Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:46 pm**

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Let's not get personal, nor get bogged down in the weeds. [:)]

I love getting bogged down in the weeds, certain ones of course. [:'(]

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:19 pm**

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Let's not get personal, nor get bogged down in the weeds. [:)]

I love getting bogged down in the weeds, certain ones of course. [:'(]

Wouldn't that be "weed", as in singular?[:D]

Posted: **Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:07 pm**

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

And how much ego can a man have, who thinks he knows better than all the professionally trained men who actually ran the US/Japanese militaries? I guess it's awful easy to be an armchair quarterback.

Yeah, deciding to pick up a sword and charge 200 metres across open terrain directly towards a line of medium machineguns supported by an infantry platoon in clear weather during daylight hours... Yup, no way anyone could better that.

The absurd thing about that "gem of wisdom" is how it makes moot the existence of Matrix Games itself. I mean: how do we DARE to play a wargame and come up with our own ideas?? [8|]

Posted: **Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:33 am**

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think a house rule allowing the creation of defensive carriers is fine, the only stipulation is the player uses multiple fighter squadrons.

Using a single fighter squadron is less than optimal if you can use more. With more than one, you can specialise--high alt/low alt/fighter bomber/night ops.

Matrix Games Forums

"defensive" carrier - gamey?

RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey?

RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey?

RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey?

RE: "defensive" carrier - gamey?