xe5
Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: STIENER i didnt originally say he merged....it was someone else that said it was obviuos he merged. What you said was "germans have not merged any BG's as far as i know" which confused the issue because Graebner did merge with the Nijmegen Bridge static BG. quote:
ORIGINAL: STIENER trust me when i say that THIS BG...Graebner ...already fought one battle on this map...i fought it there. they lost allot of troops in the 1st fight. as for merging im 90% sure now that andrew pointed it out that my opponent did merge greabner with someone. NOT the static BG....it did that the turn before this one. theres german Para's in this roster...graebner was an SS recon BG, so.... News flash - trust me when I say this...I know for sure that Graebner did not fight any previous battles in your campaign. Graebner's active and forcepool rosters are intact, none of the available BG or parent formation points have been used. Unit values are green. Graebner's core BG is completely original, in exactly the same condition it started the GC. If Graebner had fought previously on Nijegen Bridge your opponent almost certainly would have used and reported having vehicles. Graebner has only merged with the Nijmegen Bridge static BG (which has FJ units). The bug involving the Nijmegen Bridge map is that the system doesnt recognize Axis control of the RR bridge should allow Graebner's units to deploy on the south bank. On the other hand, if portions of both bridges were Allied controlled, then logically Graebner's units should not be allowed to deploy on the south bank, BUT the static BG units merged into Graebner's BG should be allowed to deploy south of the Waal. Another logical issue is - if both bridges are enemy controlled, shouldnt units be constrained to deploy on the side of the river they occupied when control of both bridges was lost? quote:
does using the MOVE order instead of the attack order make any difference to moving to contact? in the rules im lead to believe it DOES NOT make any diff, other than you lose more cohesion if you attack onto a map instead of moving onto a map. Yes, in addition to causing less loss of cohesion, the MOVE order is DIFFERENT than Attack because it means that BG will be in reserve if there is another friendly BG already on the map. quote:
he thinks he may have MOVED onto Mook instead of attacking onto mook, which has an allied AB BG on it and an allied conrolled bridge. i captured the bridge before it could be blown. I know we cant spell and our syntax is in sodden shambles but lets at least keep the facts straight ok? Your opponents BG arrived on Mook during the 0600 turn as a reinforcement. Mook doesnt have a bridge, or an Allied BG on it at the start of the 0600 turn. The problem that you previously reported is this: "the german BG in Mook was slated to move to Heuman bridge...there is an AB BG there....it didnt move.....the green move arrow was still there after we it EXECUTE but the BG was still in Mook" Besides the fact that Axis strat move arrows are red, not green, did you move the AB BG from Grafwegen to Mook on the 0600 turn? If you did then you pre-empted the intended Axis move from Mook to Heumen Bridge. Please post another zip of the current save file to spare the forensic analysis from depending only on convoluted Stienerisms.
< Message edited by xe5 -- 12/10/2010 11:54:11 AM >
|