Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[spazyak]

Made semi-lengthy edit.


PW, helpful comments are ALSO welcome. [/sarcasm]

Sarcasms half of what you get with pw, the other part is firey, explodey-y death.

[piecewise]

Made semi-lengthy edit.


PW, helpful comments are ALSO welcome. [/sarcasm]

Sarcasms half of what you get with pw, the other part is firey, explodey-y death.

Hey!

I also sometimes spam the IRC channel with horrifying porn and obscure turkish B movies, thank you very much.

[spazyak]

Made semi-lengthy edit.


PW, helpful comments are ALSO welcome. [/sarcasm]

Sarcasms half of what you get with pw, the other part is firey, explodey-y death.

Hey!

I also sometimes spam the IRC channel with horrifying porn and obscure turkish B movies, thank you very much.

All i remember is that barbarian movie with david bowey in it.

[milo christiansen]

In fire, explosives tend to burn, not blow up. However, propellants (which burn in a confined space instead of exploding) will "cook off". Military explosives require a shock (as in impact, not electrical) to explode. As long as the bombs are not stored right beside the ammo we should be pretty safe (not that I would get anywhere near IRL).

Ammo cooking off can get kinda exciting though, so we should hurry.

Next time I'll throw the damn bomb in the trees instead of trusting the GM to follow my stated intentions. Of course then it would hit the hidden bombs planted in the tree trunks /s. (And there had better not need to be a next time)

[syvarris]

Spoiler: syvarris is bad at debating, that's why it's not worth arguing with him (click to show/hide)

I wasn't replying to you.

So?  You never complained about that before.

What you've been suggesting has ramifications for everyone in the game, including myself.  I think someone should provide counter-arguments, and I think I'm a better choice than Ozarck because I'm not emotionally involved in the topic.  Up until recently you also weren't targeting me with ad hominem, but even considering that change, I have thicker skin than Ozymandias over there.

Someone who claims fire is more dangerous than a direct blast does not understand explosives, or storage. A fire CAN set off explosives. For examples of the alternative, look up the fire of the Seydlitz off of Dogger Bank. An explosion, however, WILL set off explosives, because in this time period even the most stable of explosives were meant to be detonated by a smaller explosive.

You misunderstand; a satchel charge is a single blast which very well might not set anything up, because even WWII ordnance was built to tolerate some shock.  Yes, a smaller explosive sympathetically detonates the larger explosive, but both are somewhat protected against outside shocks and detonations.  A satchel charge isn't guaranteed to set anything off, depending on its location, and it only explodes once.

On the other hand, WWII explosives were volatile, and would explode when heated enough.  Yes, even aircraft bombs.  More importantly, the fire won't just happen and then be done--it'll continue until there's no fuel left.  If it can survive long enough to heat even a single bomb to a premature explosion, which is far more likely than a satchel charge to cause sympathetic detonations.  Fire is more dangerous because it will go until there's no fuel or there's a detonation.

I'll grant you a couple points for realism; proper bunker design would make sympathetic detonations unlikely, and wouldn't have fuel for a fire.  However, both of those are clearly not the case here.  Chalk it up to the Nazis doing a rush job, or to Piecewise not being particularly knowledgable in this specific area--but please don't insult my knowledge even as you ignore what has explicitly been stated.

As for the flaming bunker, guess what? There will be nothing flammable in that bunker. You store fuel separate from explosives. There should be NOTHING capable of catching and staying on fire in that bunker. Granted, there might be improper storage involved, but it's not likely.

Just... look at the map.  Why is there so much fire on both buildings if there's no fuel?  I agree, there shouldn't be anything capable of causing so much fire in a munitions bunker.  But, despite all argumentation to the contrary, there is a lot of fire in those munitions bunkers.  When Piecewise says that it isn't actually a raging inferno judt like to the adjacent forest fire (which uses the same colors), I'll concede the point to you.

You BLATANTLY took my words out of context, and then acted as if that was my argument.

*sigh*

Okay, I'll admit that I was splitting more than necessary there.  It doesn't invalidate my point, though; here's the same quote, with the full sentence:

No, I am suggesting to you that when you wait long enough to realize that there's no present fire hazards inside the bunker and that the ammunition is therefore not going to explode,

That's a pretty bold statement.  Do you not think there's any chance that you're wrong here?

