Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
However my point is that none of the Prussian forces at Ligny were shattered. The centre gave way but was able to withdraw without harrassment.

Perhaps someone who's interested in simulating the situation historical commanders may have found themselves in.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Depending upon where the hex boundary is.

If you put it in the middle of the British position, that puts the French in the same hexes as the British. Obviously, one can't do that in TOAW.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That is to say, from the likes of those who read your own AAR and notice the gross deviations from the military realities of the period in question instead of just taking your word for it when you say it works fine.

That may well be -- but as it happens, you're the one defending the scenario. You seem to be getting our roles crossed up.

Please don't say Seelow - I might hurt myself from laughing.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That is to say, from the likes of those who read your own AAR and notice the gross deviations from the military realities of the period in question instead of just taking your word for it when you say it works fine.

Those "gross deviations" of course, only appear in your self-serving eyes. None of them stand up to examination.

That may well be -- but as it happens, you're the one defending the scenario. You seem to be getting our roles crossed up.

You're defending your false assertions.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Please don't say Seelow - I might hurt myself from laughing.

Considering you haven't even seen this scenario, that's a singularly inane remark.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving'

and how are my assertions 'false'?

The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Okay. I'd like to see you defend two elements in this post. In what way are my eyes 'self-serving'

You're chained to your theory about pre-20th Century scenarios. No matter what the true state of affairs may be, your observations will be twisted to fit that theory. It's your standard operating procedure.

Actually, in one of your earlier posts above, I had actually detected a fair assesment. But you then reverted to form.

and how are my assertions 'false'?

Have you provided any basis for them? No. Baseless = false. Now at least Ben supports his assertions with his observations from the AAR. Of course, as I've pointed out tirelessly, his observations have been consistently off.

I asked you specifically "what distortions?" in the last post. All I got was just another declaration that it was full of "gross deviations" without any specifics or evidence of those specifics.

Here's the reality: There isn't a single thing in that AAR that you can point at and say for certain a Napoleonic force couldn't have done it. The distances are too small and the scenario length too short.

The fact of the matter is that you're doing what you typically do when you start losing an argument: begin resorting to insult instead. It's one of your more repulsive traits.

As usual, you're a legend in you're own mind. Yes, I'm defeated. Colin has declared it to be full of "gross deviations". QED.

And, for someone who snipes at everything and everyone in the most disrespectful manner possible, you have to be the thinnest skinned individual I've encountered on the web. You see insults were there are none - and then you go nuts. I gather in the post above you thought I was laughing at Seelow itself, rather than the idea of Seelow being problem free in TOAW. Did you notice I included two of my own scenarios as examples of "not perfect"?

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow, this is great stuff, guys. Keep 'er up. Quite enjoying it. [:D]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Veers

Wow, this is great stuff, guys. Keep 'er up. Quite enjoying it. [:D]

Actually, we're working on a compilation: sort of a 'greatest hits.'

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

As did the initial Ligny dispositions.

Stragglers are hunted down by forces at least superior to them. If they are division sized, they'll be chased down by division sized parties at least.

Where is that perfect WWII scenario that has no problems and recreates all aspects of its subject perfectly? It's not CFNA - there are no minefields and the supply system is too crude. It's not Okinawa - there are no caves. Barbarossa sims have no production system and the weather model sucks. And were the Poles really motivated to hold out for 8 turns instead of 7?

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
\Well check out the battlefield at Waterloo. With HQs and artillery, I rather suspect that the French put more than nine units in one hex.

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i liked Killer Angels, great fun..

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..i liked Killer Angels, great fun..

Thank you, Richard. Have you seen the new version with the improved counter colors (included in 3.2)? I picked them off of photos of real Civil War uniforms.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, it depends upon where the hex boundaries are. I'd put Waterloo at four hexes wide and three deep.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, it depends upon where the hex boundaries are. I'd put Waterloo at four hexes wide and three deep.

I had a look. 3 1/2 miles wide by 2 1/2 miles deep. In kilometres, that's 5.6 by 4.

You proceed to excuse your definition by talking about where the hex boundaries fall; doesn't this tell you something about the suitability of dividing up a Napoleonic battlefield into 6.25 square kilometre sections?

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Not if I'm modeling it operationally. How is that different from any other operational scenario. "France 1944" doesn't have to get all the tactical minutia of Omaha Beach detailed. It abstracts it.

Yeah -- but Omaha Beach wasn't the nub and the gist of the entire 1944 campaign. That's one of the many areas where OPART falls down when it comes to the pre-modern era: it can't accomodate the difference in scale between the arena of strategic movement and that of actual battlefield decision. Strikingly, this remains true even when you have an arena as sharpy confined as that of the Waterloo Campaign.