Biltong's Campaign Rules - Cont.

[Apache]

Interesting thoughts re experience. There will however, I expect, be some who will wish to play 'historical'. It has been mentioned about doing grog/gamer versions, perhaps this is where it becomes relevant? However, as players get better and better at this they will, hopefully, be able to kick the AI easier. Reflecting the historical accuracy to some degree may actually prolong interest. Have to be careful here I think. Most PC games work on the basis of the levels getting harder etc for that reason.

I've also played about here with some thoughts that have been niggling me with regard to Aux/Scrounged forces and the comment Biltong made regarding having possibly altered the balance too much in our favour with the force size modifiers. I'm getting this down quick so others can take a view on it and as such it is not meant to be a solution but food for thought.

Some principles:

A) Modifiers were introduced to even up battles on attack, assault and probe

It has evened things up but may have over done it?

C) It has the effect of constantly rounding battle sizes down to company level actions

D) Some have concerns over the use of scrounged units and/or the degree of randomness which may prevent the more 'accurate' use of the battle group concept.

This is what I have tried a couple of times:

1) Roll up the Core and Aux as normal. This is the Force size you set in QB for both Aux and real game.

2) Multiply the Aux Forces (only) by the correct modifiers when attacking etc. (this brings your force size up a little but, leaving out the core, not by as much). For ease of description I am leaving out casualty issues.

3) Take any scrounged unit points (from you LAST battle), multiply them by the modifier if attacking etc. and add them to whatever Aux category you like (this sometimes alters the balance in your favour a lot, sometimes hardly at all, barely making up for the points you lose by not modifying for your core force point value). Ther concept of scrounged units is are gone in its current form.

Then either:

4a) Use the QB Aux Force rule to generate your Aux list; or (my preference)

4b) Select the Force and Division type as per the normal Aux generator (or to which ever division type you like if you have opted for one type throughout your campaign, e.g. SS Mech), then select 'allow human purchase'. You then browse through the lists selecting your units up to the modified values within of the Aux units. Indeed, if opting to use one division type throughout you can omit the Aux force 'shopping list' bit and just go straight to your game.

I still have to try this a lot more and think a lot through but prefer this because:

i) It does not result in things being evened up quite as much

ii) It brings the battles up in size quite a lot at times

iii) I don't like the scrounged unit concept and would rather use the points more effectively

iv) I prefer to form more useful battle groups for the task in hand.

See what you think. I am looking at whether favour etc. should/could be used to modify points as well.

[ December 17, 2002, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[86smopuim]

Back on track here....

Making a much improved version of Auto-Exp.

The "Black Squares" problem has been resovled.

"Infinte # of battles" ©® feature

(if u can copy + paste)

"Cute statistics over time" Feature©®

"3 sheets to the wind"©® feature(no more 1 sheet per battle)

Easily Adjustable Exp Gains for each "incident".

EX: You like 1 Exp/Enemy casulty? Put in 1 in Cell X27. Think vehicls kills should count for 2 Exp for inf, Put 1 in Cell X38

More intuitive formatting of the worksheet. Much Much Better.

Supports Scrounged Units, and non standard TOEs.

"Some other stuff"©®

This is a ground up rebuild.

Will post here when its done,?12/17/02?.

[ December 17, 2002, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[History Buff]

I'm in absolute agreement with everything you said, (ok, I do have one question about your *signature* line but everything else ).

++++Whats wrong with the Sig? ++++

So for myself, if you haven't guessed, I would suggest that the rules lean toward the RPG side rather than the Grog side. I have nothing against Grogs... duh! But the rationale for their possible interest in a campaign with rules anything remotely like we have now seems... extremely rarified.

++++Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the campaign not follow what realisticaly happened. And snow should fall in Dec etc. The main gripe I have now is that experience in 1.4 onwards can't be earned unles you blow up tanks etc. What about the fact that you hit a small spec in a Russian uniform with your rifle? Even the grogs would tell you that many infatry formations fought other infantry formations. This whole community seems to just worry about tanks and blowing up tanks. I don't want to see this campaign system slip into that mentallity. What I'm saying is bring back the 1.3 core sheet. Count infantry casulties suffered and caused, count mortars being destroyed etc. Don't just disregard them!+++++

[SuperSulo]

Eden, yup it was I who said that thing about two different "campaign styles". I ment pretty much what you said, but you said it better/with more words.

In my own campaign, I do give exp. for killing inf and guns, and infantry even gets exp. for killing mortars. They dont get much, but still. I also roll up the Force Size, so I can get anything from 0(!) to 3000 pts aux units. So far (only 6 battles...), I've had the aux vary from 0 - 1500.

I've dropped the rolls for the aux sections completely, and let the QB deside how my battle group will look like. In my current battle (allied armor probe, 1500pts), I only got 2 37mm AT guns! Thank god they only have crappy stuff and no T-34's or worse.

I've said this before, but one of the best things about BCR is that you can easily change them to your own needs. My battles can look very different compared to the "original ruled" one's, but I still benefit from the work Biltong/others have done, such as dates, maps, basic rules and so on. It's great!

I hope I can come up with a system that eliminates the need for the "Auto QB". I could just buy the stuff I want/need as Apache does, but I don't trust myself enough for that just yet.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by History Buff:

++++Whats wrong with the Sig? ++++

What's wrong is that Churchill was not married to this lady, therefore it takes the subjunctive,

"Madam, if I were your husband..."

and since Churchill was a hard core gnarly SturmTiger of an English teacher at one time, (Cambridge?) it's very surprising that he would make this mistake. So I wonder if he said that really, or that *exactly*...? Curious, that's all.

++++Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the campaign not follow what realisticaly happened.

No I don't think I have you wrong- don't get me wrong, as my saying I agree with you does not mean you agree with everything else I said thereafter. Further, as I stated, I am not suggesting that we move away from Reality™ either. Rather, I contend that to create the history of one exceptional company does not detract from the historical accuracy of the simulation. I would not expect a campaign with an RPG paradigm to imply that if my company got to Elite status that it would change the outcome of the war.

Your reasons for preferring the 1.3 exp factors may differ from mine as I've stated them so far, but perhaps you will agree with another viewpoint I can offer:

The question of whether a soldier takes out mortar, et cetera, is a matter for his experience, (for reasons which hopefully are self explanatory), but is not a matter of 'favor'. The reason comes from a question of 'concern'- when I report to my CO, he will ask me how that very important battle went. If I were to tell him it went great because Fritz took out his first mortar, I expect I would be shot in the foot.

The enemy mortar having been taken out matters deeply to Fritz, perhaps, but not to many others, certainly not to Fritz's commanding officer's commanding officer. My CO has one concern, really- What is the outcome?

From this reasoning I have to agree that the 1.3 exp paradigm seemed more natural to me, and it also provides yet another incentive for using the simplified CM AAR formula for Favor, which at this point I'm guessing noone else finds remotely intriguing.

How does that strike you?

Eden

[JaegerMeister]

But does the 'outcome' necessarily reflect the experience your infantrymen gained during the battle? I would say the battle outcome should just reflect the performance of the commander and therefore favour under these rules? For instance, in the battle i just fought, my men (still green) fought like lions against a vastly numerically superior enemy in a heavily damaged town, despite constant ambushes and enemy positions to overcome, they fought their way forward in thick fog through rubble right upto the objectives, alas, i ran out of time before i could storm the objective building itself and therefore just got a 'minor defeat' but my men inflicted 396 casualties (104?KIA) for only 36 (12KIA) of my own

and were about to win the day. When i went to fill out the new battlegroup sheet, i felt slightly gutted that all the infantry kills my men had obtained in very difficult terrain/weather, counted for nothing. The stark headline 'Minor defeat' was all that counted !..all i got was a lousy +1 exp gain.

[Biltong]

BCR’s Goal is to:

1. Enable players to play a Campaign from June 41 through all of the CMBB terrain until the final day of battle in Berlin.

2. Make sure that the Campaign never becomes Boring – the difficulty must increase, it must be varied and the Campaign must end in a climax.

3. Keep the Campaign as Historically accurate as possible.

4. Keep it short and simple enough to allow most players to understand and use it.

5. Enable anyone to Expand or Modify BCR to his own taste.

6. Provide Excitement, Tension and just good old-fashioned Fun!

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

But does the 'outcome' necessarily reflect the experience your infantrymen gained during the battle?

No it doesn't- the men can "learn" heaps in a battle where the "outcome" is a disaster in the opinion of command.

I would say the battle outcome should just reflect the performance of the commander and therefore favour under these rules?

Yes. Favor is Favor, Exp is Exp, and the two would be more separated now than they have been. Per 1.3, a mortar was counted twice- once for Fritz's experience, once for commander's favor.