This is my argument, right here, I honestly don't see any error with it.  You're assuming that the GM has identical beliefs to you, and that there is therefore no risk whatsoever.  I'm pointing out that, while you may have a point, there's a possibility you're wrong, and you should thus be careful and play such that neither possibility will blindside you.

You know why?  Someone literally just did the exact same thing you're doing, and ended up causing a fuel-air explosion across most of the base, killing several allies, much to their own regret.  If that happens here, are you just going to whine at the GM for being wrong?  Or are you going to admit that you didn't consider other possibilities beyond the one that was obvious to you?

Military explosives require a shock (as in impact, not electrical) to explode.

Modern military explosives, yes.  Some are also shock insensitive.  We've done some really remarkable things.

WWII-era bombs were definitely vulnerable to cooking off, though.  A few simple google searches were enough to show that.  And yeah, ammo cooking off isn't a good thing, there's probably quite a lot in those buildings.

[Toaster]

TL;DR:  If your action can have profound negative consequences if misinterpreted, be very specific.

[milo christiansen]

I guess I'm just used to GMs that take "throw it somewhere where there isn't stuff to blow up" to mean that I am making an effort to do just that. Not GMs that decide I really wanted to throw it into a random building I don't know the contents of instead of, oh, outside a building, where it will expend its force making a big noisy bang, but not doing any real damage.

I'm not used to GMs who try to screw the players at every oportunity, and frankly, I don't want to have to be paranoid just because the GM is an asshole. That sucks the fun out of the game.

[syvarris]

Heh.  I kinda want to defend Piecewise, but I only really have one argument, which is just an appeal to popular opinion: I see complaints about Piecewise being too nice, and making things too easy, more often than I see complaints about him being too mean, or making things too hard.  Really.

I've played in most of the games he's ran for the last few years (just look at that bias!), and I'm pretty sure I can count the number of times he's done something which more than two people thought were terrible, on one hand.  I cheat, though.

[Tiruin]

In my opinion, I'd push aside all those 'too easy' or whatever to piecewise--its subjective as a generality, and what matters is the situational application of it. He's GMing well, and it may benefit to know when to cue those 'quick reaction' turns which we've seen done before

Acquire glory for explosions and rescues 

I kinda flinched at how that is written. -.-

Hopefully the Brass doesn't skin you out for killing people because of your actions. [/yesI'mstill :I]

This game, at least, I'm assuming the higher command does that compared to everywhere else due to hierarchy of command...Which is a good idea to implement on the field when we designate objectives so we won't be in this kind of communicative mess.

But in all seriousness, not blaming you or adding any idea of fault--just denoting that a short fuse isn't a good idea without communication x~x
And to add or clarify my point earlier: I don't usually read people's turns who aren't at the same timeline I'm in. Sure I can chip in on OOC, but it's not to be expected, or as I assume to the rest of the players here given the formatting medium.
However, my reaction in hindsight can be seen there. It's all "short fuse bomb to a very explosive substance is not a good idea especially if uncommunicated or planned or mentioned to anyone in its vicinity, like us.'
As this reminds me of what I reviewed on WWII, casualties and otherwise (which is fully NSFW because you see bodies in full detail), which includes how explosive aircraft are, inclusive with its fuel components. I saw pictures of the faces of airforce servicemen melted off to the bone, in reference to the Pacific theater. Directed burns and the extent of heat when fuel leaks occur.

Hindsight hurts.

Nothing you said just now changes my statement that wasn't directed at you in any way.

Mind your own business.

If Tiruin wants to explain defend, or reassert her points, she is free to.

Other people can speak for other people too--this isn't a one-on-one debate wherein people value whether they're right or wrong higher than the worth of mutual understanding, as other people adding their ideas does not in anyway make yours any lesser or muddle the context. What Madman did is something I appreciate, because he's balancing outlook by giving his own points. They are to be taken individually instead of whatever caused you to issue what comes off as a rude 'mind your own business'.

But point is: Those buildings, while flimsy to grenades (eg that AA gun), are not made of WOOD, and it takes TIME for things to explode due to collateral fire.

