Prev: RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts) Next: RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)

Re: Beth's latest poll

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:45:18 +0200
Subject: Re: Beth's latest poll

Barclay, Tom wrote:

>Generally if one side would like to hold open range, unless it has a
>thrust advantage, it can't. The other side knows it has to close and
>does so, taking licks along the way. I haven't yet seen BOTH sides
>wanting to hold open range. 

I've seen this happen (both sides trying to keep the range open), but
only when the opposing commanders didn't know what weapons the other
side had - and it usually only lasts until the first long-range
exchange of fire. After that the commander of the shorter-ranged force
generally changes his mind <g>

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry

Prev: RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts) Next: RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)