For instance, in the battle i just fought, my men (still green) fought like lions against a vastly numerically superior enemy in a heavily damaged town, despite constant ambushes and enemy positions to overcome, they fought their way forward in thick fog through rubble right upto the objectives, alas, i ran out of time before i could storm the objective building itself and therefore just got a 'minor defeat' but my men inflicted 396 casualties (104?KIA) for only 36 (12KIA) of my own

and were about to win the day. When i went to fill out the new battlegroup sheet, i felt slightly gutted that all the infantry kills my men had obtained in very difficult terrain/weather, counted for nothing.

In that case, with version 1.3 Exp, and version 1.0 Eden's Favor Algorithm ( ), post game procedure for you would be as follows:

1) Fill out heaps of stuff on Experience sheet, that is the Battle Group sheet. Your men have fought valiantly, and killed tons o' Soviet stuff, and their experience will be reflected in that.

2) In the now vastly liposuctioned "AAR sheet", (formerly the Favor sheet), which has almost nothing on it but the part where the CM AAR is directly entered, (and possibly transfer 51-54 of the current BG sheet, which are AAR calcs), your actual Favor is computed, which represents, in CM's opinion, what the outcome was. In this example, you don't do so hot. If CM thinks you didn't did so hot, then your CO doesn't think you did so hot.

FAVOR : Comes from outcome

EXP : Comes from kills

The stark headline 'Minor defeat' was all that counted !..all i got was a lousy +1 exp gain.

Which you seem to find inaccurate. Do I take that as a vote of support, or am I still not understood, or...? Please be clear. Your questions above leave me wondering whether you agree, are curious and those are real questions, or whether they are rhethorical and you don't agree...?

Eden

[Max BrauHaus]

Eden,

I am leaning to agree with you on this point as you've described it. Although I still think the 1.3 experience could be tweaked, it should definitely include for infantry kills. Maybe if any infantry casualties are caused or recieved it should be +1. That would separate out the troops that sit through a battle without making contact with the enemy from those who were on the front lines. The Favor calc. you suggest is very simple. With that -50 to +50 spread per battle, we would just need to make sure the "cost" of using that Favor is balanced.

On another note, I think if players believe the Force Multiplier calcs make the BCR too easy, either the Handicap modifiers should be looked at (again), or some people should start playing at a higher Player Experience rating. As an apparently crappy player, the rules need to be usable for a range of capabilities, and I haven't seen that the current rules in this area make it too difficult. I am still playing in July, so I should be able to get some wins under my belt - I'll wait for the winter to get my arse handed to me.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

In my own campaign, I do give exp. for killing inf and guns, and infantry even gets exp. for killing mortars. They dont get much, but still.

Quite so, old chap, quite so.

I also roll up the Force Size, so I can get anything from 0(!) to 3000 pts aux units.

Oh really? Now how do you justify that, if you do? If you follow me, this is just a question, but are you doing that just for spice, throwing history to the wind? Or does that throw the wind to history? Truly I never quite got the aux concept.

I've dropped the rolls for the aux sections completely, and let the QB deside how my battle group will look like.

Again, the papers want to know Why? The aux rolls are meant to keep this stuff on the sane side of historical accuracy... I think You're posting your decisions without your reasons- not fair!

Yes I also just finished 6, and in the last two battles I've had almost nothing for Aux. Last time, four planes which shot me not the enemy, (despite the fact that it was an Axis Assault?!?!?!? The enemy position is *KNOWN* you IDIOTS!!! We're the guys *ATTACKING*!!!) and previous time it was just my core with one single flak gun from aux.

I've said this before, but one of the best things about BCR is that you can easily change them to your own needs.

True true true, yet that would not mean that we should not come here to discuss it's evolution.

I hope I can come up with a system that eliminates the need for the "Auto QB".

Hmm my only troubles are Map-Disease. Currently I

1) Go into SE and make "Battle 06 Kore"- I have my 600 ish points of core group here, and I can edit each guy to exactly his exp, and name the commander Hpt Smallwood... but the map *sux*, so I have to edit it by hand, *move* the flags from NML to Allied zone... Yuk. The map here is always inferior to a QB map- the QB map will take into account the size, the attack, et cetera... but the SE doesn't.

2) Create a QB with the adjusted full aux size, import the map/troops then just purchase the aux units and bingo- fight!

If that's not what you're doing, what are you doing?

I could just buy the stuff I want/need as Apache does, but I don't trust myself enough for that just yet.

No, that sounds right... I wouldn't trust you to buy my stuff either. (Gawd what a terrible joke: -10 experience )

Eden

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Hmmmmm No uncertainty, Eden - the goals are clear - have been since day one.

'Slower start'? Bit late for that, we're nearly there.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Max BrauHaus:

I am leaning to agree with you on this point as you've described it.

Excellent! I feel much better if only to know that at least someone has understood me, let alone 'leaned' with me.

Although I still think the 1.3 experience could be tweaked, it should definitely include for infantry kills.

But 1.3 does count kills! Therefore, I think what you meant to write there is that 1.5 (? ) should be similar to 1.3 *at least* with respect to counting enemy kills...? Not sure what you meant there, especially with the word 'although', but as far as enemy kills being relevant, yes, I for one agree, definitely.

Maybe if any infantry casualties are caused or recieved it should be +1.

That's exactly what 1.3 was- the first 'light grey' column on the old 1.3 "core" sheet...

That would separate out the troops that sit through a battle without making contact with the enemy from those who were on the front lines.

Agree completely- while there should also be perhaps just a "1" simply for being there, since being in a battle even if no kills are racked is probably alot scarier than anything I ever want to live through, still those who are in the thick of it have to be more seasoned.

The Favor calc. you suggest is very simple. With that -50 to +50 spread per battle, we would just need to make sure the "cost" of using that Favor is balanced.

Exactly.

On another note, I think if players believe the Force Multiplier calcs make the BCR too easy, either the Handicap modifiers should be looked at (again), or some people should start playing at a higher Player Experience rating.

I haven't seen it be too easy, except for two battles, (with no casualties whatsoever), wherein the map was to blame... In the last game I rolled up 500pts for air, yet in the QB only 300 was allowable... typically I *lose* alot of points if I purchase the aux myself, yet the AI will have a full force, of course. In fact those points for air support should really count as the enemies force...

Eden

[JaegerMeister]

Eden, yes i am agreeing with what your saying, totally ! We are thinking along the same lines, my men should be gaining experience through their personal kills, whilst the commander (me) should be gaining favour (Or promotion/medals- RPG element)through victories thus enabling me to use that favour to increase my forces future sucess through the acquisition of better support!..phew...and of course, with my men getting better experience that would also facilitate future actions.

What you posted earlier about the grog and RPG aspect also make alot of sense and i concur.

I think i will revert to the 1.3 battle group sheet in terms of logging kills/Ko's. @ +1 exp gain.

[ December 17, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: JaegerMeister ]

[Biltong]

Manstein22 has been busy!!

22 NEW MAPS!! as well as some updates on existing ones.

Map Pack 1 has been redone and loaded with more variety.

Manstein has some tricks up his sleeve. Saw some ‘Bogus’ Flags on one map, be careful

Download the latest BCR Map Expansion List v1.4.1 (55 Maps!) and the updated Map Pack 1 here:

Scooby’s Site

or here

SuperSulo’s Site

[Max BrauHaus]

My suggestion was to revert to most of those items that give a squad experience in the 1.3 rules - namely infantry casualties, mortars, etc. BUT, I like the simplification Biltong built in by making individual kills less important. I wouldn't suggest +1 for every casualty caused, but +1 if any casualties are caused, regardless of number. This makes squad experience growth more predictable; easier to manage.

[JaegerMeister]

Max, yep i was just thinking that, because otherwise the exp levels built up will not match the new 1.4 Appendix A experience levels..ie our troops would be 'crack' too fast.

So, if i'm getting this right..we now get +1exp just for being 'in the battle' and also +1exp for every squad that gets at least 1 inf kill (or should we set a min number of kills..say 5?)

[JaegerMeister]

one other thing thats puzzling me...how do we use the map pack & map rule sheet?..do we play them in an order or do we pick one that matches the parameters we rolled up for terrain & battle type? and if one doesn't match those params, do we use the next most similar map to our params?

[Biltong]

Hmmmm – was hoping to get to the Scalpels errata tonight, but the posts have been too interesting…

Apache

“ I also wonder a little about the scrounged units now. … I must admit I do not use the scrounged element of the rules myself. I rarely find the point values make it worth it…”,

The points have been upped (if you have the favor to buy them)...

Reasons for keeping points for scrounged units low:

1. Your Auxiliaries are the main ‘supplement’ – (read cannon fodder)… Scrounged units are just a little ‘gift’ – to enable you to buy what you want to fill the gaps left by the QB decided Auxiliaries.

2. Some guys machines won’t handle too large battles

Apache cont.

”…I think the gun towing element is a good point too…. an AT gun stuck way back in the woods generally being about as much use as a chocolate fireguard!”

Inclusion of Vehicles in the Scrounged category has been on the list for a while and was scheduled for tonight… was...

Pete Wenman

Apache has got close to an idea I have been toying with. That of running an armoured Pz Gr Coy (Bttn ? ) through the campaign. Hence my large maps

Someone else also working on this idea as well – I think a lot of guys would love this.

BTW I’ve scheduled to hunt for a mod database site to store BCR mods and descriptions.

How about core attached units. These would represent bttn/regt/div assets attached to the force, but only for certain tasks. I.E. a recce plt would be available for a probe or attack, but a pioneer plt (coy) would be available for an assault. However when on defence these attachemts may be withdrawn, but replaced with points value, mines, wire, bunkers etc. …

This would have the added effect of making attached units more valuable, rather than cannon fodder. Lose your recce force, it will take a while to replace it. Lose your pnr' plt, don't expect to be able to build bunkers and plant wire and mines.

I like this…. Bit worried that it might make battles too large for some PC’s … might have to fall in the mod category…

Do some work on it Pete – I think guys would be interested.

BTW – my one kid is playing your map and loves it

History Buff; Eden Smallwood;

Grog vs RPG or rather Easy exp gain vs Difficult exp gain

Apache summed it up neatly:

“Reflecting the historical accuracy to some degree may actually prolong interest. Have to be careful here I think. Most PC games work on the basis of the levels getting harder etc for that reason.”

BCR’s Goal is to:

1. Enable players to play a Campaign from June 41 through all of the CMBB terrain until the final day of battle in Berlin.

2. Make sure that the Campaign never becomes Boring – the difficulty must increase, it must be varied and the Campaign must end in a climax.

Battle 5 you’re co is Vet – Battle 10 you’re co is Crack – Aug 41 you and everybody else is bored and stop playing….?

We’re lucky that the Axis decline offers us the opportinity to fight realistically tougher and tougher battles… All we still need is a climax – and that will come (if you’ll excuse the pun)…

Apache

“Multiply the Aux Forces by the correct modifiers when attacking etc. (this brings your force size up a little but, leaving out the core, not by as much)… Take any scrounged unit points (from you LAST battle), multiply them by the modifier if attacking etc…”

This sounds interesting as well… Both you and Pete on the same track here? Keep us informed…

History Buff; SuperSulo; Eden et al

Points for killing & Favor

I Cut down on the Battle Group sheet:

1) to make it simpler

2) to reduce exp points gained so that we won’t get those Crack troops so easily (see above)

But, SuperSulo’s remark:

“Maybe if any infantry casualties are caused or received it should be +1. That would separate out the troops that sit through a battle without making contact with the enemy from those who were on the front lines” pressed the right button… - will be investigated/fixed.

Off the top of my head: 1 point per squad/team etc (max) if they had any kills – now I’ll have to find a way to take those points away again

Eden

The question of whether a soldier takes out mortar, et cetera, is a matter for his experience, (for reasons which hopefully are self explanatory), but is not a matter of 'favor'.

Hmmm – don’t agree here. Initially (pre 1.4) troops got exp for killing nearly anything.. I decided for KISS and realism to stick to what really makes a troop shine in his comrades eyes… Simply: what could have resulted in a medal/ribbon/patch…. Out went mortars etc… No one ever got mentioned for taking out a mortar… a MG bunker – now we’re talking!

Even more absurd: a tank crew gaining experience from taking out a MG bunker or a mortar?!! Kissed goodbye.

Favor

When your co reports to his co, he takes along a sheet with confirmed enemy kills/Tanks Ko’d/arty/mortars/captured etc etc… If his sheet is empty although the enemy ran away… not much favor, believe me.

His Co needs to report up and so on and so on… “those 2 pillboxes who were holding us up – history sir! We lost 30 men KIA; 50 wounded; killed 87 and captured 20; got 7 artillery pieces and 3 tanks, Sir!”

And tanks were and still is really important in this regard, History Buff - Watch CNN in a couple of months

I agree Mortars – not really very important for favor (hence the 2 points) – If you say reduce them to 1… maybe.

But tanks/Lt armor/vehicles/guns/bunkers – definitely important.

Why don’t I stick with KISS here? – go with Eden’s One Favor option?

I liked that the player gets close to what he did. That he’s forced to examine the battlefield afterwards… not just a question of writing down the CMBB AAR, but: I took out a tank here – a mortar there – an AC here etc etc… Low flying through the battlefield – reliving what happened. "Ahhh there's that bloody AT gun that got my..." The Summary… The Greek monologue at the end of the tragedy… ya get my drift: ‘Closure’.

But I couldn’t do this via the Battle Group Sheet and give experience for crazy things (above), and I can (realistically) give favor to most of the important elements that made the battle what it was.

BCR philosophy 101

Great discussion guys

[Ichthys]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

Max, yep i was just thinking that, because otherwise the exp levels built up will not match the new 1.4 Appendix A experience levels..ie our troops would be 'crack' too fast.

So, if i'm getting this right..we now get +1exp just for being 'in the battle' and also +1exp for every squad that gets at least 1 inf kill (or should we set a min number of kills..say 5?)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. It rewards you for using the troops, instead of hiding them in the back. If you want to make it slightly more complicated but not overly overbalance experience gain, calculate the experience this way: for each unit, roll the 10-sided die. If the numer is less-than-or-equal-to the number of casualties caused then you get the experience. So a unit causing 1 casulty only has a 10% chance of gaining experience and one causing 9 has a 90% chance. Anything 10 or over automatically gets the experience gain (but only 1, you don't get 2 for 20 casulties).

For tanks, I think you'd have to divide casualties by two, then roll the die. You'd need 20 then to guarantee an experience gain, 10 would only give you a 50% chance.

-Andy

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Biltong:

History Buff; Eden Smallwood;

Grog vs RPG or rather Easy exp gain vs Difficult exp gain

Just for the record, this is not an adequate equivalency. Say rather that from an RPG viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with an exp gain for the company which is not representative of the historical army as a whole.

"Easy vs Difficult" is not the description- the exp gain in RPG "mode" could be as easy as history, or as difficult, or easier, or more difficult or whatever the community as a whole or the player chose to make of it.

Carry on,

Eden

[JaegerMeister]

Adding to what i said earlier, i think (in my own case at least) i will only award the +1exp for a minimum 5 casualties inflicted per squad or knocking out a HMG nest/gunpit, as i would say achieving that would raise anyones level of experience. I dont think 50mm mortars deserve any exp gain but surely KO'ing a bigger 81mm+ team might be worthy?..knowing the damage they can inflict?

No advice on the maps then?

[ December 18, 2002, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: JaegerMeister ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

No advice on the maps then?

JM, in earlier posts announcing MPs I think it's pretty clear you just choose the 'next' battle named appropriately for your battle type...

Pragmatically though, unless these maps were all in a searchable database indexed not just by attack type but also point size, map size... I don't think you can really pick a map 'blind'- you really have to look at it.

For me it doesn't matter- the way I'm doing this, don't have the option of using them, boo hoo.

Eden

[SuperSulo]

First of all: AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHH!!!!!!

I had typed up a very long and detailed response to Eden, but when I pressed "Add Reply", it said "Sorry, you can't use more than 8 pictures in one post" and all my text was gone. I didn't even use a single picture! Stoopid, stoopid UBB. I think I had even typed up the solution to all world's problem, but now it's all gone, I can't remember everything I typed. Oh well, here's a short tribute to the best post ever written :

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I also roll up the Force Size, so I can get anything from 0(!) to 3000 pts aux units.

Oh really? Now how do you justify that, if you do? If you follow me, this is just a question, but are you doing that just for spice, throwing history to the wind? Or does that throw the wind to history? Truly I never quite got the aux concept.

</font>

[SuperSulo]

Before I forget,

Biltong, some pages or so ago I said something about "horses being modelled in BCR", and you answered that you thought it was too much trouble or something like that.

I was only joking, I didn't suggest that we actually should write any rules about horses, just that we can assume that horses are being used to transport our guns, no need to buy a tractor.

Of course, maybe you were joking with your reply, in that case, disregard this post

[Biltong]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Before I forget,

Biltong, some pages or so ago I said something about "horses being modelled in BCR", and you answered that you thought it was too much trouble or something like that.

I was only joking, I didn't suggest that we actually should write any rules about horses, just that we can assume that horses are being used to transport our guns, no need to buy a tractor.

Of course, maybe you were joking with your reply, in that case, disregard this post

Joking??!! No jokes there - I spend the last 2 days writing modifiers for the effect of mold on feed (you know when it's raining) and the difference of the weave of the bags on grain loss... I haven't got to the horses yet... I still have to figure out the effects of vertilizer of feed production etc etc but eventually I'll get to the horses... Damn - just thought about the different types of grain... will have to do some more research... :eek: