Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stelek wrote:Sorry, you're full of beans.

Infestation tactics have EVERYTHING to do with fighting in a city.

Only so much in as urban combat is a major concern of the modern military. But infestation tactics can be applied to any battlefield situation, and the principles underlying them can easily be applied to almost any 40K game.

As developed by the Marine Corps (which has taken the lead in developing them) infestation tactics rely on the fact that on the modern battlefield, you can achieve concentration of force without proximity of forces. With modern communications and combat networks, proximity of forces is not a requirement to achieve the unity of command and coordination necessary for effective battlefield operations.

Since on the 40K tabletop, command and control is rarely an issue (baring a few exceptions, namely units like Wraithguard, units that have to shoot/assault certain units, and Tyranids subject to instinctive behavior that are outside of synapse), the principles of infestation tactics can have direct application. Especially in units that rely on shooting as their primary means of causing damage, actual proximity to friendly units is generally a non-issue.

So you are carefully not mentioning what the actual tactic is.

Since it cannot be applied in games of 40k, I'll explain to you what it is first and then I suppose we'll see what other nonsense you are going to add.

First off, the Israeli Defense Forces have taken the 'lead' in developing infestation tactics--both in combating them and in using them itself. The marines are about a decade behind the Israelis at the moment.

Second, the entire concept of infestation is not the bull you said. It's all about turning the inside into the outside.
Meaning, my house is my yard--and I don't go into the 'real' yard.

So, my two original statements hold true.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't fooling anyone.

The only application infestation tactics have in 40k is within the cityfight ruleset, and/or on a very heavy cityfight board.

Please, stop commenting. I'm tired of correcting you constantly.

Ozy I'll see about getting some pictures, just for you.

Stelek wrote:So you are carefully not mentioning what the actual tactic is.
<snip>Stelek talking out of his ass</snip>

Actually, I just wanted to see if you had any ground to stand on. For all your vaunted claims of "expertness" and sound grounding into modern military theory...you remind me of a friend of mine who steadfastly claims that the most high-speed special operations force in the world are the USAF PJs. Not to show them any disrespect...but my buddy has some strange notions.

Anyway, I could refer you to the Marine Corps Gazette, September 1997 issue, and the article "Infestation Tactics and Operational Maneuver From the Sea; Where Do. We Go From Here?", or I could refer you the numerous other studies and papers done by various military theorists, such as William Lind and his theories on the RMA, or a whole boatload of studies done by the Rand Corp. I don't necessarily agree with all of them (our current military situation is a case in point) but there is a lot of hard thinking that's gone into them.

In fact, here's a few links to some published studies on the subject:
http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1100/MR1100.chap4.pdf
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/chp3.html
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/ppt/walters_dist_ops_history.ppt
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub229.pdf
http://www.usafa.edu/isme/JSCOPE98/Dunlap98.HTM

In the RW, infestation tactics involve the realization that the concentration of effect is what matters, not the massing of forces. The basic idea is to "infest" the enemy with small, mobile, dispersed units, who's primary job is not necessarily to engage the enemy directly, but rather to call in supporting superior fires. By not providing the enemy with a target they can mass their forces against, you avoid sustaining major casualties, while engaging the enemy from multiple directions and with locally superior forces, supported by massive precision fires. The main obstacles to successfully executing infestation tactics are the C3 and training requirements, which are fairly extreme. You need good, well-trained troops, and you need a C3 system that allows for the rapid exchange of data through the fog of war.

Now, the question I looked at was can you apply this to a game of 40K. And the answer was that you could, if your army was designed around it. Because the core principle of focusing on the concentration of effect instead of just the massing of forces definitely applied. In addition, because 40K is a wargame, with an emphasis on the game, C3 issues are largely irrelevant (because its no fun to have an army that doesn't do what you want it to do).

There's one commander, whose will is pretty easy to communicate to each unit...after all, each unit does exactly what the player wants it to do. (with the exception of some relatively rare special rules). The major difference in applying infestation tactics to 40K is that each unit can't call in the superior fires (with a few exceptions) - they generally needs to be responsible for its own firepower...which thanks to the glories of the 41st Millenium, is relatively easy to do.

