Jump to content

usgubgub

Members
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

usgubgub last won the day on April 25

usgubgub had the most liked content!

About usgubgub

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you, IanL, for clearing that up. At least I am not alone. Huge frustration. I worked on my two scenarios for the best part of a year. I hope they manage to clear this soon. It may be cosmetic, but to have your FJs properly configured but looking like ordinary Landsers just doesn't fly in my book.
  2. I have created a new scenario, set in October 1943, and purchased a Parachute Battalion 43. On the small square flat map, there they all are, wearing Heer uniforms. Am I going mad?
  3. Hey guys, wake up! I have just uninstalled the game, re-downoladed the big bundle from my last order on 31 August 2018, re-installed and went straight to the editor to take a look at two in game scenarios: A temple to Mars and Kiwi soldiers. Guess what? The Fallschirmjaegers are wearing Heer uniforms. How could this one have been missed? What is going on?
  4. I was over the moon when I discovered the patch was released after coming back from a long trip. I installed it and began looking at how the scenarios I had been working on while waiting for the patch were playing with the patch. Both scenarios involve Fallschirmjaegers. Imagine my horror when I realised my Fallschirmjaegers were wearing normal Heer uniforms. In both scenarios. I then checked the scenarios that come with the game and it is doing the same thing. All Fallschirmjaegers seem to be wearing Heer uniforms. I then went into the editor, started a new scenario from scratch, selected a Fallschirmjaeger battalion and checked in deploy axis: they were all wearing Heer uniforms. The Fallschirmjaeger uniforms seem to have gone. Is anyone else getting the same problem?
  5. Thanks for the good wishes. I think I am 75% there. Another year maybe...
  6. I am a stalwart supporter of BFC, been playing the games for longer than I can remember. I made a modest contribution to the development of CMFI some years ago. Yes, waiting for the patch has been unusually testing, but this game system has so many facets that even though I played less I still had a lot of fun making maps and designing scenarios, not to mention fun testing them. These guys are a small team of extremely dedicated enthusiasts. They give 100%. I still haven't found anything remotely approaching their product for the kind of game play I appreciate. I have total confidence in their judgment and integrity. And I don't begrudge them for one minute the long gestation of this patch, or the confusion over exactly when it will be released. Thank you Steve, thank you Charles, thank you everyone else who put their time and effort in bringing these games to us. I've gone through a rough patch that has lasted nearly ten years so far. If and when I get back on my feet, I will be glad to lend a hand again. I hope it will be soon (can't give a precise date though... sorry, I couldn't resist that :-) ). In the mean time, I don't mind saying that playing your games has often been the only source of fun and relaxation for me, and a good way to avoid going mad during the long spells when real life got held up in limbo.
  7. Is anything moving with this scenario? If not, can you upload the map? I for one would very much like to use it as is.
  8. Before 1939 was the era of appeasement. Once that delusional (albeit inevitable given the parlous state of British armed forces and French complacency at the time) policy was rendered obsolete by events and Winston Churchill became Prime Minister, UK diplomacy came into its own, harnessing the industrial and financial power of the US, opting to enter into an alliance with the USSR and finally achieving US entry and the Germany First approach which eventually brought about the Allies victories. Given the prevalent situation in 1940, none of this was bound to happen. It was orchestrated primarily by Britain.
  9. This is a very good point. Hitler does not appear to have been a student of Sun Tzu. For him, diplomacy was useful only to gain temporary advantages on the way to his war. War was his objective, rahter than the means to achieve objectives. He believed in the supremacy of the German People which would bring about the conquest of Western and Northern Eurasia through a war of conquest. The British, of course, were consummate diplomats. They struck up an alliance with Stalin and dragged the US into a war in which its people did not want to get involved, helped by Hitler's asinine and futile declaration of war on the US in 1941. He was truly outclassed in this context.
  10. I must admit that I am getting worried about this. The long silence and inactivity is unusual. Perhaps there is a deeper problem behind all of this that cannot be resolved. That would be a great shame. I find it difficult to explain what we are seeing (or not seeing) as just a bit of a sulk. I can't remember a patch taking this long after the new version release.
  11. I guess what happened proved that starting a war of conquest was not a good solution to that problem after all.
  12. Well, I think Hitler came to power because the collapse of the Imperial regime, the draconian terms of the Versailles treaty and the ensuing depression after the roaring 20s created a cahotic political situation in Germany that allowed his extreme vision to chime with the dark side of the German people's fears, their need for order and economic hope and their feelings of humiliation around about 1930 to 1933. Someone else might have channeled all of this in a different way, but we can't deal in hypotheses. So, my view is that it was caused by the two scenarios merging and exploding violently because of the extremism of Hitler and the main leaders of his party.
  13. Germany lost the war because of a combination of factors, but in my view the most important was the poor quality of its political leadership, starting with Hitler himself. The German leadership operated on assumptions that had no basis in what was the real strategic situation of the nation they were leading. There were plenty of leaders in high positions who were aware of some or all of the discrepancies between what efforts the nation could be asked to produce and what it would eventually find itself having to produce to cope with the situation brought about by the leadership's choices, but they were not high enough to matter and the key decisions were made by a small coterie whose blind ambitions and instincts for gambling with their people's futures knew no bounds. They were a bunch of chancers, blinded by initial good fortune. The Soviet Union had an appalling beginning of hostilities in 1941, and its experience only began to turn around at the end of 1942, but its general strategic situation was always better than Germany's so they could afford to take losses that would have crippled Germany many times over. I include support from the UK and the US in that strategic situation, as well as Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union (they recognised that they had their hands full having to cope with an enraged US). 1941 was a close run thing, but close run is good enough. The Soviet Union, and Stalin, also enjoyed better luck. With all of his faults, Stalin was a better leader than Hitler, and better suited to the peoples he was leading. The German people have enormous potential, but their strategic situation is poor, stuck as they are in the middle of a continental mass with borders that are hard to defend. Twice in the past century, it has been proved that no matter how superior their land forces may be in like for like combat power compared to their adversaries, this vulnerability puts them in a bad place to start and win a war that they can't finish quickly. The lack of oil, which by the way affected Japan, too, was just one given at the beginning that should have featured more in the leadership's calculations. Their strategy should have been very different from the outset, in 1933, when they seized power. Hitler, alas, was a man in a hurry. He wanted to finish the whole project while he still enjoyed vitality. He bent the whole nation's timetable to his own. He was not of sufficient stature to understand that what he wanted to accomplish might be achieved only if he was prepared to allow more time than what he had left to live to be taken, and built a political machine instead which would have stood a chance to continue to the objective long after he was gone. The USA have done a better job of achieving and maintaining a dominant position globally than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, at least so far. We are now witnessing China attempting something similar. So much for the "end of history".
  14. This all looks fascinating, but it all stopped last July. Is there an update to be had? Have you suspended work on this potentially very interesting scenario? I have begun working on a scenario about the battle between Canadian forces and the 15th Pz. Div. for Leonforte. Leonforte was a sizeable town perched on the steep side of a hill and reproducing it is proving to be quite a challenge!
×
×
  • Create New...