Hamstersss

Hey yo, I'm dumbfounded, and not in the common-folk, dur-dee-dur, lost-in-the-woods, hooked-on-hyphens kind of way. I don't get too involved with mundaneaity, one aspect of which would be considering where I spelled mundanaity right the first time, nor do I construct elaborate fantasies involving myself and a group of morally lax school girls and/or Army Group South. And yet, and yet I can't shake the feeling that something's wrong. What's happened to me? Moreover, I'm too energetic to be a nihilist, so what should I do? Sincerely, The Hobgoblin of the Simple-Minded

This place smells so... spring fresh... Are those doilies? Whoa, anyway, I'm whoring, so do a bloke a favor and take a look: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=004743

Sorry, thought I was in the General Forum, can a moderator move this topic? (Whistling) How about them AT teams?

I was thinking about American football, wondering if you could field an all-running team, when I free associated to war, as warmongers are wont to do, and came up with these questions: a) Given the portability and quality of infantry support weapons, can you field an effective modern army that has no airpower, assuming you have equal resources as your opponent, using the resources that you would have spent on airpower instead spent on AA assets or what have you? The same, except for armor. c) The same, except for naval. d) The same, except all-inclusive (No air, no naval, no armor, just infantry), sort of like Starship Troopers* wherein infantry are self-contained units that integrate the combined arms technology and technique. Granted, these assume equal opponents, which would never happen in real life, and you'd need to make grandiose conjectures regarding cost of technology, et cetera, but I think there's something there. *The book, not the crappy movie.** **Which isn't to say the book is much more than jingoistic sword-rattling but, hey, it's an example.

Why would anyone buy any surface fleets? Carriers are too expensive, battleships and cruisers are right up there with Axis and Allies (Cool, I start with them, never ever buy them). I'm asking this not as a game issue, but from a historical standpoint. How'd these huge surface navies get built if they're so damned expensive in the first place? Why would Germany build the Bismarck, why not use those resources for more fighters or infantry?

I'm aware of the conscription practices during the late war, I was just amazed that you could outfit an army every couple weeks. Not amazed in a suspicious sort of way, either, as I didn't know one way or the other if this was accurate.

It delivers right out of the box, baby.

Was Germany really able to raise an army every couple of weeks?

What would happen if WWII were exactly like CMBO: The exact same results, but everyone would post on the forums about how the results were skewed because the Tiger's mantle wasn't modelled properly, German optics weren't taken into account and American tactics were gamey.

There would be no war crimes because they're too damned difficult to perform. Rangers, commandoes and armored infantry would not be allowed on the battlefield, and all infantry would be forced to surrender any non-standard gear... "Jackson, where the hell'd you get that tommy gun?" "From one of the airborne boys." "Well throw it away and use your damned rifle, that's not part of our TO&E!" [ August 20, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Elijah Meeks ]

Didn't the Soviet Union conquer France back in the 70s? It was part of the deal, I thought, Germany in the forties, America in the fifties, Canada in the sixties, USSR in the 70s. I think it's Senegal's turn to conquer France, right?

I like them, can we keep them? My bet is he's French, just because he sounds so much like Pawbroon, sober of course. Pawbroon drunk is just like pushing a grocery cart with v2 tiggertiger, sturmbatallion rump rump.

Them too and waste money great was v2 but Hitler and Superior DREAM never real thought soviet simplicity and numerical superiority beat fancy Kraut engineering through fast numbers and vast speed of battle fight fight poo, sorry bunker kiss EVA good night for me.

For great justice!

My God, you've figured it out! Damn it, if only Goering had hidoed the panzer, heya! Then we all be dreaming of, "to SUPERIOR RACE"!!!

Feed him some of those grenades that Bruno's POWs seem so adept at hiding.

Suppression fire near the 251/9 until it abandons and then more suppression fire on its crew? I wonder how I'd respond if I saw an opponent doing this during a QB? Probably retreat off the map and go buy Barbie Fashion Designer 2003.

You should accept, graciously, mind you, their surrender. And, if they have the guile and will to hide a few grenades, or even a Bolshevik audacity to surrender only under the pretenses to destroy your war machine, you should salute them with your last breath. It reminds me of those bloody-minded Confederates at Fredericksburg (Or was it Cold Harbor?), who said, upon seeing the bravery of their opponents, "We forgot they were fighting us and cheered at their courage." My God man, everyone dies, not everyone dies with honor. [ August 19, 2002, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Elijah Meeks ]

During the Civil War, the Union would rebuild regiments with new recruits, while the Confederacy would form entirely new regiments with these recruits and leave the veterens in their depleted status. From what I understand, the Germans also rebuilt their regiments, using the veterans as a core, so is this the right way to go? Are the benefits, in CMBO terms, of having three regular regiments better than having one crack regiment and two green regiments, or whatever the average depletion would be?

I think a more achieveable result, coding wise, would be the removal of fog of war for one enemy unit at the beginning of the turn. Sort of a "Ja, ve haf ze Tiger unt a sqvad over zere." But if it delays CMBB for more than a millisecond, then you should be shot for even mentioning it.

So what are the primary reasons an army turns down new technology? I can understand industrial and economic reasons, a few million new rifles and the necessary ammo is a prohibative, but if you look at history it's a rule that new tech is almost uniformly ignored at first. Maxim was trying to sell his gun to everyone. The Greene Rifle disappeared with barely a murmer. Or how about a Walter cycle submarine or, as we're discussing here, the machinegun first as a support weapon and then as an integrated part of the squad.

Mike, 1mil to 2.5mil tons really isn't that much, considering the US alone produced around 15 million tons during the war. At peak, during the Battle of the Atlantic, U-Boats were sinking upwards of 600,000 tons a month. I'm no expert on the subject, as I've said, and rely primarily on this site, which I think is quite good: http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAfour.htm

Ah, but what you're forgetting is the paratroop match has to be played against Hubert. Turn 1 - Hubert sends level 10 Jets and Heavy Tanks into the heart of France. On the East Front, Nuclear bombs obliterate half the Red Army. "Gee, Herbert, I didn't know infantry could move so far." "It's Hubert," the British fleet disappears. Turn 2 - I guess there aren't going to be paratroops in the game anytime soon.

First off, show some manners. Everything I've read has said Italian submarines were ineffectual in WWII. I may be incorrect, but that's the position I came in on. However, I understand it was primarily an up-to-date force, so it makes sense to be included in SC. Just because the Italians didn't use them well doesn't mean we don't have to be the same. Now, go back and read my posts. You'll notice I asked Hubert what he thought about the subs, that I didn't recommend including them, that I merely noticed there were about a hundred of them. Now, go back and read other people's posts, you'll notice a couple people brought up Swedish and Turkish navies. The reason the Black Sea Fleet There are naval supply rules to cover unfriendly seas. Training, along with the quality of the machines, should be taken into consideration when thinking of including a unit. You'll notice, if you read my posts, that I said if they were inferior machines that they shouldn't be included. I don't know where you got the idea that I was advocating the inclusion of Russian submarines, that's why I asked you to read my posts. I merely asked about them. It sounds like you're right, that they shouldn't be included, I don't know enough about their capabilities to say, but for you to jump around and beat your chest just because someone asked about them is uncalled for.

So with the M2, were they still using a 15 round clip? Slapdragon mentions a 6.5mm Soviet assault rifle and Jarmo talks about the Simonov carbine, are these the same guns?