To bring this around to the original point of this post, which was defending against deep striking armies...I've found that the key in defeating an all-deep strike army isn't in surviving the initial drop of enemy forces. If you design your army well, that should never be an issue. Instead, the key to winning against deep striking armies is in preserving your army's ability to control the battlefield in the turns after the deep strikers arrive.

Which is why I think that castling, in general, is a bad idea. If its necessary...I'd argue that's because your army list isn't designed well, with too many point failure sources that have insufficient protection. Because by castling, you essentially cede large portions of the tabletop to your opponent, which has the potential of crippling your game in the later turns of the game. All the deep striking player needs to do is to survive your initial counter-assault, and you're toast. Because you've got no room to maneuver.

I've watched this happen with drop pod armies, with Lysanderbombs, and I don't expect Daemon armies to be any different.

Stelek, I think Mauleed's old advice definitely applies to you...because you're nowhere near as expert as you try to portray yourself as.

"Read more, post less." or in your case, "Don't speak of things of which you don't know."

Ok, gentlemen. Please stop butchering the concept of infestation tactics. To quote from Dunlap's Virtous Warrior in a Savage World: "Furthermore, a revolutionary new battlefield strategy is under development called “infestation tactics.” Employing advanced communications systems to coordinate large numbers of small infantry teams assaulting the same objective, the “most revolutionary aspect” of the new concept is that the infantryman does not rely on his personal weapon to engage the enemy, but will instead call in a wide range of deadly support fires."

And from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/chp3.html: "The organization and tactics of such ground forces are difficult to visualize today. Some have suggested that twenty-first century variants of the so-called Hutier tactic developed by the Germans in World War I--Stingray or infestation tactics--would be useful. Such tactics would combine deception and bombardment with infiltration and attacks against strong points. The ground forces may be a small number of Army infantrymen, marines, or special operations forces, delivered deep in enemy territory by air and equipped with high-technology linkages to space-based or atmospheric strike systems, in effect acting as part of a sensor-shooter network."

The idea behind infestation tactics is that you can have a small number of units capable of independant operations, coordinated from a centralized command post, and capable of calling in immense firepower from stand off distances safely outside the enemy's threat range. The concept is that you can apply the nine principles of war to coordinate a devastating attack by simultaneously destroying key enemy targets with a minimal signature. It is important to note that infestation tactics are not designed to be used in isolation. They are used in conjunction with traditional military strategies to achieve battlefield dominance. Look up the German offensive of 1918 for an example of how infestation tactics were used as a precursor to a traditional assault.

And before the ad hominem attacks begin, my credentials are that I am a professional military officer. I am by no means the leading expert in the field, being only a first lieutenant, but I do have extensive experience with the subject as it is being embodied into the reconaissance doctrine and I am an Armor officer (i.e. I work with tanks and scouts for a living).

Respectfully,
Mike K.

EDIT: Was typing this post while Cent was typing his last one. He's explanation is pretty solid.

Great post Cent. You defnitely got me thinking. I am sure that you used infestation tactics in your "stealer shock" list that you won the Chicago GT with. I am going to play in an RTT tomorrow and I will use the stealer-shock list and try to apply some of your ideas to the list tomorrow.

Thanks for the knowledge

Sigh. Another worthless, long winded post with alot of words but no substance.

For some reason, Mike is equating german stormtrooper tactics with current infestation tactics. They are not the same. The idea you quote isn't what infestation tactics are all about.

Since you don't seem to understand high-level game theory versus tactics, I'll explain.

One of two issues you've related are high-level game theories proposed by various US government and non-government (but still part of the military underpinnings of the US) agencies. That's the current US theory on 'infestation' which is in reality just a complete rehash of the WWI stormtrooper tactics.

The second issue you've related is your belief in what infestation tactics are. These beliefs you have are laughable. I realize it's difficult to believe anyone can be 'ahead' of the US tactically, even dirt poor regions without access to more than rifles and home made bombs...but it is in fact true.

The Palestinians, the Vietnamese, and many other 'small dirt scrub' nations/regions/whatever have mastered the art of infestation.

The US never has, because the US does not believe in expending human life for human life and does not have the political will to sacrifice non-combatants to kill combatants as a matter of policy.

Israel, and to a much lesser extent, the US military in Iraq; has experienced the modern version of infestation tactics.

None of the nonsense you've put out deals with the reality that the Western concept of 'infestation' is in fact isolated advance groups of men infiltrating into the main battle line and using direct observation to bring in the heavy fire necessary to breach said line. That's what happened in WW1, and to the marines regret--in Fallujah.

Is that infiltration followed by small unit actions and heavy firepower? Yes. That's stormtrooper tactics. It works fine so long as the only enemy in the MBL are indeed combatants. It does not work so well when there are non-combatants in it. The marines experienced this in Fallujah. The US and British (and the Poles) have experienced this failure of tactics throughout Iraq.

Infestation tactics are not what you erroneously believe them to be. They are a completely different tactic, deployed in the modern era first by the Russians in WW2, the Vietnamese for decades, and the Palestinians for the past decade.

Israel proved it is very difficult to beat without modern weapons and a supply system that functions. Hezbollah taught Israel it can lose if it runs into said foe, and that lesson has reverberated within the US military (and it's opponents).

So, what IS the tactic of infestation? How does it differ from Stormtrooper tactics?

Infestation is the direct opposite of stormtroopers. You aren't infiltrating elite units into the enemies main battle line by themselves with the intention of blowing a hole in said line. First off, stormtrooper tactics work out in the open--where you can readily see and identify your enemy. Note the lack of success for the Germans in WWI going into towns using this tactics. Ditto for WW2, for example against the russians who used infestation tactics to defeat the german stormtrooper tactics. You can't be both tactics at once, gentlemen.

Instead, you are spreading your forces around inside of a city. That is the key difference here. I hope you understand this point, because I'm close to just giving up and writing an article without you. Infestation is inside-out tactics. This means you avoid the parks, the streets, anything outside. You blow holes through walls, ceilings, and floors to negotiate INSIDE the buildings of the city. You never leave the inside. All of your battles are fought inside. If you are a defender, you can encourage massive air strikes. The marines (foolishly, and against Israeli advice) did NOT do this at Fallujah. They ran stormtrooper tactics, and leveled whole city blocks with their actions (much like the Germans did at Stalingrad) which unfortunately did little damage to the enemy but did create alot of defensible terrain to sit in....which totally destroys the stormtrooper concept as it is built on mobility and ruined cities are not places you can demonstrate mobility.

Against the Palestinians, the Israelis were faced with an infestation tactic--one not designed to bring in massive airpower or artillery (since they don't have any...) but designed to bring the Israeli troops into the open, into killing zones with exploding roads, mines, and even explodable buildings (and yes, even entire blocks). So the Israelis countered with an infestation of their own. You can read more about these combats by both regular troops and elite Israeli paratroops during the battle of Nablus. They forced the palestinians out into the open, where they couldn't stand the superior firepower. Blowing a building up with stormtrooper tactics is not useful against infestation tactics, you can only kill so many of the enemy because they aren't concentrated. I think this is where you get confused about diffusion of force versus concentration of firepower.

Since you won't take my word on what it is, how about a current article with data given by a currently active Israeli general that's a very lovely 12 pages long. He wrote the orders for the infestation tactics the Israelis used to secure the camp.

FYI I've got alot of years in with the military, but I don't go spouting off about it unless you press me on why I know what I know. I go to alot of conferences and try to impress upon the grognards fighting their pretend battles that the Israelies, who've been fighting an insurrection using infestation tactics for a very long time now, might know what they are talking about. Getting their asses handed to them militarily AND politically because they think 'technology beats all' is slowly opening their eyes and ears to what the Israelis do.

It's not like the Israelis are using American equipment or anything...hey wait a minute!

That article can be found here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200702/ai_n18632567

Please, stop trying to 'refute' what I'm saying. Theorywar and theoryhammer are equally worthless when the reality already exists for you to look at.

Accept it, and move on to the topic of discussion:

Show me pictures of your defense. I'll take some tomorrow of mine and yours. I'm not saying yours might not have merit, but without pictures your words are pretty meaningless. So are mine, but I'll take some pictures and post them. Why, I might even use paint to draw neat little crayon arrows and gak.

Darrian, can you add something besides love and admiration for cent? That'd be a useful contribution to dakka. If you care for that sort of thing, anyway.

Actually, many nations are ahead of the US in their use of small unit tactics, especially when it comes to light infantry. Poole's "Tactics of the Crescent Moon" is a very good example of this. Good article you provided, btw. The description of the fighting in Nablus is very detailed. Essentially, the Israelis choose to by-pass obvious kill zones created by the urban terrain by reshaping the terrain through the use of explosives. That causes the insurgents to reposition through the kill zones, which the Israelis are overwatching. Very clever. It also apparently spared the majority of the building, making it easier to rebuild the area and the goodwill of the people. I'll be tucking this article into the professional development book.

The only point of yours I will refute is that the use of infestation tactics is limited to an urban environment. It should be equally applicable in all types of complex terrain that allow the defender to channel attacking forces. I'll see if I can find anything comparable from the mountain fighting in Afghanistan. The idea is to use principles to shape tactical decisions because every tactical situation is unique. What works for the Israelis in the West Bank will not work without modification in a different situation. Hence, infestation tactics on a traditional battlefield resemble WWI storm trooper techniques. In an asymmetrical environment, they will resemble something closer to the Israeli action in Nablus---I agree with you there.

Oh, and offering some of your credentials is not bragging. Establishing a baseline for your knowledge is generally useful when dealing with people you've never met through the internet. I would love to hear more about what exactly you do, since I am one of those "grognards" as you call them.

Respectfully,
Mike K.

that's really interesting stuff.

but i don't think 40k is sufficiently complex to warrant cutting edge real world analysis.

it's just overlapping threat radii after all.

the only army that does anything like the real world concept is tau with their marker lights. which is a really cool mechanism that i hope gets expanded on.

corinth wrote:that's really interesting stuff.

but i don't think 40k is sufficiently complex to warrant cutting edge real world analysis.

it's just overlapping threat radii after all.

the only army that does anything like the real world concept is tau with their marker lights. which is a really cool mechanism that i hope gets expanded on.

Ding ding...gold star.

You can't take RW concepts and just cut and paste them...after all, like I said, 40K is a wargame, emphasis on the game. But the underlying principles to RW military theory most definitely can be applied...the trick is identifying the relevant parts. As a rule of thumb, any RW concepts that rely on command and control, logistics, and, in general, intelligence, can be tossed out the window, because the 40K system either ignores them, applies them poorly, or fall outside the scale of a 40K battle.

But there are nuggets of gold in RW military theory, if you've got either the patience and/or desire to look for it.

I don't see how you can apply 'infestation' tactics, especially at a GT.

The boards are 70% open terrain.

Often as not, the main battle is centered around ONE terrain piece.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just not a believer in applying the tactic to a wargame that discourages mass use of terrain.

What do you think?

Oh I'm in IT now.

And 40k.

And fantasy.

Dabble in FOW.

Thinking about expanding into AT-43 in the fall, once 5E dies down.

I do DND, and some MMO's (as a substitute for DND, really) but none now.

And that's my life. Woo. I'm pretty boring really.

Stelek wrote:I don't see how you can apply 'infestation' tactics, especially at a GT.

The boards are 70% open terrain.

Often as not, the main battle is centered around ONE terrain piece.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just not a believer in applying the tactic to a wargame that discourages mass use of terrain.

What do you think?

You just saw the early 2007 tables, which Dave and the crew got complaints about. Later in the year they had substantially more terrain. By Baltimore there was much more, including a lot of 4+ stuff.

You'll excuse my skepticism but it's been that way for the last ten years, actually.

Then there are the lava tables...unplayable since introduction, but there year after year.

I don't expect that to change anytime soon...and when you say 'much more' I've got to disagree.

From what I understand, anything past table 20 was still a barren wasteland. The top 20 tables had as much terrain as the top 6 tables at Vegas, but is this:

5 large, 2 small pieces

Really better than:

4 large, 1 small piece

It's not 'much more'. It's 'a bit more'.

Besides, most of the terrain is crap--either it's unplayable, it's a block, or it looks like a 5 year old painted it with a squeegee.

That's the reality. If at some point the GT terrain is focused on playability AND it ever approaches 50% density I'll be quite surprised.

I haven't seen it yet, and people have complained about the lack of terrain since the GT's started...and Baltimore doesn't mean a whole lot since they have Glen Burnie to draw on. It has a huge amount of terrain, especially...buildings.

Sorry for the rant, I just wanted you to know it isn't easily fixed nor is it going to be fixed this year.

Making terrain that's usable and good-looking is a talent completely separate from imaginative and beautiful terrain. The latter is where GW focuses.

Silver lining: They got those flat areas of forest with movable trees spot on a few years ago. Now if only they'd make tiered hills and buildings you can play on without injuring yourself...

Hey Cent, PJs actually are pretty good. I won't go on and say best in the world (since I think every special ops group toots that horn), but they do very remarkable things. When you're comparing US military SOCOM units, you're generally comparing apples to apples (with maybe the exception of Marine Force Recon). However, USAF Para Jumpers have an extremely gruellling school and are generally ranked right up there with the Green Berets, SEALs, and other members of Special Ops Command.

Having no real experience with foreign military special operations groups other than the Georgian Commandos, I really can't comment on the British or Australian SAS, any of the EU nations special ops or the Spetznas, but Para Jumpers are definitely the gak.

Especially when they come get me out of my shot down helicopter

Sorry, carry on.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Hey Cent, PJs actually are pretty good. I won't go on and say best in the world (since I think every special ops group toots that horn), but they do very remarkable things. When you're comparing US military SOCOM units, you're generally comparing apples to apples (with maybe the exception of Marine Force Recon). However, USAF Para Jumpers have an extremely gruellling school and are generally ranked right up there with the Green Berets, SEALs, and other members of Special Ops Command.

Having no real experience with foreign military special operations groups other than the Georgian Commandos, I really can't comment on the British or Australian SAS, any of the EU nations special ops or the Spetznas, but Para Jumpers are definitely the gak.

Especially when they come get me out of my shot down helicopter

Sorry, carry on.

Like I said, not to show them any disrespect...PJs do their job exceptionally well. But my buddy classifying them as more high-speed than other US SOCOM units is (he's pure civilian, btw)...is one of those inexcusably silly ideas I like to heap scorn on.

Sorry to add nothing worthwhile to the thread at hand(may be spamming, sorry).

But the last 10 or so posts have enthralled me. Thanks for the links and the excellent read!

Well done Gentlemen! Great Tactics and explanations.

it's fascinating to read what you guys are saying, really. However, I think you're throwing some military tactical pearls before Warhammer 40,000 swine. It's not as complicated as an infestation tactic.

Really, a good deep strike defense focuses around the fundamental of Security in bother Cent99 and Stelek's cases. It could be argued that Cent also employs some of the fundamentals of reconnaissance.

Fundamentals of Recon are as follows:
1)employ maximum recon forces forward
2)orient on the location or movement of the objective
3)report information rapidly and accurately
4)retain freedom to manuever
5)gain and maintain contact with enemy forces
6)develop the situation rapidly

Fundamentals of Security are as follows:
1)orient on the main body
2)perform continuous reconnaissance
3)provide early and accurate warning
4)provide reaction time and manuever space
5)maintain enemy contact

I'm going to assume average dice rolls, equal opponents 25% or more terrain, objective style game, and suitably tailored lists.

Of these above, we can toss out a few as not relevant to the game of 40k. Those are 3) from reconnaissance and 2) from security.

Centurian99 favors what I'll term a distributed defense. You give the deep striker no place to mass his forces for a decisive blow- relying on the fact that he has insufficient firepower in his first drop to damage your forces so badly that you cannot achieve force parity or superiority in following turns.

With this is mind, you push maximum (recon) forces forward to determine where the opposition will launch their attack. Once the attack has been launched, you (by viture of your list design) can rapidly orient on secondary and tertiary objectives with a view on completing the primary in the end game (for instance, the destruction of mobile units and units threatening the primary objective).

To complete your objectives, you use superior mobility and larger threat radii which allows you to retain your freedom to manuever. This in turn means you can develop the situation and seize the initiative from an army that by it's very nature needs the initiative to win games.

Deep Strikers need to attack. They need to spend the entire game in close range fire fights and/or close combat. This, along with being able to strike the first blow by the nature of their arrival on the table, is how they seize the initiative. If they are forced to disengage while you can stay engaged, they cede initiative and most likely the battle.

The X factors are how mobile the deep stikers are and how much long range firepower they have. If they can solve those two problems (and I don't know of a deep strike army that can) then the distributed defense is a wash since you lose your two advantages.

I see Stelek's "defense in depth" as adhering to the fundamentals of security more than reconaisance. He's oriented on his main body- that is- his high value targets. His recon screen spread out to cover his battle space. This provides reconnaisance since there are less places for highly vulnerable (yet highly deadly) deep strike units to hide. I'm thinking flamers here but I'm sure you can think of others as well.

His main body now has early and accurate warning on enemy threats. Now, not only does he know what the enemy threat consists of (by virtue of knowing what his opponent has brought for an army) but he now knows what the opposing commander's Most Probable Course of Action is based on his deep initial deep strike. This way, he can move to counter the MPCA while taking steps to limit the MDCA (most dangerous course of action)

Most importantly, his main body is provided with reaction time and/or manuever space. By seeing where the enemy is and just as importantly, is not; Stelek now has time to either shoot/assault the enemy to death or manuever his main body/unengaged screens to facilitate the same local superiority that Cent's distributed defense hopes to achieve.

Maintaining enemy contact in both cases is key. Podding armies are going to try to play LOS games with you, Daemon armies are going to try to hide as they close in for the kill. The more that you can play your game and he is forced to adapt to you, the better your game will go. Press your attack, deep strike armies don't like to be on the defensive- and don't let them play their game.

Ideally, this is done by outranging/manuevering your opponent. If he can't hurt you while you can hurt him, you've won. Another way to do it is to "fix" your opponent in place, letting your main body manuever for the objective/kill. The third (least desirable option) is to outfight your opponent. Most deep strike armies want you close. They only have knives so they want you in a knife fight. Fighting them on their terms is handing your enemy the initiative and asking for a loss.

Obviously, alot of those points could apply to either Cent's or Stelek's tactics but it's all generalisation. Does it fit perfectly? no, but I think it's pretty good. I think Stelek's defense in depth is easier to pull off, relies less on list design, and is easier to "grok." Centurian's relies on specific list designs (mobile with long/medium threat radii), no single lynchpin units, and an opponents unwillingness to take fairly significant risks.

That's my 4 cents (too long to be 2 cents)

@Cent, I played in an RTT today at Third Planet Torrance and I did play your stealer-shock list. I faced a Necron and 2 SM lists. Both SM lists used some deepstriking/drop podding. I employed your defense and I was able to minimize the effects of the drop pod/deepstrikers. I went 3-0.

Thanks for the advice.

@Stelek, don't be jealous of my complimenting Centurion99. Someday you might do something that may engender admiration from others, but I doubt it.

Darrian

They both have valid points I think. A universal deep strike defense is pretty hard to come up with. Ideally, you would have several options. One for podders, one for teleports, one for daemons.

Also, Darrian, I don't think some deep striking is really the same as a deep strike army. If there are elements of the enemy army already on the board, this changes the nature of the game substantially for any number of really obvious reasons. So, out of curiousity, when you say "some deepstikers/ podding," how much are you actually talking about?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:<snip> lots of good commentary</snip>
That's my 4 cents (too long to be 2 cents)

That's at least a quarter. You're absolutely right that I prefer a distributed defense, and that I prefer to avoid the decisive blow by giving my opponent no place to really deliver it.

Darrian13 wrote:Thanks for the advice.

Always welcome. Out of curiosity, was the Necron list a standard Necron list or a destroyer Flying Circus? I still haven't figured out how to crack the Flying Circus build...the closest I've come was a near-draw (lost, but was a 2+ roll away from a draw).

Wait, darrian insulted me again?

This is new? News?

lol we all laugh at the predictability.

Ok I played too many games yesterday lol soooo I didn't take any pics. I'm setting up some scenarios now though for this, so I'll be able to get some pics up.

I think I'll put them in a separate thread to better focus the discussion.

Darrian13-
@Stelek, don't be jealous of my complimenting Centurion99. Someday you might do something that may engender admiration from others, but I doubt it.

Good tactics is good tactics, despite the delivery/tone/arguments/snipes.

He has admiration from me on a few points-so lay your doubts to rest, Sir.