On Wed 11 Mar, Stephen Sheldon wrote:
> > I couldn't have put it better myself Elaine.
> Aw, now I feel bad, we need a big group hug :o)
> hmm. probably sounded sarcastic didn't it?
Hell I can deal with a bit of sacastism and even irony. I must
be quickly developing that thick skin that other list members
have suggested I need to develop.
> Sean, does the document idea appeal tou you at all, rather than dets, then
> a sample force, or part of a force, with tactics and anti-tactics.
I must have not read or not received the email which contained the
'document idea' you are talking about above, can you re post that
email to me directly.
My suggestion is that you carry on with detachment database,
but that you group the detachments by function. So you will
have close combat detachments in one group and support detachments
in another group, etc etc (yes this is a partial about face by me).
Also include a section which demonstrates how different detachments
have to work together.
If you are interested I will post directly to you all the 'ideal'
2000pt army lists that were posted to the list. You can include
individual detachments on the army lists in your detachment database
if you wish to. I also think having one or two of the 'ideal' army
lists on your web page would be a good way of showing how detachments
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC