Jump to content

Polo

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have decisive argument to do a Kharkov '42 module ! Or should I say... Kharkiv 1942 ? This one if for BFC ! Yes, you could reuse the Black Sea maps to do a Kharkov '42 game ! No pain, no cost. You use the CMFI,CMRT & CMBN vehicules and CMBS maps and off you go, finished. Just concentrate on a good campaign. Polo
  2. I meant "lobbying about where the next East Front game will be"
  3. I have never said they "dislike the French in general", just that it is not true France was not a dedicated NATO member. Tell me about an action ? (apart from Irak 2003). Try Yugoslavia, for ex. Apart from politics, is there no more "lobbying" about next game on the Eastern front? Polo
  4. Is it supposed to be ironic ? Right, Bagration is so original. What about Normandy ? Try at least to make the effort to have an argument, man. Polo
  5. Thinking about all this, I think the best location for a East Front game would be KHARKOV 1942. The soviet offensive was a huge (HUGE) failure, but overall, the fight was locally balanced. The hardware is nicely balanced too, because the German one was outdated, so the "ersatz" solutions would be pretty fun to play with: short barreled Mark III, Short barreled Mark IV, even a handfull of long barreled MkIV F2, some Marders in a really useful (vital ?) role, short barreled StuGs, heavy arty used as AT, outdated 3,7 cm somewhat useless but ubiquitous, even a couple of 7,5cm in the mix. Even the Soviets had a "funny" mix (in Hobart's meaning of the term I mean): KV1 and T34 of course (but it was only 1/3 of the force !), lots of T60s, 1/5 from lend-lease (Matilda 2, Valentines anybody?), and even some BTs too !! I have seen a photo with a Stuart too. Did I mentionned there was... Romanians? Ok, not totally balanced, though... Polo
  6. Ok, I guess I should be more prudent. It is probably a case of wiki-BS.
  7. Yes you get a point here... About Balaton, according to wikipedia, 31 tanks lost in the operation... what a huge combined arms offensive... And SS again... OK anyway Konrad is better, as a module of RT, maybe ? With SS, right... Polo
  8. Ok I get it: just to replace the white flags... thks.
  9. I am not really convinced... For example, all the Mark III were available, as well as some Mark II (from the Lynx) and most armored cars too. I am not so much for a Citadel game either, but had they chosen this one, they would already have Shermans, jeeps, Churchills in addition to all the Russian Hw. I apologize for the word "stupid" though. I was not a bad idea, but still, Bagration is all about the Germans being beaten to bits. Polo
  10. Note Aragorn that mentioning a 500 year treaty anterior to the mere existence of the Netherland as an autonomous country does not really strengthen your point. I don't think using Roman army efficieny makes a point for the Italians in 1940 either, for example.
  11. Honestly I wouldn't want to go into a political debate, because that is not the point. But I would say not going to Irak was the right thing to do (easy to say it now, but I am pretty sure most Americans agree on this now), and I would add that I don't think France have particular intersts (seriou$ one$ I mean) in Mali or Central African Republic. I am pretty sure the French wouldn't want to be "alone" there (I mean without their "reliable allies" the Europeans, mostly buying US material etc.) I would also add the Suez crisis, when the NATO "reliable and stable" allies the US stabbed the French and English in the back somewhat, etc.,etc. Reality is more complex than mere slogans as you can see. Regarding the ships, I agree that was a pretty stupid move, but I think it was a deal done in the context of the Georgian war resolution. The CMFI with Dragoon is an idea (but: Shermans, Shermans and some more Shermans...), even if I have been a bit disappointed by CMFI so far (small maps mainly). Maybe I should try this awfull Cassino campaign (rocks and paras, lots of arty) Regarding 1939, I think at least we can play some emulated France '40 with CMAK (using the English only, though), if I remember well, but anyway not having a France '40 campaign in CM ever is a ...shame . (please do not mention Vietnam and the Pacifc ) You are right about Konrad! It would have been a good idea. Still I am aready playing right at this very moment a campaign with Panthers against T34-85. This is called "Blunting the spear" and it is already in the RT. Polo
  12. Hi, As I did not manage to find a "readme" of some sort for the file, I don't get what the "goaway surrender" think does. Anybody can tell, please? I does not seems to work with my version (1.03 of RT), but I may be wrong, as I don't know in what case it is being used. Thanks ! Polo
  13. I've got to know what sound mod Bozowans was using... Anybody knows ? Bunkers Burning looks fun, for sure. Well done. Polo
  14. Well... BF managed not doing a France '40 Campaign game on CMx1 despite the games covering from 1939 (earlier?) to 1945. BF managed to do a NATO extension for CMSF without including the French despite the hardware being fun to play with (it included the Germans and even the Dutch I think, what a joke...) BF managed to do an Italy game without putting the French in it... (indeed we were lucky the Italians were in, BTW) So if the Romanians and Hungarians get it before the French, I swear I quit. BTW, I think making an East Front game on 1945 is plain stupid... (I would love to see the German campaign) Even 1944 is a bit far fetched imo. Note that BF managed to do a Bagration game without a campaign with T-34 in it for the player, which is already a feat. The game is great (mainly thanks to the big maps and all the experience of previous games), but sometimes the choices are odd. Polo
  15. Now I am playing with 2.01 on the excellent "Rats du D├ęsert" Villers Bocage map. I have those 2 Vickers teams (from HMG Carriers) trying to deploy in tall buildings. In fact the deploy time indicated is 2.3 min and it actually does not seem to really deploy after 3 min+. It looks the same as the bug described here, and does not seem to be fixed... First question: is it normal that the deploying time is not the usual one (23 s)? If not, it is now clearly a bug !
×
×
  • Create New...