CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: My god get a clue! I never said that a Shermans a Tank Killer. The Sherman WAS meant to engage other tanks when the situation occured but it was not made for the explicit purpose. I have read plenty of history and have seen live interviews with Sherman TCs so don't tell me to read history. Why don't you learn put your brain in gear before you speak? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Tanks are tanks are tanks. They may be different in design but conceptually they are equal in the purpose that they were built to serve."--jshandorf [posted 01-17-2001 04:34 PM] "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."--jshandorf [posted 01-17-2001 06:26 PM] These and other rambling points by you show that you understand little of the Shermans "original" purpose. American armored philosophy was to have Tank Destroyers fight the enemy tanks. The Shermans was to be the break-out tank. Its purpose was to exploit a break-through and not to fight the tank battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I can't believe CavScout would tell the guy to buy infantry. After all, he just spent 40 posts saying as how it does not matter what you buy, because the points are all the same and cannot possibly influence the outcome of the battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Want me to send some pictures so you can start a shrine to me? You seem a bit obsessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: You are such a think headed idiot Cav! When are you going to realize we are talking about a fair QB ME with Combined arms? NOT any combination of Armor and combined arms! God, you are hopeless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Fair" QB ME with combined arms? So you think it is fair that the Germans have more infantry points than the Allies in a QB ME armor battle? Why aren't you arguing for equal points ACROSS the board? Why focused only on armor points in combined arms QB MEs? Why is that point difference "unfair" but the other differences are A-OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Isn't CavScout the same guy who said that D-Day could have been launched from the East coast of the USA?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs. Tank destroyers all the way for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is quote is by Mace and was entered in the thread entitled "Fed Up With UberTank Battles!" I just thought that this is very relevent to the argument that allied armor are at an advantage in combined arms meeting engagments. With added Tungsten availability the allied already has an advantage in armor, thus adding more points to allied armor gives it more so of an advantage. I posted this in that thread: This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield. I don't think it take much to see the obvious in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: Yes Cav... you are "Think headed"... how dare you! When will the rest of you learn that you can have a "combined arms" battle without it saying "combined arms" at the top of the QB screen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gawd dammit man! You've just given away our secret! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Another red herring. What if I want a combined arms battle with 30% armor and 70% infantry playing as the Germans? Just like we could do prior to 1.1? How is forcing the German player to take a predominantly armored force MORE historical? Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the whole is a conversation is a red herring. How was pre 1.1 any more "accurate". Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Only a fool would continue to cling to flimsy arguments and remarks you have made. You do nothing but try and piss people off by not seeing the obvious and sensible. I am not sure what your problems is, maybe you get off on this kind of stuff, and to that you are a very sad person indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "obvious and sensible" thing to do if you want equal ARMOR points in a QB ME is too pick the force mix that gives that to you. That happens to be armor. You sit their in front of your computer demanding a game fix for something you can get by selecting an option in the option menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: I can't believe you are this plain stupid. Don't you get we are talking about QB ME Combined ARMS?!!! People already think the armored battles are fair but the Combined Arms are not! THAT is the point! Please stay with it! Ahhhhhhh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If armor force mix is "fair" then why not play it? Of course, one wonders how it can be "fair" using your method of thinking as the Germans get a bonus point pool for buying infantry. How is this fair for the Allies? I guess in your mind, "fair" is having the Germans with equal or greater pool points in a catagory. Deutschland gewinnt immer! Right? 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Isn't CavScout the same guy who said that D-Day could have been launched from the East coast of the USA?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL.... landings in Africa were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: This is quote is by Mace and was entered in the thread entitled "Fed Up With UberTank Battles!" I just thought that this is very relevent to the argument that allied armor are at an advantage in combined arms meeting engagments. With added Tungsten availability the allied already has an advantage in armor, thus adding more points to allied armor gives it more so of an advantage. I posted this in that thread: This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield. I don't think it take much to see the obvious in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you think that having MORE german tanks will help given the tungsten advantage? Here is a hint... tungsten isn't nearly as effective versus infantry. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: This is quote is by Mace and was entered in the thread entitled "Fed Up With UberTank Battles!" I just thought that this is very relevent to the argument that allied armor are at an advantage in combined arms meeting engagments. With added Tungsten availability the allied already has an advantage in armor, thus adding more points to allied armor gives it more so of an advantage. I posted this in that thread: This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield. I don't think it take much to see the obvious in this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If there is a problem with Tungsten use, availability or performance shouldn't that be fixed (If there is a problem)? If Tungsten has given the Allies and "unfair" advantage, then the Allies would still have a "unfair" advantage in a battle even if both sides had equal armor points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: If there is a problem with Tungsten use, availability or performance shouldn't that be fixed (If there is a problem)? If Tungsten has given the Allies and "unfair" advantage, then the Allies would still have a "unfair" advantage in a battle even if both sides had equal armor points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "unfair" advantage actually translates to "the playing field is even". It's funny... if you take the two big tanks, the Pershing and the KT, they cost essentially the same... but even with the Pershing (and Super Pershing) a KT will win in a head to head duel... so it still comes down to tactics with the Pershing. I think the undelying problem here is that that a lowly Easy-Eight can now take out a KT with something other than a lucky hit. The horror.... the horror..... Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: The "unfair" advantage actually translates to "the playing field is even". It's funny... if you take the two big tanks, the Pershing and the KT, they cost essentially the same... but even with the Pershing (and Super Pershing) a KT will win in a head to head duel... so it still comes down to tactics with the Pershing. I think the undelying problem here is that that a lowly Easy-Eight can now take out a KT with something other than a lucky hit. The horror.... the horror..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll have to forgive some people. They grew with the folktales that German panzers were invincible to Allied tanks. It is sometimes difficult to seperate "story telling" from non-fiction. 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] [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Posted by Polar:So you think that having MORE german tanks will help given the tungsten advantage? Here is a hint... tungsten isn't nearly as effective versus infantry."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutley. I do think that having more tanks will help the germans given the tungsten advantage. But, take into account that on top of more effective tungsten(which I do not dispute) the allies get 50% more in armor then the germans in a combined arms meeting engagments. This give a great advantage to the allies in armor in combined arms me's. I do fail to see your point that tungsten is not as effective at destroying infantry. What does destroying infantry have to due with destroying tanks? How is an He round going to be threatening to a german tank? And that is what we are talking about here. Not what a tank does to infantry but tank vs tank. The allies have one of if not the best infantry tank in the world during WWII. Use it in combination with the tungsten tanks, I will not stop you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: "Fair" QB ME with combined arms? So you think it is fair that the Germans have more infantry points than the Allies in a QB ME armor battle? Why aren't you arguing for equal points ACROSS the board? Why focused only on armor points in combined arms QB MEs? Why is that point difference "unfair" but the other differences are A-OK?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who said they were A-OK? Oh, that was you creating another strawman. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: Actually, the whole is a conversation is a red herring. How was pre 1.1 any more "accurate". Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It wasn't more "accurate", and neither is this more "accurate". The accuracy claim was not raised by anyone asking that it go back to the way it was. These arbitrary point limits have no impact whatsoever on what is "accurate" or historical, which is why the change has failed to accomplish its stated purpose. What it has accomplished is to tilt the playing field, and not necessarily in favor of the Allies. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs. Tank destroyers all the way for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That quote was actually by myself, not Mace. Face it guys: King Tigers are just Sherman tungsten fodder! The Allies rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Who said they were A-OK? Oh, that was you creating another strawman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen no other complaint other than in combined arms QB MEs and only in relation to the German armor pool points. Are you now arguing for an entire revamp of all point pools for all types of the QB MEs? 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: You'll have to forgive some people. They grew with the folktales that German panzers were invincible to Allied tanks. It is sometimes difficult to seperate "story telling" from fiction. Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You will have to forgive some people, like Cav here. They grew up being told that everything American is vastly superior to everything else, and that all people who are not just like them are inferior. So he has trouble accepting that anyone other than the US could produce anything other than garbage. America #1!!, right? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You'll have to forgive some people. They grew with the folktales that German panzers were invincible to Allied tanks. It is sometimes difficult to seperate "story telling" from fiction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This tells it all. Thankyou cavscout! If the allied tank can stand up to the german floktale tank then why the hell are the points NOT even? If this "german supiority in tanks" is a myth, then what the freakin hell is the germans out gunned 50% in points to represent that? If allied tanks are just as good as axis one's why are the points uneven??? Tell me this with a logical answer and I will drop this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: When will the rest of you learn that you can have a "combined arms" battle without it saying "combined arms" at the top of the QB screen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Joe, I have to admit that sounds very reasonable Not too frequent here... . However here is how a TCPIP game is worked out in my experience: after agreeing to play, one player asks the other if he prefers a canned scenario or a QB. The other player usually replies that he prefers a QB meeting engagement.One asks is the other has any preferences for size or other, and the other usually replies any side is OK, and 700 (or 1000) points are preferred, choose the rest.The one who is hosting then goes away and prepares the scenario. Now if the host comes back and the other player finds that he is playing the defensive in an armor battle with hilly forested terrain, he may be somewhat suspicious about his oponent's stacking the deck.Similarly when he comes back and finds out that his tanks are outnumbered 2/1 (as happened to me before I realized about the armor bonus), he may be a bit unhappy. Yes, all this can be avoided by a long discussion before starting the game, but why should that be necessary? With respect to some of the arguments I have seen here, it is not generally true that many players always want to play the Germans with armor; in my case and for most of my opponents, we usually say that we will play one side or the other. Even though I have a slight preference for the GErmans, I will without hesitation choose the Allies if my oponent indicates a preference for the Germans. After all, what most players want to do is to play the game with a minimum of hassle and a maximum of fun. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Jeff Heidman really ment to say, "You will have to forgive some people, like Cav here. They grew up being told that the Americans, with the Allies, won the war." [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: You will have to forgive some people, like Cav here. They grew up being told that everything American is vastly superior to everything else, and that all people who are not just like them are inferior. So he has trouble accepting that anyone other than the US could produce anything other than garbage. America #1!!, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you find any posts where I have advocated making Shermans, or other Allied vehicles, equal or more powerful than German ones? Besides, the Allies were superior in something as they won the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: This tells it all. Thankyou cavscout! If the allied tank can stand up to the german floktale tank then why the hell are the points NOT even? If this "german supiority in tanks" is a myth, then what the freakin hell is the germans out gunned 50% in points to represent that? If allied tanks are just as good as axis one's why are the points uneven??? Tell me this with a logical answer and I will drop this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahem... I said the German tanks weren't invincible. The Germans, for the most part, had better tanks than the Allies. You should not let your "Wehrmact penis envy" cloud your reasoning. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts