Any heavy hitters out there ?????? Who's game??? I'll take anyone one on!!!!!
- Thread starter Titan
- Start date
I think I've seen this cartoon before . . .
Lots of bark, not any bite.
Lots of bark, not any bite.
Maybe finish the other game we have going now, @Titan ? I don't see so many files from you these days.
Hey Bud, thought we were chugging along just fine..Prettty much one to two files i day im doing in ours...Its starting to liven up abit
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 249
- Location
- Gateway to the Dales
- Website
- www.youtube.com
I didn't realise we were keeping some kind of scalp tally.
Screenshot from Turn 7 of Titan and mine's first game:
Makes for a short video series so we tried again and I may have gone in slightly overconfident for Round 2 Well played by Titan- its one thing to make mistakes, its quite another for your opponent to make the most out of them.
Screenshot from Turn 7 of Titan and mine's first game:
Makes for a short video series so we tried again and I may have gone in slightly overconfident for Round 2
Well played by Titan- its one thing to make mistakes, its quite another for your opponent to make the most out of them.
B
Bearstronaut
Guest
Anyone down for a game?
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2017
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 707
@Bearstronaut .......I will play you if you like. Send me a PM if you are interested.
Ill take you on @Bearstronaut , if youre up for it
Hapless steps up against Titan for the second game of our mirror and bites the dust.
Yes I have had a taste of you mate...… Love it
Very nice. I admire a man who finds so much joy in what he does!!!
And all the while remaining humble and soft spoken. :fisher:
W
Wastemoreland
Guest
You challenging me or Titan Hedgehog?
My slate is kinda full at the moment., but I´ll put you on top of the list.
Feel free to dig something up in the meantime.
OK @Wastemoreland and @Titan Not a challenge lads just a little mention, having said that I have some games that are drawing to an End, we will meet on the field of battle
just watch this space
just watch this space
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 249
- Location
- Gateway to the Dales
- Website
- www.youtube.com
I like how you compressed a 1hr 17 minute game with roughly equal casualties into a two minute kill reel where none of your own troops get hit
Here's the first in my videos for this game... conspicuously unedited, turn by turn:
For the record, here's Titan and mine's current scoresheet:
Mirror Game 1: Titan's Attack: Titan surrendered on Turn 7; my Attack: gentlemanly ceasefire shortly afterwards.
Mirror Game 2: Difficult to treat with real seriousness after the last game. Titan's Attack: I surrender after meaningful resistance has devolved to timewasting... and after Titan refuses to ceasefire. My Attack: Titan accepts a ceasefire that gives him a tactical victory while I had a Tiger and a halftrack platoon 800m of uncovered, open ground away from contesting the undefended final objective.
As a guess, Titan perked up and brought his A game after Game 1, while I was overconfident and brought my B game.
Now that the balance has been redressed a little and we both know what to expect we should round it out with a meeting engagement... winner takes all!
For the record, here's Titan and mine's current scoresheet:
Mirror Game 1: Titan's Attack: Titan surrendered on Turn 7; my Attack: gentlemanly ceasefire shortly afterwards.
Mirror Game 2: Difficult to treat with real seriousness after the last game. Titan's Attack: I surrender after meaningful resistance has devolved to timewasting... and after Titan refuses to ceasefire. My Attack: Titan accepts a ceasefire that gives him a tactical victory while I had a Tiger and a halftrack platoon 800m of uncovered, open ground away from contesting the undefended final objective.
As a guess, Titan perked up and brought his A game after Game 1, while I was overconfident and brought my B game.
Now that the balance has been redressed a little and we both know what to expect we should round it out with a meeting engagement... winner takes all![/QUOTE]
Dear sir,
Believe we discussed game one and came to a mutual agreement, far to many rounds from artillery landed in my setup zone and did enough damage to my forces to the point that i was going to impact the game. Its generally agreed by all that no one bombards setup areas.
Mirror Game 1: Titan's Attack: Titan surrendered on Turn 7; my Attack: gentlemanly ceasefire shortly afterwards.
Mirror Game 2: Difficult to treat with real seriousness after the last game. Titan's Attack: I surrender after meaningful resistance has devolved to timewasting... and after Titan refuses to ceasefire. My Attack: Titan accepts a ceasefire that gives him a tactical victory while I had a Tiger and a halftrack platoon 800m of uncovered, open ground away from contesting the undefended final objective.
As a guess, Titan perked up and brought his A game after Game 1, while I was overconfident and brought my B game.
Now that the balance has been redressed a little and we both know what to expect we should round it out with a meeting engagement... winner takes all!
[/QUOTE]Dear sir,
Believe we discussed game one and came to a mutual agreement, far to many rounds from artillery landed in my setup zone and did enough damage to my forces to the point that i was going to impact the game. Its generally agreed by all that no one bombards setup areas.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 249
- Location
- Gateway to the Dales
- Website
- www.youtube.com
Sir,
A mutual agreement was indeed arrived at in Game 1, however the opposing gentleman must acknowledge the fact that having failed to act upon the tactical advantage to be gained by winning the race to the top of the hill a mere 70m outside his setup zone and thus losing the ability to exit his setup zone unmolested by enemy fire from said hill, he must naturally attempt to gain the freedom to move by developing fire superiority from the edge of his deployment area. As we discussed, sir, one cannot expect to be immune from return fire if one lines up his infantry in plain view and begins to fire upon the defender's forces, regardless of how close they are to an acknowledged safe area.
In the final analysis, and granting that when roles were reversed no such issues were encountered by the attacker, we can only conclude that the opposing gentleman found himself tactically outmaneuvered on the first turn, the natural result of which was to be pinned inside his deployment zone and the immediate area where- although strenuous efforts were made to avoid them- overshoots from direct firing mortars unfortunately occurred, though none, I believe, fell inside the actual deployment zone itself as delineated in the setup phase. The gentleman should consult the endgame state before making accusations he cannot sustain:
Nevertheless, as the opposing gentleman has indicated, we came to a mutual agreement to bring Game 1 to a generous close because it was "not fun"- something later regretted by myself in Game 2 when it became apparent that the gentleman was unwilling to accept any ceasefire he did not believe favoured him regardless of the how much "fun" I might be having- and found another map which the opposing gentleman and myself naturally approached with different degrees of seriousness and attention to detail, having come to differing conclusions about one another's ability.
In terms of overall score, the opposing gentleman must choose whether to count Game 1 in which he was tactically outmaneuvered, in which case we can count Game 2 and the score becomes 1-1; or he can discount Game 1 because he did not engage with the game seriously enough to properly demonstrate his ability, in which case- Game 1 having tainted Game 2 and provoked an equal lack of seriousness from myself- we can also discount Game 2 and the score is 0-0.
My point was that, now these differing conclusions have been somewhat addressed and our opinions of one another have stabilised between Game 1 and Game 2 in a manner more conducive to a realistic test of our respective capability, we should conclude with a decisive meeting engagement.
[/formal]
A mutual agreement was indeed arrived at in Game 1, however the opposing gentleman must acknowledge the fact that having failed to act upon the tactical advantage to be gained by winning the race to the top of the hill a mere 70m outside his setup zone and thus losing the ability to exit his setup zone unmolested by enemy fire from said hill, he must naturally attempt to gain the freedom to move by developing fire superiority from the edge of his deployment area. As we discussed, sir, one cannot expect to be immune from return fire if one lines up his infantry in plain view and begins to fire upon the defender's forces, regardless of how close they are to an acknowledged safe area.
In the final analysis, and granting that when roles were reversed no such issues were encountered by the attacker, we can only conclude that the opposing gentleman found himself tactically outmaneuvered on the first turn, the natural result of which was to be pinned inside his deployment zone and the immediate area where- although strenuous efforts were made to avoid them- overshoots from direct firing mortars unfortunately occurred, though none, I believe, fell inside the actual deployment zone itself as delineated in the setup phase. The gentleman should consult the endgame state before making accusations he cannot sustain:
Nevertheless, as the opposing gentleman has indicated, we came to a mutual agreement to bring Game 1 to a generous close because it was "not fun"- something later regretted by myself in Game 2 when it became apparent that the gentleman was unwilling to accept any ceasefire he did not believe favoured him regardless of the how much "fun" I might be having- and found another map which the opposing gentleman and myself naturally approached with different degrees of seriousness and attention to detail, having come to differing conclusions about one another's ability.
In terms of overall score, the opposing gentleman must choose whether to count Game 1 in which he was tactically outmaneuvered, in which case we can count Game 2 and the score becomes 1-1; or he can discount Game 1 because he did not engage with the game seriously enough to properly demonstrate his ability, in which case- Game 1 having tainted Game 2 and provoked an equal lack of seriousness from myself- we can also discount Game 2 and the score is 0-0.
My point was that, now these differing conclusions have been somewhat addressed and our opinions of one another have stabilised between Game 1 and Game 2 in a manner more conducive to a realistic test of our respective capability, we should conclude with a decisive meeting engagement.
[/formal]
I thought the recent games where a true reflection of our respective capabilities. Once upon a time and in good old English fashion things where at times settled by a duel....and quite possibly by our forbear's.........So indeed good sir this sounds like a duel, and one i would relish, Note: i am always a fair and reasonable that most of my opponents can testify to..I have a very good reputation, so much so that if you have a desire to avenge your two defeats against me i will more than oblige...in fact i would not only look forward to it i would enjoy it....So bring it on!!!!!