Londoner

I've had my doubts about DF only IG's and after reading this thread I also agree IG guns should have the IF ability. I never realised the charges for these guns were so variable. Surely on larger maps both game play and realism would be enhanced. I understand BTS have alot of work in progress but shouldn't this be put to the end of the queue? ------------------

The famous duel between Koning n the other guy has been recently debunked. Assuming we're thinkin about the same thing, my memory is not what it used to be . Is this the story of the Russian sniper killing the German by putting a round through his scope? Anthony Beavor, in his exellent book Stalingrad believes it is all myth. Beavor spent two years in Russia, going over many previously unseen archives, his work is widely regarded as the most comprehensive, indepth study on Stalingrad to date. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 09-24-2000).]

Thanx peeps

Why can't battlefield artillery be used for indirect fire? ie TRPs and HQ spotting, Cheers.

Ulot r forgetin Hidden&Dangerous in a big way. Nothing like the HL engine, buggy yea but still an amazin game.

Agreed Pete.

How do u upload an article madmatt?

Pete, i would disagree about the importance of the Stugs in CE. As long as u knock out at least a couple of Shermans with em, i found u could complete the job with the infantry, as long as they havn't been to mauled. If u keep a reserve in the woods u cant lose CE.

Yes m8, try being abit more careful, the units u get in CE arn't offensively geared. Stugs r absolute gems in an ambush role, from your post it sounds like your using them in a stand-off role, no way can u take on all those Shermans at the same time with what u got. Same goes for the panzersreks, u cant run em up 2 a Sherman n expect them to come off on top. CE gives u plenty of time to get the German force into good defensive postions, forcing the US to attack. U'll even find Ger infantry platoons with panzerfausts r fairly capable of takin out a Sherman if ya organised properly. Bottom line: Don't use units in roles they weren't meant for unless u really have to. And remember, u don't have to take on the hole US force at once.

Thanx Bill, I eagerly await....

Yo Jeff, u gonna send me the next turn in our PBEM? Things were just gettin interestin.

Agreed, beatin the AI is to easy even blind with the current operations (at least as Germans). Even defensive Ops tend 2 turn into full blown attacks, we need tougher assignments Bill! BTW cheers 4 all the time u put in creating some amazin maps.

i'm just finishin this op for the first time. As the Germans i found i had to counter-attack every battle othterwise i would be forced back to the bridge. I'm on battle 6-7 and still hold the town. It gets annoyin having to retake it every battle. Is there a more accurate way to model gained/lost ground?

Thank you kind sir, i will happily gobble up all you can throw. Quality site m8, any chance of some operations? I'm running low god dammit.

Missing the point Jeff/Greasypig? I don't no where to start....in fact i won't. An understanding of international order and organisation, the state, and the methodology and paradigms used by acedemics who study these issues around the world would,...to put it mildly, help. Thank god for Fionn et al otherwise i would of wasted alot more time addressing the drivel at the top of this thread. In the meantime keep on bashin that drum, great for abit of stress relief.

I wouldn't be as harsh as Talenn but basically he points out the major flaws. I don't agree with vic locations because warfare was conducted differently. Denying the enemy battle was at least as important as battle itself. The strategic system is basically ok but lacks diplomacy in a big way, other aspects however ie economics are modelled pretty well. AI is pretty good. There are many subtle things you don't notice at first, which makes the strategic side look simplistic and the AI primitive. Tactically, i would say the game is THE best simulator of late medievial-early modern warfare. My only complaint about the tactical side would be sieges. They are modeled only stategically. Overall Shogan is an adventureous and orginal concept. But with the autosave its just to easy to win. It took me jus 3 days to complete it on the top diff setting. Jus gimme CM quick quick quick, n Shogun will prob fade into a distant memory.

Jeez, i never thought i'd be so interested with the workings of the international frieght!

London, England.

Hundmine, treat "Why the Allies Won" with care m8! He makes some good points, but take a look at "Time to Kill" (soz can't remember the ed.) It raises some very valid points discrediting Overy's work. I wish i could remember more on the topic, i did some work on the rights and wrongs of his arguments a while back, but can't think of any example off the top of my head. Another thought i'd throw in is the importance of US oil in WW2. Oil is the life blood of modern armed forces and its importance should not be overlooked. For instance, in and around Grosny (Russia), there was more oil being produced than in all of Germany in 1941. In California alone there was more oil being produced anually, than in Russia and Germany put together. In my view the promise of US oil and, as mentioned lend/lense trucks/jeeps, let Russia contemplate their major offensive operations. (I'll give oil footnotes if asked ) [This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 06-13-2000).]

Thanks for all your posts, alot of interesting points made.

Many authors seem to view a particular event in WW2 as THE decisive turning point. For instance, Atlantic war enthusiasts (and others for that matter) argue that Ultra was the key factor in the German defeat. Other historians argue, the Battle of Britian was the defining moment, giving the US a future base of operations in the ETO. Then there's the Russian commentators. I got the oppurtunity to talk to Anthony Beevor after a guest lecture on his book Stalingrad, and I asked him this very question. He was adament that Stalingrad was THE determining variable, which marked the real turning point in WW2, and we could surely go on to name many other important events heralded by many historians. I see WW2 as Hitler having a number of "lives" given his available resources, which he squandered one by one. There was obviously a "point of no return" after which Germany was doomed whatever she did, but this ARGUABLY came VERY late in the war (I would argue 1944). Surely It doesn't nessasarily follow that the turning point (whatever you personally believe) be the most important factor. For example, what relevance would Stalingrad or the Battle of Britain of had if the Geramn Navy had been more careful with the Enigma codings, and continued to sink 7,000,000 tons of Allied shipping a year into 1943-5? There would have been no second front and no Russian resupply, therefore minimising their importance. So to me, all the Allied victories are inter-related and mutually surportive, Hitler didn't lose the war with one bad desision, instead it was a combination of MANY bad calls. Your thoughts? [This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 06-11-2000).]

Quick, doesn't me best Max. Russell Wiegley affirms, "The American way of war in WW2 chewed up American Infantrymen". His achievments costed more American blood that need of been shed. [This message has been edited by Londoner (edited 06-07-2000).]

Thanx DrD, but to be honest i think alot of my countrymen here have overreacted a wee bit. I personally didn't find Max's statement offensive. Babaro at least offered a constuctive argument, but the rest of uz just slagged him. Max is surely entitled to his opinion, however much we disagree. And LOL bararo, General Lee was some charater wasn't he. Didn't he requester half of Paris for his staff, not to mention selling off US equipment to the Mafia LOL.

Ta Mark 4, n LOL soppose the Maxim did change things somewhat.

NE1 remember the name of that MG? .....LOL