07-23-2008, 06:50 PM
07-24-2008, 12:14 AM
Hello Huib,
I have a go at them. Send the first one to my e-mail.
All options on please.
Thanx!
I have a go at them. Send the first one to my e-mail.
All options on please.
Thanx!
07-24-2008, 12:37 AM
That's great Erik. You'll get the first turn in a short while.
07-24-2008, 12:41 AM
Ok, great.
Shall we play all 3 in chronological order?
Thanx!
Shall we play all 3 in chronological order?
Thanx!
07-24-2008, 01:35 AM
Yes all 3 would be nice. I sent the first turn to the email adress you registred in your profile.
07-24-2008, 01:37 AM
Yep its their, but I am at work.
Will do it when I get home this afternoon.
Thanx!
Will do it when I get home this afternoon.
Thanx!
07-24-2008, 10:20 AM
Huib, Hawk,
Thanx for the attempt at them. I can't think of a better pairing.
If you look at the three deployments and consider the time elapsed between them...they graphically display the vageries of the "time and movement" scale, frequently discussed before. All of these scens were shortened (in time), so that there would be survivors from both sides...and using my 15-20 minute per turn philosophy (I think used often by Huib and von Earlman). These scens easily fit into the "original scope" of the game. Otherwise the battle would have been upwards of 200 turns...in CS, all of it fighting. Wouldn't stand a chance in hell.
Cheers
Curt
Thanx for the attempt at them. I can't think of a better pairing.
If you look at the three deployments and consider the time elapsed between them...they graphically display the vageries of the "time and movement" scale, frequently discussed before. All of these scens were shortened (in time), so that there would be survivors from both sides...and using my 15-20 minute per turn philosophy (I think used often by Huib and von Earlman). These scens easily fit into the "original scope" of the game. Otherwise the battle would have been upwards of 200 turns...in CS, all of it fighting. Wouldn't stand a chance in hell.
Cheers
Curt