ASL Veteran

The parachute is part of his nun disguise.

Yeah, this typically happens if the objective is good for both sides and viewable by both sides. If the objective for the German isn't painted exactly the same size as the objective for the American then the name of the objective will not overlap perfectly and you get the double script since the name is slightly offset from one side to the other.

You can probably deduce the answer to that by looking at the poll questions themselves. You can see the results without voting by clicking the results button near the bottom and I have to admit that the results so far correspond with my expectations. The sample size is a bit small yet though.

I suspect that you are going to be waiting a while for those titles my friend .

Yeah, the end of European national sovereignty is rapidly approaching. Long live the European superstate with a president that is appointed and a parliament that has no power. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/04/us-germany-europe-idUSTRE7831IE20110904

There actually is a difference between Iron, Elite, etc even for We Go. The range at which you maintain C2 is reduced the higher the difficulty level you play at. So there is both a visual effect from when you click on units and a C2 effect which gets harder to maintain at higher levels.

The reason the British weren't interested in a semi automatic rifle is as Ian Hogg points out "There were two stumbling blocks; firstly it had to be absolutely reliable under the most unlikely conditions and in the hands of the most cretinous soldier imaginable; and secondly there was always the fear that given such a weapon, the soldiers - particularly hastily trained conscripts - would blast off every round they possessed in the general direction of the enemy during the first two minutes of the battle and thereafter sit waiting to be overrun. Moreover, the load on the supply services to deliver the vast quantities of ammunition which would be needed by these voracious weapons would be insupportable. In fact, the same sort of arguments had been advanced against the quick firing field gun in days gone by, and eventually seen to be groundless, but that didn't stop them from being offered all over again." He then lists the (ridiculously stringent) requirements that the British War Office made for anyone who wanted to submit a semi automatic rifle design. Ian Hogg then says that "One is not very surprised to hear that the pavement outside the War Office was not thronged with inventors of automatic rifles." So, the British didn't prefer the Enfield over a semi automatic rifle because of some decision that it would be better to have a Bren than a squad equipped with semi automatic rifles, but that the War Office simply didn't want to make the switch to a semi automatic rifle for reasons outside of tactical firepower considerations.