Get back there and bloody save the children rather than running off because of the abstracted timeframe of time, and that fire.

Else the mission just ends with NO objectives done, THREE people dead, and a completely messed up planning set.
Otherwise, issue orders, SPEAK IN THE IC THREAD; group people according to their skills and weaponry--this takes a bit of reading back and forth but familiarity helps categorization at that point with names and people. You have several adept shooters who can handle themselves; set a perimeter or scavenge in the nearby buildings. There would also be localized emergency resources EVEN at a WWII airbase, which helps get the fire out or at least hinders its advance.

Its either you all go away together, or you all make a move to gather resources, and at least get the secondary OR the primary objective done. Don't bloody run away because it casts the memory of OUR DEATHS in vain. (Appraising the situation is good though. This is IMPORTANT because it clarifies the timeframe everyone is working with)

Also the Nazis running away is something Alice can cue people in on; that means either they're really afraid of things blowing up even more--that is likely the children...bombs. >_>
Or another ammunition storage that we probably don't know of?

Either way with your numbers, you can get those children...shells, into that army truck. Get people patched up, at least one person to provide overwatch, or get everyone out as safe as you can. I'm unsure if piecewise is rolling for adrenaline, because this is one situation where I would possibly infer that coming into action. A soldier noticing all this in real time would invoke those things (which also lets that secondary objective work out). But I do daresay that given people's additions to the Senses skill, it is pretty right to infer that people CAN sense how bad things are being. It's even somewhat of a free action because all it takes is observation.

Otherwise, to apply metaknowledge (since I'm dead and I can't do this IC)--if Joan was alive, she would infer that by how bad things are, this would be akin to at least a mini superweapon to be used in the war to come given this diverging timeline after the Normandy landings.

...So it may help to get the Children out. As a priority.
I mean if I can move those shells with no + to strength, how much more can the rest of you?

And if he gets glory for that bomb, I want twice as much for at least trying not to kill my teammates.

I'd agree with that but it'll all be done when people clarify the situation IC.

[Madman198237]

Syv, focus, would you?

You complained about my replies being un-followable because I didn't quote you. Guess why? That's because I was answering Ozarck's points in order, and got ninja'd, hence them not making sense to you.

Holy crap, man, you're going back and force arguing about the stability of WWII explosives like nothing else! Did you even CHECK the Seydlitz fire off of Dogger Bank? That shows how REAL explosives behave under fire----and cordite, naval-gun propellant, is nastier than most. Much more sensitive.

Once again: That satchel charge would've blown the whole bunker to BITS. It contains MUCH more explosives than your usual primer/ignition charge in, say, an AIRCRAFT BOMB. As for cooking off, no. No, and no. There's no direct application of flame right now, remember? There IS fire outside the bunker, but it'd have to get to temperatures in excess of 300 degrees, if I recall Mythbusters correctly, to start cooking off even small bullets (With less sort-of insulating metal). That building has nothing actively burning inside it, just around it.

As for the full quote, now you're just picking at straws, aren't you? That is a POSSIBILITY I am explaining. It makes no more sense for you to say than your original argument did. I'm not arguing that that's CERTAIN to happen, just that it's far more LIKELY to happen, and that if it does he'll have wasted an awful lot of time, time that reinforcements are using to get closer and time that the remaining Germans are using to get re-assembled, for whatever it's worth. I suspect that after the explosions ALL the firefighters are retreating in case the fire reached the base itself (Which would be bad for them, for HIGHLY obvious reasons), which means that in the probably event in which the bunker(s) do NOT explode, the remaining members of the 888th would have wasted a lot of time, so they'd be walking back into a worse situation than if they stay.

[milo christiansen]

"Hey, we're all injured, let's drive away from our only medic so we can watch him run after us!"

[Ozarck]

Spoiler: To Tiruin (click to show/hide)

Acquire glory for explosions and rescues 

I kinda flinched at how that is written. -.-

Hopefully the Brass doesn't skin you out for killing people because of your actions. [/yesI'mstill :I]
This game, at least, I'm assuming the higher command does that compared to everywhere else due to hierarchy of command...Which is a good idea to implement on the field when we designate objectives so we won't be in this kind of communicative mess.

