MichaeltheGreat - So far so good.

[MattHiggs]

and it all turns to ****e........ 'nuff said

[Kautilya]

Well I get the impression that Mtg is a quite a bit stricter than Ming but I don't have any complaints about that. (except perhaps the banning over the silly "Slocombe's ***** " thing which was quickly reversed)

The only question is: how would the old flamin' Mtg that we all know and love have fared under the new regime?

[MichaeltheGreat]

His ass would have been mine long ago.

The Evil Knevil thing wasn't over the first change, (to **** the police), that was cheeky enough I'd have laughed it off. The second change was where I drew the line, and after talking with Evil Knevil about it, I had no problem with unbanning him.

I will at least occasionally be merciful. Occasionally.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

So far so good with what?

[MichaeltheGreat]

This is a civ site, a subset of wargaming. That's where the name derives from - my playing style, which is mobility, concentration of force, and mass attack. It's a takeoff on Alexander the Great and Frederick the Great.

I have no intention of changing it, since I've used it for years on several fora before here. Although "Your ass is mine, boy" might work for a moderator's logon.

[Chris 62]

Now, now, Reb. Some decorum. That should be "Your butt is mine, boy". Love the Strother Martin quote, by the way.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[East Street Trader]

There is that pissawful name, though.

I mean, a man's monicker is nowadays his own affair and the name "MichaeltheGreat" makes a statement which other posters can adjust for.

But for a mod?

If he felt up for a change MichaeltheGreater doesn't make the same statement (and abbreviates OK).

[MichaeltheGreat]

bump for Mobius, MWHC, or anyone else who cares to express their opinion about my moderating in the actual proper forum for that sort of thing.

[Gibsie]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat on 04-18-2001 11:18 PM</font>
This is a civ site, a subset of wargaming. That's where the name derives from - my playing style, which is mobility, concentration of force, and mass attack. It's a takeoff on Alexander the Great and Frederick the Great.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Hah! That's generally called the "tank rush", one of the most unoriginal and boring methods of play in strategy games, you can't dress it up behind claims that you're acting like some ancient great General.

As for my thoughts on how the man is doing? Well, Ming might close a thread after 20 spammy posts, he'll do it before five have been posted. Which is... probably a ...good thing.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Gibsie (edited April 25, 2001).]</font>

[MichaeltheGreat]

Tank rushes are lame, pale, imitations.

I prefer Desert Saber type overwhelming sea-air-land combined arms assaults that crush the life out of an opponent everywhere at once. Not this base at a time elephant or impact rover trading kid stuff.

[Lefty Scaevola]

MtG, do you adopt different personalities for different games?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nope, I am a heart-breaking, life-taking, widow-making son of a ***** in all of them. That said, I try to force things to happen offensively on my schedule, and use a lot of delaying, terrain based low rent defensive screens, to tie up the enemy and let him commit and lose more resources in his attacks, while I prepare the time and place of my own attacks.

Think Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville.

[Sprayber]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat on 04-26-2001 03:05 AM</font>
Nope, I am a heart-breaking, life-taking, widow-making son of a ***** in all of them. That said, I try to force things to happen offensively on my schedule, and use a lot of delaying, terrain based low rent defensive screens, to tie up the enemy and let him commit and lose more resources in his attacks, while I prepare the time and place of my own attacks.

Think Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

We are still talking about CIV right.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Nope, wargames. MtG seems to be interested in modern battlefield tactical games. Big suprise there, it may have help sharpen a few skills to keep his ass alive. I remember a War-Con at Texas A & M once. The Student had a reinfored (about +50% with extra armor, arty, & a couple of Su something attack a/c and some helos) soviet Mech Rifle division, and the 2nd armored guys from Fort Hood had about 1/2 an amored cavalry regiment. Soviets were obliterated. Misdirection and ambush after ambush, but the Aggies were feeling confident with the ground they were gaining. They never saw it comming, even though us older naval gamers who checked on the game every now and then did. The soviets just did not notice how they were channeled into two main lane of advance or that a high priority for the TOWs was the ZSU-23s. When the last one was gone, a few turns later came the two A-10s. Damn those things carry a lot of ammo.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Both, actually. I started playing miniatures wargames before computer ones came out, and am generally interested in anything from Napoleonic era on.

Professionally, though, very little was applicable (other than basic principles) to me as an airborne pathfinder E-4 and E-5. Light infantry squad tactics, and individual / small team recon techniques aren't really simulatable outside the real training environment.

For higher command levels, and heavies like the Cav boys at Hood, it's a different story, and the kind of channelizing of enemy forces like Lefty describes is right out of what the OpFor teaches the heavies at the NTC at Ft. Irwin. Only thing I would add is a MLRS artillery bombardment at the rear of those columns, so that after the A-10's made their passes, the survivors would have a tougher time retreating out of the killing zone.

Regardless of whether it's civ, or pure wargames, I apply the same set of principles - it's just a case of matching them to the tools in the toolbox. One of the things I wish Civ had was the idea of supply lines supply nets for warfighting units. That would lead to some fun.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MichaeltheGreat (edited April 26, 2001).]</font>