Ha ha ha ha ha ... thanks for the good laugh Diesel courtesy of Warren Buffet. You know what is really funny about Warren's little piece? He can already make direct contributions to the treasury department for the purposes of paying down the national debt - right here. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm In fact, you might even be able to contribute as well Diesel, although I'm not sure - you may need to be a citizen of the US. Rather than writing Op Editorials in the New York Times begging to be taxed more why doesn't he just break out the check book and put his money where his mouth is? It's all about leading by example isn't it? He doesn't need an act of congress to pay more taxes. He can even use many tax maximizing strategies to increase the taxes he pays. http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2011/07/11/patriotic-taxation-or-unpatriotic-redistribution/ The unruly Democratic coalition can unite around little other than raising taxes. Only with higher revenues can the various interest groups carrying the Democratic banner enrich themselves at public expense. Not surprisingly, few people who actually work and pay taxes are enthused about turning more of their money over to Washington. So big-spending pols have to resort to increasingly creative arguments for pushing up the government’s take. The campaign to fill government coffers naturally has focused on the “rich.” (Luckily, I guess, I don’t qualify under anyone’s definition!) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing a resolution declaring that “it is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort.” Offering more than boilerplate rhetoric is former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who proposed returning to a top income tax rate of 70%. Still, he could have gone higher: the top rate once ran 91%, before President Jack Kennedy’s across-the-board rate cuts. A more peculiar advocate for higher taxes is “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength.” The group has a website and its members wrote an open leader urging the president and congressional leaders “to put our country ahead of politics.” How? By increasing taxes on incomes greater than a million dollars. Argued PMFS, “Our country faces a choice—we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.” There’s no discussion of cutting spending, which has exploded in recent years. Rather, argue these “patriotic millionaires,” a decade ago Congress “made a mistake. You decided our country needed less money, and millionaires like me needed more.” The obvious answer: “Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.” Actually, tax cuts don’t reduce money for “our country.” Tax cuts reduce money for the government. The two are not the same. If there is one truth in life, it is that Washington spends far more money than it should. Indeed, Uncle Sam squanders money on a grand scale. There is the usual waste, fraud, and abuse. The redundant and ineffective programs. The pork used to reelect legislators. The consistent refusal of the governing establishment to treat the taxpayers’ money as anything other than a great common pool to use for political advantage. The greatest waste of money is not inadvertent inefficiency, but intentional redistribution from the economically productive to the politically influential. Why billions in pork? Why tens of billions in corporate welfare? Why hundreds of billions in subsidies for rich foreign allies? Why more than a trillion in middle class welfare? The deficit is too high because the government spends too much, not because Washington collects too little. In the decade following the Bush tax cuts federal revenue actually rose, just not as much as it would have otherwise. As a percentage of GDP federal tax revenues, despite the Bush tax cuts, continue to run around the historical average of 18%. From 2001 to 2011 a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion turned into a real deficit of $6.1 trillion. Noted the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl, the “tax cuts were responsible for just 14% of the swing.” A similar analysis by the Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge figured that number at 16%. The biggest factors by far were increased spending and lower economic growth. Today’s huge deficit is almost entirely due to them, as the impact of the Bush tax cuts continues to diminish. There are many people to blame for exploding deficits, but not because they reduced income tax rates. The future is even clearer. Over the last 40 years revenues have averaged about 18% of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office projects that tax collections will run about 18.2% of GDP in 2020, even if the Bush tax cuts are preserved. In the past, outlays averaged 20.3% of GDP. The CBO expects that to go to 26.5% without action. Spending is the problem. But the issue is not partisan. Republicans bear equal responsibility with Democrats — the Medicare drug benefit was a budget-buster just like health care “reform,” and the misguided Bush administration wars have turned into unfunded liabilities. However, the answer is not handing more of people’s earnings over to the same legislators who have so prodigiously wasted past monies. The “patriotic millionaires” would do more good if they campaigned to stop legislators from gaily wasting taxpayers’ dollars day in and day out. Only politicians would benefit from a tax hike like that suggested by PMFS. Still, if the “patriotic millionaires” really believe the government collects too little money, they should personally contribute more. The organization argues increasing taxes “is both an ethical and patriotic decision,” but there is nothing ethical or patriotic about taking other people’s money. Real fiscal patriots would give more of their own cash. Earlier this year Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), ranking member of the Finance Committee, wrote the PMFS coordinator to helpfully point out that “For those that are interested in making voluntary contributions to pay down the national debt, the process is both easy and advantageous.” Voluntary payments to reduce the debt came to only $3.1 million in 2010, leaving much room for the “patriotic millionaires” to help out. The PMFS responded rather churlishly, denouncing the idea of allowing people to “opt out” and noting that the government even used rationing during World War II. But the biggest problem, argued PMFS, is that “we are a very small group. If there were even the remotest chance of making a noticeable dent in the problem by acting alone we would have done it already.” So it appears that there are virtually no “patriotic millionaires” ready to give politicians more money to waste. Rather, the PMFS apparently represents a few “unpatriotic redistributionists” who mostly want to take more of other people’s money. In support of raising taxes the PMFS members contend that “We have been more fortunate than most people.” But they also likely pay more taxes than most people. In 2008, the last year for which the figures are available, the top 1% of earners paid 38% of total income tax levies; the top 5% paid 59%. The top quarter paid 86%. These numbers generally have been increasing over time. They rose after the 1986 Reagan tax reform, which kicked many poorer people off the income tax rolls entirely. The shares of taxes paid by wealthier Americans also rose after the Bush tax cuts. In contrast, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% started out below 10% and fell steadily over time, to less than 3% in 2008. In fact, federal policy, particularly the earned income tax credit and child credit now mean that almost half of filers pay no income tax. Virtually no one in the bottom income quintile and only a minority in the next quintile owe anything. Never mind, says PMFS. Member Paul Egerman argued that “If our country is really broke, then we can’t afford to give tax cuts to people like me.” However, tax cuts give nothing. Rather, they allow people of all income levels to keep more of their own money, money usually earned through hard work, risk-taking, investment acumen, and/or entrepreneurial insight. Yet the worst blindness is the failure to address what additional revenues would be used to finance. To Sen. Hatch’s argument that the deficit reflects overspending, replied PMFS: “This is quibbling over semantics. Deficits result when spending exceeds receipts. Whether that happens because spending is too high or receipts are too low is a matter of perspective and priorities.” It is a matter of perspective and priorities, which must be addressed. If the U.S. was locked in a struggle for national survival, then one might call on the American people for a maximum sacrifice. But the exploding deficit reflects old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics. Hiking taxes would reward those responsible for America’s current financial travails. So the “patriotic millionaires” shouldn’t wait on others to join them. If they believe there is an “ethical and patriotic” obligation to pay more, they have a duty to act. Right now. The easiest step, as suggested by Sen. Hatch, would simply be to give money to reduce the national debt. But that should be just a start. So-called economic patriots should routinely inflate their income tax liabilities. Whether they are patriotic billionaires, millionaires, or even thousandaires, they should engage in a little creative accounting. One of the virtues of America’s outrageously complicated tax system is the fact that it offers many opportunities for paying more to the government. Pick up the 1040. Don’t claim dependents, irrespective of how many children one has. Take the standard deduction instead of itemizing. Claim extra interest, dividends, and miscellaneous income. Maybe even toss in some nonexistent alimony. On the Schedule C make up income and don’t claim expenses. Do the same with capital gains. What self-respecting “patriotic millionaire” would take advantage of unfair loopholes in order to deny Uncle Sam needed revenue? Finally, inflate taxes owed. Don’t take any credits and toss in some “additional taxes” at the end. The IRS might be a bit perplexed about how the numbers were derived, but the agency isn’t likely to turn down extra cash. This strategy can be repeated year in and year out. “Patriotic millionaires” should do the same for their state and city taxes. Those governments also need money, lots of it! There is much wrong with America’s tax system. The personal income tax is complex and intrusive. High corporate tax rates place the U.S. at an international disadvantage. Excessive capital gains taxes discourage investment. But one thing is not a problem: paying the government too little. It would be nice if all millionaires were patriotic. But love of country does not mean campaigning for increased taxes that would spark even more greedy raids on taxpayers. The best way for everyone to demonstrate their commitment to America would be to battle against the non-stop special interest looting that occurs in Washington.

I don't think that either the commander or the commandee can be moving or hiding to maintain your C2 link. This may dependent upon what difficulty level you are playing at too.

I don't know anything about this incident of an undercover police officer causing mayhem as a faux anarchist. I'm sure a link can be produced, so let's just say that I accept that this happened as a fact. What relevance does it have to the London riots? I'm not sure what your point is here JonS. Are you implying that 1. All the looters in London are undercover police officers 2. Anarchists do not destroy property or loot, only undercover police officers posing as Anarchists do 3. Anarchists are a peaceful lot and only damage property and loot because they are oppressed or encouraged to do so by the Police. 4. Something else ....? I'm just curious what your line of reasoning is for bringing that incident up. There is probably hours of video evidence of anarchists destroying property so your comments are a bit puzzling to me. Having said that, I don't get the impression that the London riots have anything to do with Anarchists. There may be a few in there, but it doesn't seem like a coordinated anarchist type of thing. If it were there would be things of political importance being vandalized. One comment about "Capitalism". There was no such thing as "Capitalism" before Karl Marx came along. Yep, amazingly enough business actually happened dating all the way back to before the time of the Pharoahs and guess what? Amazingly enough business and commerce actually worked before the writings of Karl Marx appeared in the mid 1800s. That's because what some are referring to as Capitalism was just known as economic activity before Marx and was not representative of a political philosophy. "Capitalism" is just a construct of Karl Marx and it's the way business and commerce happens in a natural environment so it's impossible for 'Capitalism' to 'go down the tubes'. What we are now referring to as Capitalism even happened in the Soviet Union under Smokin' Joe Stalin .... imagine that! It was known as "The Black Market". Now some here may think that full state control of all economic activity (communism) is the way to go in order to ensure "fairness" and "equality", but I think that the history of that approach seems to have a poor track record.