Eh. If Ed stands a court-martial, Ed stands a court-martial. It will be fun RP, at any rate. As for the wording of my request for glory -well, there's a reason for it. I'm sorry for the team deaths, including yours. But I won't second guess Ed. What's done is done. And the bomb - and Ed's actions- have, by GM fiat, advanced the mission, and therefore are worthy of GLORY.

But in all seriousness, not blaming you or adding any idea of fault--just denoting that a short fuse isn't a good idea without communication x~x

As a general bit of information, fine. As a response to a specific action, with extenuating circumstances - some of which have been pointed out specifically to you, and you have ignored - not fine.

And to add or clarify my point earlier: I don't usually read people's turns who aren't at the same timeline I'm in. Sure I can chip in on OOC, but it's not to be expected, or as I assume to the rest of the players here given the formatting medium.

And yet, you continue to give advice based on your limited knowledge, while apparently ignoring statements specifically addressed to you regarding those situations. If i have to go so far as to point out to you information that the GM specifically gave you (such as the fact that both Joan and Alice knew where Ed was and that it was, in fact, Ed) And you affirm that you do not look at the rest of the post, then I can only assume that you, as a player, have a sweverely incomplete picture of the circumstances, and that you, as a player, are generally safe to ignore, and in fact can be quite dangerous to listen to. For example - the repeated claim that we have plenty of time comes across as extremely ignorant of like, half the discussion raised at this point. Why should I take your advice on that? You've admitted to keeping yourself willfully ignorant of all the factors.

Nothing you said just now changes my statement that wasn't directed at you in any way.

Mind your own business.

If Tiruin wants to explain defend, or reassert her points, she is free to.

Other people can speak for other people too--this isn't a one-on-one debate wherein people value whether they're right or wrong higher than the worth of mutual understanding, as other people adding their ideas does not in anyway make yours any lesser or muddle the context. What Madman did is something I appreciate, because he's balancing outlook by giving his own points. They are to be taken individually instead of whatever caused you to issue what comes off as a rude 'mind your own business'.

I addressed a concern about your own behavior directly to you. It really is rude for another person to speak for you without giving you a chance to speak for yourself. He can interpret your intentions all he wants, but they mean nothing to me unless you specifically affirm them. I addressed his points concerning the mission and my actions. I did not address his points concerning your own conversation with me. Because that was between you and me, first and foremost. And I will respond to that with a curt "Mind your own business."

But point is: Those buildings, while flimsy to grenades (eg that AA gun), are not made of WOOD, and it takes TIME for things to explode due to collateral fire.

That may or may not be true in this situation. I can't evaluate your statement, since you continue to ignore several points addressed to you.

Get back there and bloody save the children rather than running off because of the abstracted timeframe of time, and that fire.

Here, you demonstrate that you are completely ignorant of the entirety of the last turn. But, even assuming this is referencing my actions before the last turn: no. I very much reserve the right to worry about the timeframe when it comes to standing at Ground Zero.

Else the mission just ends with NO objectives done, THREE people dead, and a completely messed up planning set.

Again, you ignore points specifically addressed to you: three objectives. Two partial completes at that point, and one actual complete. And that continues to be mine and Ed's assessment of the situation previous t othis turn. We could have cut and run - hell, Ed could have cut and run, survived alone, and been picked up by Brass, and still considered this mission an official success. A clusterfuck, but objectives complete. And frankly, I am getting a little tired of Ed's willingness to cooperate being routinely ignored. Yet another point repeatedly ignored by yourself, among others.

Otherwise, issue orders, SPEAK IN THE IC THREAD; group people according to their skills and weaponry--this takes a bit of reading back and forth but familiarity helps categorization at that point with names and people. You have several adept shooters who can handle themselves; set a perimeter or scavenge in the nearby buildings. There would also be localized emergency resources EVEN at a WWII airbase, which helps get the fire out or at least hinders its advance.

You lecture me on reading back and forth? You, who openly admits to not reading anything that does not directly concern your character? You, who miss several things specifically addressed to your character by the GM? And you order me to take command? Wait, what? Am I now in charge of this mission? When did that happen?

Its either you all go away together, or you all make a move to gather resources, and at least get the secondary OR the primary objective done.

I can see a variety of alternatives to this course of action. So it is NOT an "either or" situation. I'll give you benefit of the doubt here, and assume you are saying "my recommendations are: either a) or b). However, you are clearly opposd to b).

Don't bloody run away because it casts the memory of OUR DEATHS in vain. (Appraising the situation is good though. This is IMPORTANT because it clarifies the timeframe everyone is working with)

Also the Nazis running away is something Alice can cue people in on; that means either they're really afraid of things blowing up even more--that is likely the children...bombs. >_>
Or another ammunition storage that we probably don't know of?

Or the raging inferno the base has already become. Seriously, you were there for that part. It directly affected your character. And shit, you are citing the Nazis fear and running while still arguing that there is no cause for alarm.

Either way with your numbers, you can get those children...shells, into that army truck.

Here is a prime example f why I am rather reluctant to take any of your advice: This action has already completed. You should know this. This turn was very short, since PW lost the longversion, and the two main points were that a) everyone left alive but Smith and Alice are in the truck, and b) all shells loaded. ACtually, I'll go one further. One of the primary points of this turn is that Ed loaded the remaining shells. Ed is called out specifically by name. And only Ed is called out here. Because only Ed had "load the remaining shells" in his action.

Seriously, at this point one wonders why the others aren't being accused of cowardice - the ones who's actions were "Heal myself and get in the truck to be carried away by the alleged coward who is running away." I jest. It is because their actions are reasonable. Which means that Ed's actions are reasonable, because they are sure as hell relying on Ed at this point, for some reason.

Get people patched up, at least one person to provide overwatch, or get everyone out as safe as you can. I'm unsure if piecewise is rolling for adrenaline, because this is one situation where I would possibly infer that coming into action. A soldier noticing all this in real time would invoke those things (which also lets that secondary objective work out). But I do daresay that given people's additions to the Senses skill, it is pretty right to infer that people CAN sense how bad things are being. It's even somewhat of a free action because all it takes is observation.

Otherwise, to apply metaknowledge (since I'm dead and I can't do this IC)--if Joan was alive, she would infer that by how bad things are, this would be akin to at least a mini superweapon to be used in the war to come given this diverging timeline after the Normandy landings.

I am unclear enough on what you are saying here that I have no response.

...So it may help to get the Children out. As a priority.
I mean if I can move those shells with no + to strength, how much more can the rest of you?

I've already addressed this, in this reply. But, since it seems that you have been overlooking parts of my responses, I better say it again: done and done.

And if he gets glory for that bomb, I want twice as much for at least trying not to kill my teammates.

I'd agree with that but it'll all be done when people clarify the situation IC.
[/quote]I am mildly offended.

"Hey, we're all injured, let's drive away from our only medic so we can watch him run after us!"

Ed has no idea where Smith is. Last he saw Smith, he was running west with the explosive that was soon to incinerate half the base. I even put an action in there to wait for you once we were at a safe distance. So this criticism is a bit much and is starting to wear thin.

[milo christiansen]

Clearly you should go look at the map again. Currently Smith is a short run from the truck, with clear line of sight between him and it.

[Tiruin]

Eh. If Ed stands a court-martial, Ed stands a court-martial. It will be fun RP, at any rate. As for the wording of my request for glory -well, there's a reason for it. I'm sorry for the team deaths, including yours. But I won't second guess Ed. What's done is done. And the bomb - and Ed's actions- have, by GM fiat, advanced the mission, and therefore are worthy of GLORY.

Yeah it's just the issue with wording and tone. Implying that an action was better off because 'it killed more Nazis' doesn't matter when compared to the note that 3 notable soldiers of your side died in turn with it (and wounding lot more), followed by...
It may be just me and being conditioned to that emoticon sometimes being used in a jerk-y way, so that also modified how I felt because it is out of character for you as I recall.

Spoiler: Ozarck/OtherStuff (click to show/hide)

I addressed a concern about your own behavior directly to you. It really is rude for another person to speak for you without giving you a chance to speak for yourself. He can interpret your intentions all he wants, but they mean nothing to me unless you specifically affirm them.

That will muddle up a lot of your efforts in internet and multi-person conversations buddy
But to clarify: I'm okay with anyone voicing their opinion of me if they 'interject'; meaning what madman said is something I'm ok with. It's a thing people do. It doesn't mean any less or more, or rude or otherwise.

That may or may not be true in this situation. I can't evaluate your statement, since you continue to ignore several points addressed to you.

Converse please. There's this strange thing which comes off as if you value personal subjectiveness over mutual conversation--that's highlighted by repetitive "since you continue to ignore several points addressed to you." And evaluate? Why do you see these as 'should or should not' based on if you think the other person is ignoring anything you say? That's what easily contributes so such divisiveness--that interpretation that others are ignoring what you say.

It is rude to say that to others when you can reclarify your own points better and more respectfully. It assumes we think what's in your head and that what you said was clear and others are missing your point, or that what you said is so clear that anyone else's response, if not what you expected, ignores what you said in favor of their own. On my part--my point back there was that if there was any responsibility to anyone getting harmed collaterally by a teammates action, it is one's responsibility to warn others. That was a rule back then in WWI. It feels off, or at least how my reading of semantics go, that you even reinforced a teammate's lack of doing this by saying 'it killed more Nazis, that's better'.

Here is a prime example f why I am rather reluctant to take any of your advice[...]

My advice is moreso to the situation at that point rather than anything against you ._. stating something is a 'prime example' acts as if this unspoken bit within one's own perception is visible to everyone else. We don't know your thinking process, but it is evident it is built on some perspective of ignorance. That is not common in any conversation.
What I read was: Even if your earlier point was 'anyone could've mentioned OOC to me that my action was[...]' or 'I adjusted my action to[...]', it will help in the future to communicate your actions that any external variable (like all that deadly fuel nobody knew of) would be less the trigger to our collateral deaths.

As a general bit of information, fine. As a response to a specific action, with extenuating circumstances - some of which have been pointed out specifically to you, and you have ignored - not fine.

But as a generality for you--this bit doesn't help socializing. "You have ignored" usually denotes that kind of behavior. Other people are making an honest apology because they're seeing what could be untoward insult; without clarification and still taking it against others as passively as mentioned there, doesn't settle things.

Change that perception of 'ignoring'; that isn't the usual in conversations. If you feel someone else is ignoring a point you have, clarify it with respect to the other person rather than issuing ultimatums. Maybe it's where I was brought up since English is my third language, but whenever I (or in seeing others, we) feel as if our points are 'ignored', we don't see it as it being ignored but try taking in the other person's response, including their emotions and how they could feel to think about the situation too, and then see whether the other person has any intent of ignoring what we say. And if we get to that point where we feel ignored, the usual thing we say would be like "at the time, I was [doing and thinking this; I probably didn't think that, or if there's fault, I admit to that but please don't blame me for {this other thing I feel you feel} because {reasons}]", we don't issue it as technical or ultimately like how you've written it there (as it comes off as rude, or at least inefficient that way)

It really comes off as weird that you reiterate the other person is 'ignoring' your points moreso than clarifying it for mutuality.

children are okay in piecewise's short update

I missed that! Thanks and apologies!
Anyone testing the radio so that we're assured an evacuation, or do we need to pile up extra supplies and fuel?

"Hey, we're all injured, let's drive away from our only medic so we can watch him run after us!"

He has a medic bag, mind anyone First aid kits have at least 2 uses, and heal at most 2 points of Life.

Also did anyone take those strange rifle wielding officer people down? As in searched their bodies and other equipment too? They're pretty close to the truck and the map shows nothing impeding the escape and otherwise of everyone else. Would be nice to scavenge a bit of info with everything close by.
Or our dead bodies, if that suffices as something the enemy can gain out of.

[syvarris]

((Tir,  PLEASE spoiler all that.  I don't want to read through it, as I don't want to argue with you.  Edit: Actually, it's pretty solidly put together, worded about as nicely as such things can be.  Nevermind on arguing with you, though it should still be spoilered.  Please? Edit2: You're really fast.  Thanks.))

Spoiler: Yeah, I should focus on better things, but this is entertaining (click to show/hide)

You complained about my replies being un-followable because I didn't quote you. Guess why? That's because I was answering Ozarck's points in order, and got ninja'd, hence them not making sense to you.

I didn't complain about your replies not quoting me, I complained about your replies not quoting Oz.  It's less difficult to follow the conversation when you're actually responding to me, but it's extremely difficult when you aren't; that's part of why I made a deal out of it.

You're also still not spoilering your statements, which is honestly kinda rude.  A lot of people really don't want to see this.  Some people might want to read about pokemon instead.

Holy crap, man, you're going back and force arguing about the stability of WWII explosives like nothing else! Did you even CHECK the Seydlitz fire off of Dogger Bank? That shows how REAL explosives behave under fire----and cordite, naval-gun propellant, is nastier than most. Much more sensitive.

You do realize that that's only one example, which you're basing your whole argument on, right?  And it's not even the same stuff; sure, cordite might be more sensitive, but why not talk about instances involving actual aircraft bombs?

It's mostly irrelevant anyway.  This all boils down to whether Piecewise thinks the munitions bunkers are going to explode, and knowing him, I think they will.  I don't think it's all the unbelievable even in reality--most certainly from the perspective of confused and scared grunts--but if you'd like you can continue to try and convince me.  Or Oz, I guess, if he decides to humor you.

Once again: That satchel charge would've blown the whole bunker to BITS. It contains MUCH more explosives than your usual primer/ignition charge in, say, an AIRCRAFT BOMB.

Do you... think that there's no armoring against shock on bombs, whatsoever?  Yeah, the satchel charge is much more powerful, but it also isn't underneath the casing, and jammed right up against the main charge.  I agree that if placed directly on the bomb, it's gonna cause a sympathetic detonation, but if just jammed somewhere at random... maybe not.  It partially depends on how well the bunker is built, and I am forced to admit that we both have described many ways in which this bunker is poorly built.

As for cooking off, no. No, and no. There's no direct application of flame right now, remember? There IS fire outside the bunker,

...Which you have proof for?

Why would the bunker have a ceiling, made of stuff which can burn, be seperated from the contents by another sturdy ceiling which will not burn?  The bunkers are certainly covered by enough flame that such a ceiling or an internal fire are basically required.  Either soon leads to the other if possible, anyway.

There IS fire outside the bunker, but it'd have to get to temperatures in excess of 300 degrees, if I recall Mythbusters correctly, to start cooking off even small bullets (With less sort-of insulating metal).

Wonderful source.  Yes, I doubt cartridges would cook off when near exposed flame, but if they're in wooden storage crates (yes, they stored ammo in wood crates during WWII), I think that might provide enough heat.  Fire be hot, yo.

As for the full quote, now you're just picking at straws, aren't you?

Here's a prime example of a place quotes would be simply wonderful.  From my recollection of what I said, it most certainly wasn't picking at straws, it was one of the core points I've been trying to make.  I don't feel like going back to check though, so whatever.  If you wanna make this more annoying, I don't have to bite...

That is a POSSIBILITY I am explaining. It makes no more sense for you to say than your original argument did. I'm not arguing that that's CERTAIN to happen, just that it's far more LIKELY to happen

The semantics don't really matter here.  If anyone who doesn't follow your advice is an idiot/sociopath, the difference between you saying "It's most likely to be the best course of action" and "It's definitely the best course of action" is academic.

I also kinda want to point out that "You probably won't all die, and you're worth less than those people anyway." isn't a particularly persuasive argument.

time that reinforcements are using to get closer and time that the remaining Germans are using to get re-assembled, for whatever it's worth.

...An argument you have repeatedly failed to provide support for, and have mostly given absurd traits like including a full armored brigade...

I suspect that after the explosions ALL the firefighters are retreating in case the fire reached the base itself (Which would be bad for them, for HIGHLY obvious reasons), which means that in the probably event in which the bunker(s) do NOT explode, the remaining members of the 888th would have wasted a lot of time, so they'd be walking back into a worse situation than if they stay.

Yeah, yeah, you make a fair point here.  I've changed my opinion from "We should retreat then come if from a better angle" to "We should either ransack the remaining solid buildings while the enemy is still in disarray, or just retreat immediately."

I'm not completely sure what you think we're supposed to be doing, to be honest.  Maybe we actually agree, if you aren't encouraging going back for any remaining kids?  That'd be kinda funny.