Steiner14 Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 One of the problems i see now: mostly unrealistical short battle-times, that put the attacker under time-pressure, but don't allow realistical maneuvering, especially of tank forces. The alternative now, to use long enough durations that allow maneuvering and realistical tactics, but sometimes take the time pressure of the attacker completely away, which favors him too much, isn't good, too. So what about a battle-type, that considers the speed of the success in the result? Say you have to take an area and the battle ends, until you have reached your target and/or you weakened the enemy to a certain amount (morale) and not at a certain time? The time needed to take the area is taken additionally into the battle's result (how much, ofcourse should stay a free decision of the scenario-designers). If countdown-timers for certain aspects should or should not inform the player, how well he follows the timeplan, could be an option. This battletype could be combined with the possibility, to call for additional support (think of artillery-reserves or a platoon of tanks partially repaired and 15 minutes away, only for the extreme emergency), which ofcourse would have a negative effect on the overall points. [ December 25, 2004, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I'd like to be able to do exit scenarios as QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securityguard Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I'd love a dynamic flag scenario for a QB. Those are always interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Steiner14, Just wondering: what's the deal with your signature? It reeks of just the kind of WW2-era antisemitism that we don't need associated with our game. I propose that you change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Oh man. Politics has reared it's ugly head in the CMAK Forum. Run for the hills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Steiner14, Just wondering: what's the deal with your signature? It sounds like the kind of explosive quote which needs to be more fully annotated. I propose you expand on it. Regards, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I like the idea of dynamic flags. Also, if my vision comes true and the next CM engine will cover the pre-Barbarossa operations, a new battle type will come handy, due to the historical superiority of German maneuvers. It'd be a "delay" mission, similar to those in the good ole' Steel Panthers: the defender is not expected to hold the flags at the end of the battle, but to only slow down the enemy advance, gaining an increasing bonus for every turn the enemy is held away from the flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent-006 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I think Steiner has come up with a very good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I did like SP's points per turn for holding a flag. And IIRC SP had the reinforcement button that cost you points if you chose to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Good idea Steiner14 And Martyr, go fall on your sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by sand digger: And Martyr, go fall on your sword. Hey, thanks. Still, my understanding is that obnoxious sigs aren't allowed on this board, and I spoke in support of that policy. But maybe you'd rather have CM associated with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Free speech and all that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bboyle Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 A Steiner14 quote from December 10...clearly he follows in footsteps of his namesake: If it is allowed to talk about every people, why not about the jews? Don't you find it interesting or do they have something to hide? A prime candidate for the killfile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 WTF is 'obnoxious' about Steiner14's sig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Of for the love of Christ.... Take this to the "Peng" thread. TAKE IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 WTF is 'obnoxious' about Steiner14's sig? [Roll Eyes] By my lights it's obnoxious to go around a WW2-related bulletin board implying (apparently sincerely) that there's a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. It's not a crime, but it's in very bad taste, and I believe in calling people on it. SOMEbody has to keep up standards, after all, even outside of the Peng thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romulus Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Martyr, I fail to see how Steiner's signature could imply the claim of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. It's just a quotation and you can easily verify that Mr. Sharon did say those words. You should blame Mr. Sharon for saying that and not Steiner for reporting that. Romulus Invictus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 God only knows why Sharon said it. I'm no fan of him myself. But it seems quite silly to want to spread a vibe like that in a forum like this. That's all I'll say about it. Cheers all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 Martyr, please stop highjacking the thread with your intolerant inquisitionary behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I also find Steiner's sig offensive and would request that he change it. Or at least capitalize "Jewish'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by sand digger: WTF is 'obnoxious' about Steiner14's sig? I'm not sure what is worse - being obnoxious, or being ignorant. But you managed to do both with one sentence. That must be a talent of some kind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Romulus: Martyr, I fail to see how Steiner's signature could imply the claim of a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. It's just a quotation and you can easily verify that Mr. Sharon did say those words. You should blame Mr. Sharon for saying that and not Steiner for reporting that. Romulus Invictus The source quoted is the Islamic Association For Palestine news... [ December 31, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 His sig came up in another thread. It's a fraud. Look for the thread on armour books for the link I provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Stiener, Be a good boy and change your sig before BFC brings out the hook. DavidI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 Scirocco, it's not a fraud! The source is israeli, not palestine. @others I expect you to be as tolerant yourself, as you demand and can expect it from others. You may not like my quote, that is your good right, but it is not offending, because it attacks no one and if the quote would be from a German, Russian, Finnish or US politician, or from the pope, no one would even came on the idea, to force people to hide and ban it. IMO your behaviour torwards me is unacceptable and, in oposition to my sig, is really offending and maybe it's time to leave, if a few, but even louder intolerant inquisitors here take the right to define, what other people are allowed to say and what not and try even to misuse and force moderators to join their inquisition tribunals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Steiner14: Scirocco, it's not a fraud! The source is israeli, not palestine. Misquote: Sharon Quote is Fabricated These quotes originated with the pro-Hamas American group Islamic Association for Palestine in an Oct. 13, 2001 press release, which claimed its source as Israeli radio Kol Yisrael CAMERA received confirmation from Kol Yisrael political correspondent Yoni Ben-Menachem, who reports on Cabinet meetings, that he never made such a broadcast and that Sharon never made such a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts