weapon, although I could be wrong about its speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read my post at all? I specifically said that the German developed units to fulfill the same role. the role of the M18 is to destroy tanks. The role of the JagdPanther is to destroy tanks. They differ only in the means by which they try to accomplish that task. Their role is identical.

Which brings me back to the point. The roles, as a whole, of the units that the Allied player can buy with his 300 points are the same as the roles, as a whole, of the units the German player can buy with his 200 points. That is the point. Everything else is just fluff.

Jeff Heidman

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Did you read my post at all? I specifically said that the German developed units to fulfill the same role. the role of the M18 is to destroy tanks. The role of the JagdPanther is to destroy tanks. They differ only in the means by which they try to accomplish that task. Their role is identical.

Which brings me back to the point. The roles, as a whole, of the units that the Allied player can buy with his 300 points are the same as the roles, as a whole, of the units the German player can buy with his 200 points. That is the point. Everything else is just fluff.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everytime someone brings up the point that the difference is historical, someone else says who cares about historical, it is not fair. Then when someone says, well technically it is very fair since the points are the same, then someone just says it is historical. Basically it reflects reality in that Germans did battle with less armour more often than allies, it could probably be argued that it is weak compared to what it could be (in Patton at Bay only 1 in 10 actions that included allied AFVs included German AFVs).

Another problem is screwing up vocabulary. A tank is different than a tank destroyer in employment and design. With the tank designation a tank such as the M4 series is different than the Panther in design and intrended fundtion, and the M18 is very very different, unless you think the Jagdpanther had a turrent and ran around the country side at 40mph employing strike and run tactics. All are AFVs, which is why the term AFV for armoured fighting vehicle was invented.

So, it is fish or cut bait. If you claim that 200 points versus 300 points of tanks makes a difference in who wins the game, then it means that Infantry are overpriced or tanks are under priced, in which case put some numbers to your specualtion and tell us how much are tanks underpriced. Nothing else could work. Claiming this is not fair because they are apples and oranges is no good, since we are talking points used to buy both, and I can buy both apples and oranges with money even though they are different, and can place them in a price scale (even though it is an economic price scale instead of an effectiveness price scale).

Or, you can argue that it is not historically correct, in case you need to build evidence that the Germans had just as many tanks as the Allies for most of the ETO fighting (we can ignore the end because it was so weird) and that US AFVs fough German tanks 1-1 in most or all cases, same with UK, FR, POL. and Canada.

Either one of these options is an effective tactic. Argue capabilities and tell us how tanks need to be priced higher or argue history and show us the German AFV equality. As it is you are requesting proof of a negative while using one arguement to cancel out another. No logic in this at all.

So cut through the fluff and take a stand.

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Sorry, but you are wrong. The Sherman wasn't designed to fight other tanks, it was a "breakout" tank.

The Americans believed they would have tank destroyers fight enemy tanks and have the Sherman run around in the rear causing havoc.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Tanks are and were designed to be able to take out other tanks. TDs are a different kind of tank in that they do not support infantry. That is the only difference.

The M4 was designed in 1941 and it was meant to take out German armor and could but only PzIV and down. IIRC the the PzIV F2 which sported the 75mmL43 saw action by March of 1942 and it was superior to ALL allied armor.

So you see Cav the M4 was designed to take this beast out but by the time they got it into production and in action by February of 42 it was almost already outgunned and outclassed by the Germans. So don't sit here and tell me they didn't intend for it to take on and take out German tanks. It was but failed at the task.

Heck the Panther A was available by late 42 and the D came into service mid 43. By then the Americans had NOTHING like this and yet they still continued to believe they could take on the German armor. Believe it. Most of the TCs going over to europe did.

Let us not forget the Tiger was also in design and eventual production by this time.

Update: The Tiger saw action in N. Africa by September of '42.

The Americans built the M4 with the complete intention of taking on German armor. They just were completely incompetant in keeping up at the speed at which the Germans rolled out bigger and better tanks.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-17-2001).]

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Out of curiousity.. How did they explain away the fact that they "found" the "magic" bullet in JFK's stretcher and that it was barely scratched or even deformed?

Just curious.

Jeff

The bullet penetrated the hand and was in the man's coat, having less than 400 fps remaining and tumbling when it entered the wrist. The medics cut the jacket and did various 1960s style medical aid. The bullet could have ended up on the strecther at any time. Also, it had been fired from Oswallds gun.

In other words, it is not much of a stretch for it to be there, but a big stretch for it to be planted -- you would need someone to know there was going to be questions, get the rifle from the FBI lockup, fire a bullet into gelatin, show up to the hospital within the hour, find that exact gurney in the mess, and plant the bullet. Possible, but no proof have ever come up to demonstrate this massive bullet planting operation.

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Wrong. Tanks are and were designed to be able to take out other tanks. TDs are a different kind of tank in that they do not support infantry. That is the only difference.

The M4 was designed in 1941 and it was meant to take out German armor and could but only PzIV and down. IIRC the the PzIV F2 which sported the 75mmL43 saw action by March of 1942 and it was superior to ALL allied armor.

So you see Cav the M4 was designed to take this beast out but by the time they got it into production and in action by February of 42 it was almost already outgunned and outclassed by the Germans. So don't sit here and tell me they didn't intend for it to take on and take out German tanks. It was but failed at the task.

Heck the Panther A was available by late 42 and the D came into service mid 43. By then the Americans had NOTHING like this and yet they still continued to believe they could take on the German armor. Believe it. Most of the TCs going over to europe did.

Let us not forget the Tiger was also in design and eventual production by this time.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, it was a breakout tank. Why was the 76mm delayed, why did Patton argue against using Tungsten, and why was TD command even invented as a different branch of Army sevrice? Because the M4 was an anti infantry and exploitation weapon and not a tank versus tank weapon, only going into service as such when it was discovered that things were not that neat. The British used them different than the US ever intended at first, and the US clung to the idea that they were an anti-infantry weapon for the entire war,

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

Ok... you obviously know alot more about history in general then I do. You are probably right.

But, why does the U.S. hold documents away from public eye to consume? I know I am not the brightest bulb around, but there is alot of controversy surrounding it. Keeping documents away from the public tells me that the U.S. is keeping them away for a reason. Maybe there is information that the the U.S. believes that the public is not ready to accept.

Here is another example...an I truly believe this. The amino acid Tryptophane which acts as a mood enhancer or anti depressent has been banned for use in th U.S. The reason was that it was found that Tryptophane caused a few unfortunate deaths. However further research showed that these few deaths were caused by a particular bad batch made by a certain drug company not tryptophane itself. However, tryptopaphane continues to be banned in the U.S. even with its proven positive results.

This, while in european countries, it is used with success. I don't know the full details of this, but it is just one example of not being so by the book and final authority written paradigm. (as we all know, paradigms do shift however with time)

Its kind of like how in european countries alcohol can be purchased by children, and in thier society there does not seem to be an alcohol or substance problem like we see in the U.S. But if you asked the U.S. (just look at our policy on cannibus) they would vehmently throw all these "facts"(paranioa? control?) at you saying that all of these reason's are why we should not allow it.

I mean, for krist sake, cannibus could be used for so many great things including the possibility of saving our wild life (Trees) by using the small weed to produce paper products. But according to the U.S. this wont happen becouse appantly they have become the final authority.

I dont know all I am saying is take it with a grain of salt I suppose. There is just alot more going on then meets the eye ya know

Actually, almost all documents not related to the carrying of the nuclear launch codes and those documents that identify government agents are available, the whole file was opened in 1986. The government agent files will open as those agents die, for example some guy who was watching the clan could get killed even today for it.

Drug research is a different matter. Some of the best research done is there, and then it gets into the hands of people who do not understand how that research is conducted, and things go to hell. I would have to read the evidence on tryptopaphane to tell for sure. I do know that in cannibus's case the research is done and is ignored. It is indeed no more harmful than ciggarettes (except you should not operate an automobile) and have many nondrug uses, but it is rejected not by scientists but by politicians based on everything but well done science.

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

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

Jeff, it was a breakout tank. Why was the 76mm delayed, why did Patton argue against using Tungsten, and why was TD command even invented as a different branch of Army sevrice? Because the M4 was an anti infantry and exploitation weapon and not a tank versus tank weapon, only going into service as such when it was discovered that things were not that neat. The British used them different than the US ever intended at first, and the US clung to the idea that they were an anti-infantry weapon for the entire war,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By late '44 this was the thought but I am taking about the inital design and production run of the M4 75mm series. They KNEW about the PzVs and PzVI WAY before '44 and yet they did nothing. Why? Because they were completely naive in the capabilities of the M4 and when it was "discovered" it sucked then of coarse they are gonna say, "Yeah, well it is infantry tank."

I am sorry but I have read actual accounts plus seen interviews with TCs of M4s that recall the attitude of the American tanks during the month of June '44 and they were told that they could go up against the Germans. That is the truth. They either lied to them (which I am more inclined to believe) or they just didn't have a clue.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

jshandorf · January 18, 2001

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

The bullet penetrated the hand and was in the man's coat, having less than 400 fps remaining and tumbling when it entered the wrist. The medics cut the jacket and did various 1960s style medical aid. The bullet could have ended up on the strecther at any time. Also, it had been fired from Oswallds gun.

In other words, it is not much of a stretch for it to be there, but a big stretch for it to be planted -- you would need someone to know there was going to be questions, get the rifle from the FBI lockup, fire a bullet into gelatin, show up to the hospital within the hour, find that exact gurney in the mess, and plant the bullet. Possible, but no proof have ever come up to demonstrate this massive bullet planting operation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the bullet being almost perfect? IIRC the bullet apparently smashed into several bones and the such, wouldn't have been deformed? But it wasn't right? IIRC the bullet looks jus tlike you fired it in water or the such.

Jeff

Slapdragon · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

What about the bullet being almost perfect? IIRC the bullet apparently smashed into several bones and the such, wouldn't have been deformed? But it wasn't right? IIRC the bullet looks jus tlike you fired it in water or the such.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullets fired into a set of stiffs looked the same way, and it was deformed. Failuire Analysis firings were very conclusive that the bullet not only could, but would be in that shape unless it interescted a hard surface (which

Panther131 · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Drug research is a different matter. Some of the best research done is there, and then it gets into the hands of people who do not understand how that research is conducted, and things go to hell. I would have to read the evidence on tryptopaphane to tell for sure. I do know that in cannibus's case the research is done and is ignored. It is indeed no more harmful than ciggarettes (except you should not operate an automobile) and have many nondrug uses, but it is rejected not by scientists but by politicians based on everything but well done science.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats exactly my point Slap. And what we deal with on a large basis is the government/politicians telling us things that are untruths. (not all the time but alot certainly alot of it)

Yes, and this goes back to the government lieing to the people. (for reasons unknown), Yet there are reasons. Motives...yes. Money. It all comes down to money. I do not know much about politics or the health industry, but it does not take much to piece that together.

By the way...Way off topic but out of serious curiousity, how is Magic Johnson is such good health after getting HIV? I know that with the HIV virus it is possible to live a healthy life for a number of years, but how long is this possible? I know that people can go 10 or 15 years with the virus (maybe more) but I mean Magic is or seems in perfect shape. What is he doing that others are not? What is the secret?

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]

January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

how is Magic Johnson is such good health after getting HIV? I know that with the HIV virus it is possible to live a healthy life for a number of years, but how long is this possible? I know that people can go 10 or 15 years with the virus (maybe more) but I mean Magic is or seems in perfect shape. What is he doing that others are not? What is the secret?

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-17-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is suppressed scientific evidence that shows that you live longer if the Axis have fewer points to spend on tanks in combined arms ME's. Especially if you are American.

Bigdog · January 18, 2001

Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzz go to work and 6 pages of nothing constructive has happened. Slapy can you put a sock in the this OT crap and stick to freaking point . And Cav you make no points at all.

Why did the Axis take a full 1/3 point hit in QB Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement? That's what I asked and thats what I wanna know. Its not important why I want = armor points, its not important why Allied players want a 1/3 more armor points Lets make it fair that's all. I want no more no less, the same points both sides.

Not 1 of you trolls have looked the examples I shown and said hey that's fair 5 Panthers V 5 M4E3 76 E8 & 5 M18 this is fair? That's 2 to 1 brother. Can all this other BS & stick to the point.

Big Dog

[This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 01-17-2001).]

Simon Fox · January 18, 2001

The point Mr Dog is that there is no point to this thread. There is no real basis for new discussion since most of the arguments have been put by either side. The OT posts are to your benefit since they bump this thread to the top and make the comment from BTS you so earnestly desire more likely.

I suspect however that the reason it hasn't is that their rationale behind this change are exactly those put forward by others. The call of CM2 is stronger than mere quibbles.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

Panther131 · January 18, 2001

Interesting Simon. Interesting.

But seriously, BTS went through the trouble to allocate the points in combined arms ME's and in alot of people's minds its not really fair. There have been some sound arguments on both sides, and from what I heard there will be a 1.1.1 but maybe I just heard hogwash. (who knows?)

Anyway, points have been made. I hope BTS will comment on this even if it goes into the catacombs of the forum.

BTS?

Tanaka · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Henri:

...

But I WOULD like to know what was the rationale for making the change. Obviously it was to prevent the Germans in meeting engagements to have as much armor as the Allies, but WHY?...

... such a simple answer has not been forthcoming.

Or IS there an answer?

Henri

I make your words, my words and add:

The only thing I find in the txt of version 1.1 is "- Force proportion limits modified slightly (main change is that attackers

have a higher limit on support points than before)."

So, After these 10 pages of BTS silence I've to assume that it is a bug... Thanks for the fix/removal in the next version.

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bigdog:

Jeeeeeeeeeezzzzz go to work and 6 pages of nothing constructive has happened. Slapy can you put a sock in the this OT crap and stick to freaking point . And Cav you make no points at all.

Why did the Axis take a full 1/3 point hit in QB Combined Arms, Meeting Engagement? That's what I asked and thats what I wanna know. Its not important why I want = armor points, its not important why Allied players want a 1/3 more armor points Lets make it fair that's all. I want no more no less, the same points both sides.

Not 1 of you trolls have looked the examples I shown and said hey that's fair 5 Panthers V 5 M4E3 76 E8 & 5 M18 this is fair? That's 2 to 1 brother. Can all this other BS & stick to the point.

Big Dog

So it comes out... you want one German tank for each Allied tank. Some may call that fair... they are generally those who only play Germans...

Bigdog · January 18, 2001

You are right Mr Fox, long day I am sorry Gentlemen for my rant . Sadly its more than just a quibble it go's to the hart of the game. I pulled the bible of CM my manual Page 108 "Quick Battles Scenarios are randomly generated battles following the parameters set play player". In a Meeting Engagement should not both players have the same pool of force to draw from. its seems so simple. BTS please end the pain?

Big Dog

CavScout · January 18, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Wrong. Tanks are and were designed to be able to take out other tanks. TDs are a different kind of tank in that they do not support infantry. That is the only difference.

Please read some history. The Sherman was not made to be a tank killer. There was a reason the Americans made TDs.

QB Armor pts CM1.1

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Andrew Hedges

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements