Major Tom

Saying an absolute like NEVER is going too far. All that someone needs to do is find ONE single instance where this NEVER actually was a WAS, and your argument gets thrown out the window. What about the Devil's Brigade? This American/Canadian force never lost an engagement against the Germans... They did not have any special weaponry but relied on heavy training and intelligent tactics. There have been instances where regular Allied troops have outfought highly trained and well equipped German formations who also posessed superior numbers and support. I can cite them for you, but am sure that these are of common knowledge. We did not just win because we out attritioned them (ie. took more casualties than the Germans, but they had less reserves). Our casualty rates (US, UK, Canadian, French) were significantly lower than German casualty rates from Normandy till VE day. Somehow we were 'better' than the Germans.

I find it funny that two people used my 'america sat on their a$$es' remark, and actually used it seriously. Interestingly enough, you left out the rest of the message, that sated that anyone who took part in this UK/US bashing was just an idiot falling into this Troll's trap. Little did I realize that he was so smart as in you guys were so easily trapped into his net to use my condemnation of him and his acts in the very thing I was condemning.

All that you are going to do is to start a debate between America and Britain, which he is trying to do. You are doing exactly what he wants. Saying remarks like "we saved your butt's" and "Monty was a fool" will only draw in British/Commonwealth people too refute you. Then this will turn into a Monty vs. Patton debate and that the US just sat on their a$$'$ while the UK/Commonwealth fought Hitler for 3 years. Now we don't really want to get into that, do we?

Heh heh, I can see where this debate is going, probably to the General Forum... Anyway, I wouldn't say that German technology was better than Allied tech. Judging the BEST of German, British and American units (Land, Sea and Air) the technology discrepancy was not very great. The Allies could have built tanks like the Tiger and Panther, but due to POLITICAL decisions, they decided that MOBILITY and NUMBERS were more important than pure GUN and ARMOUR. Without Shermans and Cromwells the Allies could not have done the Breakout from Normandy as well as they did. The Lee Enfield and M1 Garand were both better than German Rifles. Sometimes the Allies has technology AND numbers... Regarding tanks, the Cromwell and the Sherman were both more versitile tanks than the most common German tank, the Panzer Mark IV. The RAM Kangaroo was a much better APC than the SdKfz series, since they offered much more protection and in a chassis capable of accompanying the tanks, since it was based off of a tank! It is generally assumed that German equipment was universally better than the Allies, by looking at the Tiger's, Panther's and HMG's. But since these were more 'rarities' than commonalities on the battlefield (while the good allied weapons were commonalities), it cannot be said that the Germans held technological advantages to the Allies. Against an average German foe, the Allies usually found themselves with superior equipment.

Just to play the devil's advocate, knowing how many Commonwealth and German changes through patches do not mean much unless they are compared to that of American changes. However, since I do not believe in a US bias in the game, then to me the point is mute. Actually, I do have a picture of a Bren on a tripod in a Tamiya Modelling book (of the cover of another modelling book of small arms). However, the British/Commonwealth troops (in winter gear) look like they are from 1939/40. We cannot say wether or not the Bren was still used in 'tripod' form in 1944, and even if this Bren was used in this form in sufficient numbers in 1939/40 and if this picture is of an oddity rather than a common occurance.

I think that most of the reaction to RTS is that the present assumption by most gamers is that if it is not RTS, then it sucks. Turn based games were just about all that was offered when computers were new. They could not offer as much complexity if it was real time, so it was slated to turned based. However, as computers go faster and faster, games can be more and more complex. RTS is more possible than before, with more complexity. However, just because RTS is there, and can be complex, does NOT mean that turn based games are obsolete. Take Chess. One could devise the game to be RTS through complicated rules, and a processing system. However, many people like chess for its plodding and slow, and critical thinking that it offers. RTS does result in developing strategy, however, many people like Turn Based games because they are pure strategy, like chess. Making something RTS, or the option of RTS is not supposed to be an obvious evolution of all games. Turn based games still have a following, even with new gamers (so it isn't just a bunch of old people!). Just go to any RTS game board and mention that you want a Turn Based option for the game and you will get arguments against it from just about everyone. One is not necessarily better than the other, just different. Having a RTS option for CM2 would require BTS to totally rehash the mechanizm of the game. It might not be less complicated (ie. you probably could process a significant number of attributes as the Turn Based game) but the mechanizm would require tweaking as to issue orders while the turn is in motion. Possibly later incarnations of CM will be RTS, but without significant precidence from other RTS games, Steve and Charles cannot afford to risk to break another barrier. Personally, I see CM as a RTS Turn Based Hybrid. You issue the orders on the turn, then see the orders go out in Real Time. Your units then decide their own orders in response to situations. For CM to be RTS you would remove the option of your units reacting, while you can just stop whenever and issue your own orders immediately (sort of like Star Wars: Rebellion). If there is no pause, or slow turn then things like the 3D zoom and rotation would serve to confuse the player, resulting in the game being a fixed view like most RTS games are. While playing CM, when the game stars getting heavy with a lot of things happening along the map, I routinely watch a single 60 second turn 4-6 times. If it was Real Time, then this option would be impossible. The turn based system that CM presently offers results in a game that may take weeks to play, while most RTS games are over in a night. The real time option would result in an extreme amount of work on the part of BTS to get right. The request for Real Time options for CM have been constant, yet only by a small minority of the visiting or residing population. The population might grow if the game became Real Time, with BTS making more sales, but they appear to be happy enough catering to the population who still desires to have a turn based game, with a good AI and good graphics requiring high strategy. RTS may not turn into a clickfest, but much of the strategy of a turn based game will be lost in the confusion.

Most French troops evacuated at Dunkirk were sent back to France to form up new units before the fall. More were again evactuated after that, but the numbers never got up to the 90 000. Most of the Soliders left in England decided to be loyal to the Vichy French regime, and were sent to North Africa, later to join the Allies in 1942. The French troops seen in CMBO were predominantly based off the 2nd French Armoured Division. An entire French Army, based off of the North African troops did fight in Europe. The reasoning for using generic US soldiers for French troops was done by BTS because most French formations used a combination of US and French helmets. Having French helmets along with US helmets would have increased the complexity of the units in the game more than they wanted. It was a matter of supply. French uniforms were no longer being made, and once their original ones wore out, they had to get replacements. British uniforms were in sufficient number so that until 1942 they could be equipped by them, but after 1942 American uniforms became even more plentiful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Although I don't know the title of this photo, I do know that the Russians are famous for "glorifying" their generals with their propoganda.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And that is different from any other nation how....?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote: A moment of silent, please, for the men and women who gave everything in the name of Peace and Liberty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Liberty.... THAT'S AMERICAN TALK!!!

Thanks, I think that there is still 25-30 Gigabytes left on the computer... Probably due to a messy CD, or all of the Anti-Virus programs taking up all of the memory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: Ok settle, Now this was an shallow introspective into the hearts and minds of CM gamers. NOT an opportunity for the Peng crew to try and stage a coup! Get back in your hole cause we are tryin to eat here!!!! Now Lawyer, as much fun as a "child abduction" show may sound, it is bound to get out of control. I mean the first season will be a smash but then we'll get corrupt in order to to stay ahead of the clones. We'll start paying our children to pull a gun, burst into flame or start spouting 8th century biblical prophesies in Egyptian while exhibiting stigmata. Then we'll sell out to the entertainment overlords in L.A. to support our growing hooker and whiskey habit. Next thing you now you and I are sharing a bus stall and fighting over which corner to pee in. I'll wake up one morning to find you dead...go thru your stuff and try to harvest an organ or two. In short it is dangerous to court Fame and Riches for she is a two faced heartless bitch just like Mom.... OK I have issues but anyway...Peng guys buzz off and I will stick with my day job until the ticking sends me screaming over the edge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't forget... "you get to drink out of the fire hose!!!"

Just saw something the other night about the early war and the British Tank Arm (fairly reliable source, a show "TANKS!" on the History channel, with historians from Bovington). It seems that pre-war British doctrine was to actually fire on the move. Since most of the armoured force in the BEF (1st Army Tank Brigade and 1st Armoured Division) were regular troops (not territorial), then should not British tanks have the capability to fire while in motion, with some accuracy? It seems that a lot of empasis was placed on shooting well while on the move. I am not sure about the other nationalities.

Although this might be better suited for the 'mod' area, I was thinking that possibly creating 'mod-packs', like the Madmatt mod packs, might be a desierable thing, especially with the increasing number of High Speed users. I find it difficult to keep track of all of the multiple small mods, based on individual vechicles and such. I go to different sites, and invariably download the same thing (just named differently!) The 'Normandy' mod is a first step in large mod making. Collecting the best of the best (this may be very difficult with all of the high quality mods out there) and putting them in one big file would be an easy download for fast users, and less confusing. Either that, or put all of the works of one individual (ie. All of Marco's stuff) in one package, so if you like a particular artist, you could get all of their stuff in one conveniant package.

I tried to load CM on my parent's new P900, running Windows ME, and the CD refuses to copy over the WAV files from 5001-5010.wav. I tried both installing and manually copying the files over, but to no avail. I tried minimal install, which worked. Installed the latest patch, and ran a PBEM file I recieved. Loaded the file, but when the Password request appears it gets into a loop and freezes up. Help!

Hmm, one of the things not mentioned either by Kitty, or by anyone else in the community, notably one of the most important things about a birthday, is, your age!

Well, historically there was some sort of 'campaign' system going, however the field losses and the dilusion through replacements would probably result in a unit remaining at the same, and possibly decreasing in experience. Crack units were formed in between battles, not created on the battlefield. Your unit, if it started off at Regular, would probably remain as regular. Plus, trading in equipment for this and that was impracticle, since units at this scale had no control over their own replacements. This would end up in the individual having no choice over their OOB, since all units beforehand would be determined by the computer (ie. Brigade/Divisional command). Your unit will not vary too much from its original deployment. If you have Panzer IV's at the beginnning of the campaign, chances are you will have them at the end. If you have Stug's at the beginning, you can bet your life that Division will not change your unit to Tigers. Also, most units did not see a great amount of combat as a single cohesive formation. Units are routinely shuffled, broken down, combined and refitted. Rarely would a unit fight at one formation from 1941 to 1945, ala. many other wargame campagins.

Yeah, I caught a bit of it last night. The best thing about this show is that it relies heavily on the Bovington Museum, showing not just old war footage, but modern colour shots of museum tanks. There was a cut-out of a Tiger I, that they had a full re-enactment crew within it, showing just how cramped it was. It also detailed many early British tanks, like the Vickers VI and Crusader series as well as the Matilda. Another thing I like about the series is that they rely upon a lot of veterans from all nations.

The best thing to breaking up mass infantry are on the field mortors. Artillery support takes 1-2 minutes to call in, and usually arive too late, unless you call it on your own positions! On the field mortors (ie individual ones on the battlefield) have no delay in their arrival time. You can use Company troops to spot for them. The most effective, in both cost and firepower, are the British 2" mortors and the US 60mm mortors. You don't need much firepower to kill troops in the open, and their cheap cost results in great numbers to appear on the field. I have even killed dug-in artillery and AT positions with these small mortors. They are one of the most efficient weapons on the field.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: To be honest here Dr "BrIAn", I always assumed your name was Dr "BrAIn" by simply glancing at it every time until I recently noticed that my assumption was incorrect. I believe Major Tom may also suffer from the same assumption so don't think the worst in his case, I believe he simpy has your name wrong by not looking at it properly. Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, how red is my face. Little did I know that I was spelling it wrong! I did read it wrong, Dr. Brian. When I read your last post, I could not figure out why you were so upset. I was not trying to be a jerk, by calling you BrAIn, but somehow just typed it as so. Frankly, I thought it was BrAIn, and not BrIAn. I really meant no offense as Kanonier (did I get it right?) states in his post.

Sorry Dr. Brain, my previous insults were inexcusible. Anyway, what I was trying to get at, was that 'backwardness' is relative. Compared to many other nations of the world Poland's military was extremely modern in 1939(Thailand, China, South America, indeed North America as well). Vietnam could be seen as backward from 1945-1975, but, they still beat non-backward nation's like Japan, France and the US. Stating that a nation's military is 'backward' does not necessarily mean that their troops are of poor quality, or, they are, by definition, easy to beat by non-backward nations.

Dr. Brain (please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo) If you take my entire post into connentation, then you will realize that the only way the Allies were able to conquer Germany from 1943-1945 was that in comparison the German army was comparatively 'backward'. Their general equipment, tactics and deployment were obsolete in 1944, just like the Allieds were in 1940. It was not just a matter of the Germans engaged backward troops in 1940, and the Allied beat out an equal force in 1944, but whenever a side had initiative their opponent usually fit into the description of 'backward', as, they were not able to counter their enemy effectively. To state that the Germans won in 1940-41 because they were up against 'backward' nations and ignoring the fact that from 1944-45 Germany, when compared to the war effort of the Allies in equipment (not just tanks), tactics and deployment (All tank formations became obsolete in 1942) was relatively 'backward'. The period from 1942-1943, throughout the war in Europe, was an era of a change of initiative. The Germans started losing it and the Allies started gaining it. Tactically, initiative goes to the side that has something that the other cannot stop. In 1939-41 the Germans had Blitzkrieg, which no matter the quality or ability of their opponent they could not effectively counter it. From 1944-1945 the Allies used the strategy of massed equipment. No special wings of the army, such as the German Armoured Korps, but, an entire well equipped army. This effectively countered Blitzkrieg as even a lowly Allied Infantry Division was more than a match against a German Panzer Division, and possibly even a Panzer Korps. However, the Allies had to learn this through their many defeats. Germany was not given the time to learn how to defeat the Allied strategy, as they had nowhere to retreat by 1944, unlike the Allies in 1940. So, stating that Germany was not as powerful as they were made out to be in 1940 becase their opponents were 'backward' can also be used to say that the Allies were not as poerful as they were made out to be, because in 1944 Germany could be seen as 'backward'. However, just by the fact that in 1940 Germany was NOT 'backward', and in 1944 the Allies were NOT 'backward' not only says something of their opponents, but, something of them. Not being 'backward' means that they ARE using their equipment, deployment and tactics better than their opponent, which means that their opponent (Allies 1940, Germany 1944) is not necessarily 'lowered', but they (Germans 1940, Allies 1944) could be 'raised' in quality. This was what I was trying to get at.

Actually, I think that the South Seas Detachment (the first one) by the time of the Kokoda trail operation was composed of two regiments and accompanying engineers and artillery (more of a reinforced Brigade than a Division). The troops were veterans, but, only of the war from 1941-1942. They came from the 55th, or 56th Divisions, which were garrison divisions from Japan, not formations that fought in China. Their troops were well trained, and experienced in the relatively bloodless occupation of North New Guinea, the Solomans and New Britain. They were probably as experienced as the troops from the Australian 7th Division. However, the troops from the 30th Brigade were green militia. All and all an interesting engagement with initiative going from one side to another and back again.

Let me address a few things here with my meagre knowledge. Dr. Brain. In regards to your classification of 'backwards', in regards to military implementation (does this mean depolyment, tactics, equipment, etc?), then you could classify the Russian Army until 1943, the US Army until 1943, the British/Commonwealth Armies until 1943, etc. ALL as 'backwards'. Their deployment, tactics and equipment were all poor in the first few years of the war. Their men, like those of Poland, Belgium, Greece, France, Denmark, etc. were all of good quality (and inflicted many casualties on the German army, 500 aircraft were lost in the Polish campaign alone). Just because they were 'backwards' does not mean that there was no threat. Also, anti-war sentiment in Germany was high, until the fall of France. Germany suffered 1.8 million casualties in WWI, and was not too keen on fighting on a new western front (which even Hitler though was going to be the course of war in France). There were plots to kill Hitler by generals and admirals as early as 1938. However, the victories of 1940 and 41 made any successful attempt impossible. This did not mean that every conspirator changed their tune, some who plotted in 1938 continued plotting until most were executed in 1944-45. However, for some reason the Germans did not suffer from this 'backwardness' until 1942-43, possibly as early as winter 1941. This was because they had the initiative, and they dictated the terms of battle. When they lost this initiative, in equipment, deployment and tactics through the allies learning how to deal with Blitzkrieg tactics (without finding a sufficient tactic other than attrition) they started losing. It was not a matter about Germany attacking only the weak, and ignoring the strong, but, that Germany had the benefit of strategy, deployment and initiative over their opponents. Yet, the Allies never gained the same level of 'superiority' over the Germans that the Germans had over them. Germany conquered Europe in a matter of months (if you take away the long periods of inactivity in 1940-41), it took the Allies 2 years to take this territory back, with more resources available to them than the Germans in 1940. This is not because the Germans went up against only pitiful enemies in 1940-41. Jeff, I saw a really interesting show about the history of German armour, and it corroborates much of what you state. Their tanks may have been obsolete in almost every other aspect, but, the implementation of radio's, and internal intercom systems gave them an extreme advantage over the 'technically superior' British, French and Russian tanks. The Russians and French used flags in order to communicate, which, in the heat of battle offered a great target (the Troop commander) and slow communication. Communication in getting the first kills was vital in tank combat. So what if you have better guns and tougher armour if you never get to shoot at your enemy before you are blown to bits by multiple hits? In regards to the Japanese soldier debate.. You might even quantify the Japanese soldier as one of the worst soldiers ever to come out of WWII. Not just through engagements in Manchuria in 1939, 40 and 45. They proved unable to learn sufficient tactics beyond those that they used in the 1941-42 campaign. Much like that of Germany's inability to move beyond Blitzkried, Japan was unable to change strategy when the Americans, Australians, British and Indians learned how to counter their infiltration tactics. Kill ratio's and general tactics on Guadalcanal, New Guinea, the Philippines, etc. might have worked in 1941, but not beyond late 1942. Defensively they proved stubborn in defence, but, never mastered a fluid defence, until Okinawa. However, I said that I MIGHT say that they were the worst, but, I doubt that they are. I more believe the following. When it comes to determining the 'best' soldiers of a war, it cannot ever be actually determined. You might have the best troops in the world, but lose a battle with massive casualties. Their equipment, levels of supply, deployment and leadership can make poor troops great, and good troops worthless. France had the best army in 1940, but, the worst command and deployment. In a recent history of Michael Whittman, the narrator stated that individuals do not win wars. The Germans could have had 50% of their tank crews being as good as Whittman and still lost the war. Just because someone lost a battle/war does not mean that their troops were the worst, just like if they win does not mean that their troops were the best.

An interesting thing to note as well, it was mentioned by one historian at the end of the show that the Germans tended to inflate their kill stats, much like all air-forces did during air-combat. Most probably the kill numbers were inflated a bit, but still, pretty impressive. I also don't think that he 'destroyed' a rifle battalion and a tank battalion. Severely disrupted (50% casualties), but, not destroyed (99% casualties). It was also interesting to note that many of the historians cited his success to the inability of the British to come to terms with the position of the German tank. Another thing is that they did not mention the disparity between tanks, as 1 Sherman =/= 1 Tiger. Also, wasn't it Canadian forces that finally took him down? Or am I wrong about that? Another thing as well, I really took to the fact that AT guns were seen by him to be a greater threat than Tanks. In CM I have had yet to set up a sufficiently good AT gun trap for tanks. Possibly due to a personal inability?

You seem to forget the vast number of formations in the Pacific. Also, the US Navy was the largest in the world, with Britain, Canada and France being the next three largest. The US Mobilized around 10% of their population, however, did not suffer the same casualties as the Russian Army did. In reality, the number of troops and amount of equipment available at the end of the war was about equal. Remember, by the end of the war many Allied Infantry Divisions had enough AT guns, and attached TD battalions that they could independently take on an Armoured Division, while Russian Infantry formations were more or less on their own, with most tanks concentrated in Tank Corps (Divisions). [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 04-02-2001).]