Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Thanks Hawk...
However, I agree fully with your assessment here. 16 inch Naval guns are highly likely to achieve a result on the combats results table on a PzIV. This wasn't my point, but I assume you knew that. The point has always been, the disable likelihood.

Ok so we are good then on indirect fire by map is reduced on the CRT for being unspotted, correct? We both agree on this.

We are now on the seperate issue of Random Artillery Disablement (page 57 of your game manual)?

You are at issue with the 4% disablement rate no matter what, correct?

I have one for you...a little experiment. Create a scenario. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some King Tigers on it. Make sure you have selected indirect by map. Drop 81mm's, and 155's on it. You will have to make sure the units aren't spotted, so many efforts will need to be made as the indirect will scatter. You will find that the 81mm and the 155mm "disable" at a similar rate, when they hit. I don't see this as accurate, and of course you don't have to agree, but you also knew this.

Actually I did say a few posts back that larger guns should have a higher chance of disabling. I also said that open topped vehicles should be more at risk too.

You and I disagree on the spotted / not spotted correct?

Lastly...
I do not need you to quote rules of engagement to me relative to my posts.

I didn't actual quote them, but point taken.

I don't have a problem with civility.

I agree 100%. You are very adept at civility and good debate.

I don't question your intelligence at all, in fact, you strike me as someone who communicates very well and with a purpose.

Thank you for that.

I see three likely reasons why you have seen the need to do this...

Alrighty let's see.

1) You don't actually see that your posts taking the attitude of I'm right, you are wrong, and misinformed, here let me educate you are at their root very patronizing.

I could see how one could take it this way.

In general, most people don't like to be patronized, especially so when they don't actually recognize it for such.

I would agree with that.

I am new here, but I would be willing to bet that you engender some real nasty response at times from a few people. If you don't realize this, you should really take a look. It will improve your dialogue with folks.

I am quite aware that I have gotten some real nasty responses. Have given them too. PM me if you would like the links to them.

2) You have many friends amongst the admins. here,

I would like to think so. I was an admin here for a bit.

so that you feel that others need to be accountable to rules that you yourself don't have to be.

Actually I do have to be acountable to the rules.

Again, I am new here, I don't fully know all the relationships. I was recommended by people I respect to weigh-in on this debate. I was told people who know, and who have influence on the game will listen.

You are correct here.

I will take that at face value, and hope I have been heard.

I am sure you have. You have not been mislead by your friends.

However, if these folks don't hold you accountable for your posts, I would suggest they evaluate their own rules. There are many methods to being impolite over and above simple name calling, and nastiness.

Just to keep you in the loop I got a week off back at the end of August for rules violations. I then took 3 months off on my own to readjust and reflect. I have only been back posting for a couple of weeks. I am following the rules of this forum.

I enjoy the game, and had hoped to enjoy some dialogue regarding same. Again, I am somewhat new here, but I said that already.

I do to. I think there is good dialog going on.

3) You actually know full well what you are doing, and purposefully are actually looking for a reaction from folks.

Partially true. I know full well what I am doing but am not looking for a reaction out of anybody.

I am not a psychologist (nor do I play one on TV), but a lifetime of training as a behaviorist has served me well in this regard.

LOL! It shows.

Did I say earlier?, I am new here, and have very few posts.

Once or twice.

I am not looking for a fight, or to be "banned".

No, no you are not that is easy to see.

Based on your responses, and your approach, I would be willing to bet that you have gotten more than one poster "banned" with your interactions.

As a trained as a behaviorist you know that only the person that types a post can get themselves banned. I can't do it. Only the poster gets the poster banned.

If this is the case...I am dying to know...What is your current count?

My count is 2. Both times myself. It is only the fault of the person in the mirror. No one elses.

You are pretty good at this. :bow:

As are you. :bow:

dawags you are a class act and ok in my book. You get it.



Let us continue our debates. We should also play a game.

Thanx!

Hawk