Warren Buffett is a leftist through and through so he has an agenda. You don't think the poor are paying 35,000 per plate to attend President Obama's birthday bash do you? Perhaps a few of those millionaires and billionaires riding in their corporate jets lighting their cigars with $100 bills attended the big shindigs. Wall Street is run through with Progressive leftists. What do you think George Soros is? How about Bono? He loves to rail against how everyone needs to pay more in taxes then he stashes all his cash in Ireland. Do what I say not what I do. It may not make sense to some for the wealthy to be leftists like you Diesel and why they have this outlook is unclear, but the best theory I've read is that they want to keep others from attaining their status by putting roadblocks to the success of others. So they rail about others paying more taxes because they know that the taxes will hurt the up and comers trying to break into their social class a lot more than it will hurt the old money that is already established.

I always assume that my opponent has already played the scenario as the side I'm playing and thus knows my entire force mix and where they are deployed. When I set up I pick an open field and I then move my entire starting force into that field organized by platoons and companies. I then set up from scratch and create my own defensive scheme without any influence from the default deployment. It's a bit time consuming to do it that way, but it's the only way to make sure my deployment is fresh. Start by deploying heavy weapons such as AT guns, then deploy your HMGs, then last deploy your squads and fire teams. The heavy weapons are like the frame of your defense and the squads form the filler and bulk where needed.

The Nazi Party was not a party of the ‘Right’. The National Socialist Worker’s Party was very much a creature of the left. Here is the NAZI party platform http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm Let me bring your attention to a few points 10.The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11.That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12.Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13.We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15.We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. 16.We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young. 23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberatepolitical lies and disseminate them through the press. 24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. Now, let’s have a look at the Communist Manifesto of 1848 Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Abolition of all right of inheritance. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto As far as people of Jewish faith are concerned - well Karl Marx hated them just like the Nazi's did http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ I don't really want to start a political discussion here, but a little research can go a long way. Nazi's are not communists though. There are important differences. However, the National Socialist Worker's Party was most assuredly 'left wing' and not 'right wing'.

An individual led to a gas chamber and then executed has no chance of escaping their fate. An individual who is in a bomb shelter whilst enemy bombers are dropping bombs on their city has a chance of escaping that day being their last. That is the distinction for me as far as the actual action goes. However, as far as intent goes everything that I've read from "Bomber Harris" indicates that his intent arguably may have been of a similar nature to the Nazi intent, only driven by a different motivation and vs a different subset of the human race. I don't think Bomber Harris would have minded one bit if he could have annihilated every living breathing German. Whether Germans were deserving or not is up for debate.

The thing I wonder about is whether France could have won the war in 1939. If France had launched a major offensive into Germany in September of 1939 maybe a lot of subsequent misery could have been avoided.

I have read that Hitler felt that the Western Allies invasion was the moment of victory for Germany and that he couldn't wait for the Allies to land. The reason being that if Germany smashed the invasion it was felt that the Western Allies wouldn't be able to mount another cross channel invasion for many years. This would allow the Germans to pull all their forces out of the west and then smash the Soviets. Apparently this is the reason why so many SS units were concentrated in the west and why attack was so prominent on their minds. I have also read that air supremacy of the allies was just one of many factors that hampered German operations. Apparently American and British superiority in artillery was a factor as well. I have read many accounts of how German soldiers felt that the Allies fired artillery almost non stop in quantities that were unheard of by the German army - something on the order of 10 Allied shells for every German shell fired in return. It's been said that the area around Caen had almost as much artillery activity as WW1. Although with fewer guns overall than in WW1, the guns were modern relative to the WW1 pieces and apparently the British and Americans never lacked for ammunition.

Yes, that's it right there. A game contains a set of features that makes the game what it is. Now some may have a set of features that they feel are desireable but are not present in the game as currently built. So, the Flagellant will see the absence in the game of features that exist only in their own minds and complain that x, y, or z is broken. Well if you are going to look at a game in terms of features that exist only in your own mind then you are going to have to be prepared to accept a lot of disappointment. To the point of tanks firing on the move - Steve has already discussed it and why it's like the way it is. Steve has also said that BFC is working on a way to include tanks firing at the short halt. If someone plays the game, knows that tanks fire on the move, knows that Steve is aware of this fact, and knows that BFC is working on a solution, yet still comes to the forums to complain about it - that is what I would describe as the classic behavior of the "Flagellant". If the game is unplayable because tanks fire on the move, then the obvious solution is to put the game and the whip down and do something else for a while. The game itself isn't broken because the game is acting exactly the way it's supposed to act. The problem is within the mind of the Flagellant and their expectations of how the game 'should' work.

If "Fanboy" is a descriptive meaning someone who likes a game then I would count myself to be a Fanboy. I like this game and I'm proud of it. What I don't get is why anyone who hates this game and continues to play it ... let's call them "Flagellants" ..... would continue to come to the forums to complain about a game that they clearly do not like. Most normal folk would simply stop playing and do something else. After all, playing a game is something that we would normally do in our free time for our own personal enjoyment. Anyone who repeatedly plays something that they don't like and then complains about it is not demonstrating rational behavior. I would hope that everyone posting on this forum likes the game to some degree and can be classified as a Fanboy. If there are a few Flagellants then I truly feel sorry for you because your life must be a continuous exercise in pain and futility.

That's certainly the rational choice. After all, CMBB and CMAK still play the way they always have and if you enjoy those games better than CMBN why would you continue to play CMBN? It makes no sense. Oh, and I assume you mean you will stay well clear of future BF products since CMBB and CMAK are still BF products.

I think this feature is totally overrated. I would much rather have firing from the short halt than this.

Try Carbide Carbide. That's a fun scenario for head to head play

There was always a command where a tank could spot an enemy unit and stop to fire. The balance of the move order was always cancelled at that point though. In WW2 there should probably be no firing on the move since SOP for tanks at the time would be to halt, fire, then move again - ie, firing at the short halt which Steve mentioned. Apparently the part that is tricky is getting the tank to start again after firing from the halt without the intervention of the player through the plotting of additional orders. Think of firing from the short halt as a 'compound' order I guess because the move order would need to be cancelled for the tank to fire, and then reinstated once the tank resumed it's move. Until the issue of firing from the short halt is resolved tank gunnery while on the move will always be an imperfect representation of 'reality'.

This is more than likely a feature. When you as the player lose the HMG gunner and drop the HMG to the ground, you can stop your little pixeltruppen and do some buddy aid to pick up the weapon. The AI isn't so smart. Therefore if the gunner gets hit in an AI controlled heavy weapons team then the heavy weapons team would lose it's heavy weapon for the duration. This would make the team much too fragile for the AI since the team would lose it's reason for existance with the incapacitation of one man. So instead of having AI heavy weapons teams running about with no heavy weapons whenever the gunner gets hit, it seems reasonable to just have the heavy weapon get reassigned to the next gunner automatically.

The smart Democrats http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAhmYKlsWW4

Sometimes stuff gets overlooked so it doesn't hurt to bring stuff up every once in a while. There is so much stuff they are working on that it's easy to miss something.