Tero

Originally posted by Olle Petersson: With Fionn' s rules, air support is banned. Yes. Not really; The .50 is considered small arms fire that is solved in a completely different (and less abusive) manner. Depends how you define abusive. 50cal is 12,7mm (as opposed to 20mm). It fires an AP solid shot (compared to a either HE grenade or AP shot). You get the 50cal (with all its benefits and no extra cost) with almost every AFV in the inventory while you have to specifically purchase the 20mm FLAK. This is historically OK, BUT the TC's seem awfully adept in using them in ground support in exposed combat conditions when IRL they would have often had to climb out of the turret to actually fire it at the target. If they had not stowed it away as they seem to have done when there was no fear from enemy air attacks. The tripod version also has considerably less ammo than a towed 20mm. That is what you get when you have a wheeled undercarriage and can move the gun in one piece. [ May 27, 2002, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

True. How many more "martyrs" will the torture inspire ? How will it be used as propaganda against the torturer ? Stomping on one ant may wake up the entire colony. [ May 27, 2002, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

If the FLAK gets banned then the air support should be banned as well. Also, if the use of 20mm FLAK in ground support is considered gamey doesn't that make the use of the 50cal in ground support gamey too ?

Originally posted by GreenGriffon: And Tero, I have not "inhumanized my opponent through intentional doctrination or cultural biases" LOL. The Nazi party inhumanized ITSELF with all that it stood for. I don't go around throwing these sentiments at any other race, creed, or class of people, even terrorists who blow themselves up in crowded civilian markets, so get off your high horse. I don't think I'm out of line by saying that the Nazis (not a small group of people by any measure) earned themselves a unique level of disgust because they calculated and implemented the wholesale systematic slaughter and disposal of millions of innocent human beings with unprecedented cruelty. They EARNED their reputation. Anyone who disagrees is just as entitled to their opinion as I am. And to try to compare the war crimes of the allies or Russians, alleged or proven, is laughable at best. History is a good judge of character and there's an established and unrefuted reason behind the stigma attached to the Nazi party. I realize they had some pretty neat military toys, but let's not forget what they stood for. I enjoy playing with Tiger tanks as much as the next enthusiast, but sometimes I wonder what moral compass some of you follow. In my opinion the the men who were responsible for Orador sur Glane and My Lai are in the same cathegory. To express wishes the other lot and all who wear the same uniform should die a horrible death and exclude parts of or apply different set of rules to the other lot for what ever reasons is not logical. Also, to express such wishes to anybody, no matter how guilty or not the people are, is sinking to the same level with the ones that are guilty. NOTE: this applies to all nations and armies. My Lai is referred to only because of the frame of reference. I am sure there are similar pairs of evenst that trancend the time barrier. The Nazi regime was guilty of truly evil acts. The guilty were punished but funnily enough the conquering powers let some of the evil men live because they served a purpose in the interest of their captors. Consequently, are the conquering powers guilty of the Nazi crimes because of this ? I am a firm believer of the capital punishment. But not arbitrary capital punishment administered according to such criteria as guilty by association or guilty by virtue of inheritance and place of birth. Nor should the punisment serve a purpose other than the punishment for the actual crime commited. And all guilty of the same crime should suffer the same punishment.

Sorry, I did not mean you. The original remark I am refering to was made by GreenGriffon. I thought I had proof read it to iron out the warts but looking at it again I see where I made the error. I will amend my post.

I find that particularly one sided. So every German should suffer when dying? Not everyone was a member of the NSDAP. And even if they were what does it matter. The allies did some disgusting things too. The Russians in Nemmersdorf, Ukraine, Berlin. And the western allies in Dresden. So ALL allies should suffer when they die too? Germany was raped by the versailles treaty after ww1. I can pretty much understand why someone would join the Wehrmacht or WAFFEN-SS for that matter. (edit: excl. Reguliere SS & SS Polizei etc) Regards, Gryphon</font>

It will be, as far as some members of the board are concerned. </font>

Originally posted by Keke: It could be quite interesting. Most of the Finnish infantry in `The War of Lappland´ were green (in CM terms), because majority of the battle hardened veterans were demobilized after truce with Soviets. Are you sure about this ? They were mostly the younger generation, yes. But most of them had years of combat experience under their belt. Some had to stay on for the duration of their national service even after the war, having fought 5 years in the front. That would make them veteran or better in CM terms, not green. The demobilization did concern the majority if the army. They had to demobilize the army from the peak number of 500 000 to 35 000 (standing army strenght during peace time) in a matter of months while conducting combat actions against the Germans who numbered (IIRC) over 200 000. But of course you know all this.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: So were Finnish horses uber-equines, then? Not really. I have read the life expectancy of equines in the German army in the Eastern Front for example was not very good. Winters were really the bane of German horses. Some (most ?) Finnish horses survived years of service during the war.

Originally posted by Offwhite: But trucks don't panic and bolt under fire or take incremental casualties. Funnily enough infantry units do both. Why not model them using an ordinary infantry units as a base instead of a truck or other vehicle. For example a team of four horses could be possibly done using a team of 4 souped up men as a base unit. That way the unit would have both the load carrying capacity and all the morale and other aspects related with the beasts of burden under fire. NOTE: there were veteran horses which were more stable under fire than conscript horses.

Originally posted by kipanderson: Another point where I differ from some is in the idea that the tactical and the operational can be totally separated. To separate them would mean that the ratios would get even more unflattering when you take out the POW's off the equation and use only actual battlefield casualties (KIA/WIA). The MIA are marginal as in tactical context at coy/battalion level the number or MIA is usually "manageable" and in direct correlation with the type of battle being fought. I know, MIA and POW's are "casualties" every as much as KIA/WIA. Been around this block a few times. But I see what Keke is after. The Finns lost only ~2000 (confirmed POW) to ~4000 (total MIA) between 1941 to 1945 (figures off the top of my head so feel free to shoot them down). That is peanuts compared to the big boys and their MIA/POW figures. Also, the Finnish active periods were limited (summer of 1941 - winter 1942 and the summer of 1944) so it is easier to discern the tactical and the operational data from each other. With that in mind it is not so hard to envision tactical and operational data being disseminated into separate entities for other participants. Only, with the POW's out of the picture the overall ratios turn worse at least in the case of the Western Allies. Can't have that now can we ? The Red Army ratios against the Finns: The Finnish POW exchange rate for the entire 1941-45 era (~2000 Finns vs ~65000 Russians taken by the Finns) is absurdly favourable to the Finns. Soviet sources state the KIA during the summer of 1944 assault numbers ~23 500. The number of Finnish KIA was ~12 000 (again, off the top of my head so feel free to shoot them down). That would translate into approx. 2:1 loss ratio even with Soviet era figures without a pinch of salt at a time when the norm was 1.6:1. However, when the Soviets start to win battles at the operational level, but at far lower casualty ratios, there is no avoiding the conclusion as to what is happening. The number of POWs taken is starting to get proportionately bigger compared to the KIA/WIA the Germans are suffering thus bringing the overall ratios down ? The Destruction of Army Group Centre could not have been performed at the speed it was, and at the casualty ratio it was, with Soviet forces at the same relative combat effectiveness as they were in the Stalingrad operation. Soviet casualties would have been very much higher; the pockets would not have collapsed as fast. One contributing factor to the speedy collapse of the pockets was the fact the Germans were actively trying to break out. In Stalingrad they dug in. Also the fact Stalingrad was a city and the other pockets were formed in rural areas does factor in. Then there is the Memel pocket which held on for quite a long time. And the "moving pocket" the Grossdeutchland rode on towards the west. An overall casualty ratio of 1.6 to 1, Soviet to German, does mean that in every operation where the Soviets suffer twice the casualties the Germans did; there was also an operation in which the Soviets suffer the same casualties as the Germans. Once again, there is no avoiding the overall conclusion. The Red Army got better at its trade. But it was still ever as much willing to take the casualties and it could also afford them. That did not change one bit from 1939 to 1945.

Originally posted by Grisha: Not because I doubt your claims, but more that there had to be an explanation for all this, whether military, or political. Looking from the Soviet POV and the Finnish POV the set of facts are very different. The Soviets of 1944-45 were an entirely different army than the one of 1939-42, with a very sound military art(and science). It is strange to me as well what happened. Even Glantz hasn't covered the Continuation War. Perhaps his esteemed Russian friends have persuaded him nothing of interest happened in this neck of the front that has not been satisfactorily covered before. "See, even the German sources corraborate the Soviet historical tradition concerning the Continuation War". I wonder what kind of a responce your findings would get on the Russian Military Forum. I think you should try to float them there to see what kind of a responce they would get from people like Oleg. I really think someone needs to start accessing the Soviet archives, looking for explanations wrt the Continuation War. Only by hearing the Soviet side will you be able to piece it all together, Finnish & Soviet. As Keke said the Finnish historians have been rummaging there already.

Will there be separate dodah's for Protestant or other non-Greek-catholic people (thinking of SS cemetaries with the cool upward arrow crosses) ?

Before this tread sinks into oblivion: The Soviets refere to this operation as the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk operation. What has puzzled us Finns is why they chose to stagger the start of the attacks so that it was possible to widraw troops from the front North of Lake Ladoga to the Isthmus front. And apparently that pull out started unnoticed. Had the attacks been simultaneous it would have been much harder to mass the troops to stop the push in the Isthmus. Also: the disuse of ground attack aircrafts in interdiction was something that has puzzled me at least. They had absolute and total airsuperiority and they failed to interdict rail and road transports in debth. They did make moving in the immediate front line area difficult but further back they made no concentrated effort to interdict traffic.

IIRC both sides used captured AFV's IRL to make the sentries guarding bridges not far from the frontline etc. think for a few seconds longer before opening fire. Having a captured vehicle lead a collumn, especially in the dark, would make the enemy think all of the AFV's are friendlies after the first one is ID'd as a friendly.

Originally posted by Grisha: Thanks for your reply You are wellcome. No, generally razvedka/maskirovka were geared to enhance the initial breakthrough-period of an operation. However, razvedka did indicate likely enemy reserves and their most probably routes. Also, maskirovka could be conducted to a diminished degree through the extensive use of forward detachments, but in cases where advance routes were limited or the objective could be determined with a high degree of certainty, then the effectiveness of this method would be negligible. No, it didn't extend into the exploitation phase as much. Also, forward detachments were part of exploitation. So, the Finnish fumbling the ball on the preparations for the assault was actually beneficial. All the maskirovka measures went equally unnoticed and thus were totally ineffective in their intended purpose ? Then again there was no fooling the Finns. Both sides knew the most likely route the attack would take anyway. In the northern half of the Isthmus the Red Army advanced only as far as the Vuoksi river. The natural choke point of the southern route was between the bay of Viipuri and Vuosalmi. Curiously enough the attack was directed there and the attack was beaten back there. Not so much the Finnish defense capabilities, but that it was assumed the Finns would try to hold the line at all costs - rather than pull back 120 kms to another defensive position. So this is why the ground attack planes did not interdict the trains far behind the front line but concentrated on the area just behind the front line.

Originally posted by Grisha: I understand how close this issue with the Continuation War is to both of you, so I'll keep my comments civil and respectful. I ask the same of you. OK. Mind you, being respectful does not mean I can not disagree with you on some of the points. The Soviet Karelian operation's political objective was to force unconditional surrender at the negotiating table(something Finland never agreed to). Militarily, this operation was to restore the border to the 1940 line. A few discrpencies here. First: if the political objective was what you say it is then it is not unreasonable to assume the ultimate political goal was also the occupation of the entire country. Unconditional surrender was a king pin when first feelers were sent out in late 1943 and when the actual cease fire agreement was signed a couple of months after the attack petered out. IMO when the Soviets dropped that then the original political goal of the operation was trashcanned. Second: the military objective was unattainable for one simple reason. The 1940 border was negotiated. It ran (runs) in an area that provides very few defensive benefits for the Finns. Holding that borderline would be militarily impossibile. Both the Winter War and the 1944 assault ended up pretty much exactly along the same frontline in both cases. I really doubt the Red Army would have stopped at the 1940 border had the Finnish defences collapsed in 1944. The Finns undermined the Soviet operation through an extended withdrawal after buying some time to allow for Finnish units up north to redeploy to a designated defensive position 120kms to the rear, next to Vyborg. 3/4's of this defensive line was also along a river line, making for a particularly difficult situation for the Soviets. The frontline ran along the river Vuoksi also during the Winter War. Both in 1940 and in 1944 the southern sector of the Isthmus was the most critical from the Finnish POV. And in both cases the Red Army advanced the furthest in that very sector. Soviet operations were predicated upon thorough intelligence of enemy defenses and deployment, combined with extensive deception to obfuscate enemy intelligence. By planning an operational withdrawal, the Finns rendered any advantage gained by razvedka/maskirovka moot for the operation. Sounds feasible. First time I have seen this particular interpretation BTW. One noteworthy thing: after the operation was started the Finnish intelligence was up to speed in the SIGINT/ELINT. On several occasions they alerted the front line troops of massing attacks and their exact locations and the artillery would blow the attacking force away before it attacked. That would indicate the razvedka/maskirovka measures did not exceed the start of the operation. At least in this particular occasion. Can you comment on this on operations against the Germans ? Soviet resources were taxed at this point in the war, and it was expected that a Karelian resolution would be forthcoming, thus freeing up Soviet forces on this front to be used in the Baltic and Berlin operations. Logistics had only been arranged for the one operation as well. The Finnish operational withdrawal upset the entire timetable, forcing Soviet forces to conduct extended operations without sufficient preparation or resources. Basically, the Karelian Front had to make do with a bad situation until some resolution was forthcoming on the negotiating table. Sounds feasible. In other words the planning for this operation was done better than for the Winter War but the goals set were based on (overly) optimistic projections on the Finnish defensive capabilities. Again. In the end, the Soviets did not achieve their political or military goals in this operation, but had to compromise with both. The Finnish plan was largely responsible for this result. The Finns took a gamble, but realized where the real Soviet direction lay - Berlin. True. BTW: It is nice to see your findings pretty much corraborate the major key points those done by the Finnish historians and military analysts already right after the war. [ May 11, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Grisha: Very uncharacteristics of the Soviets in '44 to press an operation after meeting a defensive line in the exploitation phase, unless there were other reasons afoot. Occupying the entire country has been suggested. But all Soviet sources claim that was not the plan. I certainly have no answer for Soviet conduct in such unfavorable circumstances. They might not have known the circumstances were so unfavourable. Edit: It may have been politically motivated to force the Finns to sign. Given the fact the first Finnish peace feelers had been sent out in late 1943 that is not propable.

Originally posted by Keke: Nice to see more expertise about the Continuation War, but there was one mistake in your writing. The German defensive doctrine didn´t include retaking of the first defensive line. I was streamlining. Hitlers orders did not allow any widrawals. Consequently any widrawal would have automatically been ordered to be compensated by retaking the lost ground. The fact that it did not take place IRL too often does not mean it was not in the play book. So the result was that the delaying lines at Karelian Isthmus in 1944 were unprepared, and all the plans were based on the hitlerian principle that the first line of defense should be kept at all cost. This was evidenced by the futile counterattacks made by Finnish forces during the first days of Soviet offensive (4th Strategic). I think you are mixing purely tactical and operational/strategical MO's. The Finnish counterattacks were mostly purely local in nature, driven by the basic tactical doctrine established before the war. None I recall were driven by "the hitlerian principle". The High Command ordered the lines to be held to trade time for space. Even a hours worth of delay in the Red Army advance meant so much more troops from North of Lake Ladoga or called up reservist could be mustered at the VKT line defences. When the collapse was a fact it was acknowledged and the troops were ordered to pull back. Which I think does not fit the Hitlerian principles. After the collapse of the first line became evident, the Finnish Army had to improvise 100km of delaying action before the VKT-line, which was now ordered to be the main defensive line. The succesful improvisation of this resulted in textbook adaption of the original German doctrine: 100km of delaying action before the main defensive line. And it was this improvisation where the Finnish Army distinguished itself. With the one difference that counted: the Finnish army was relatively intact for the crusial battles.

Originally posted by Fionn: I think you'd have to agree that the whole emphasis on momentum, follow-on echelons passing through stalled assault echelons etc was done with a view to achieving all of the things you get when you get inside someone's OODA loop. The Soviets just didn't give the lower levels enough free rein to beat the enemy's OODA loop with a superior and faster OODA loop of their own so they relied on speed to negate the effectiveness of any decisions the enemy COs made after running their OODA loops. This is why the Red Army performance seems to have been at its best when the enemy followed the game book and plan as dictated by the prevailing doctrine. It also seems the Red Army was at its worst when the opponent did not play by the book for what ever reason. In effect they beat the OODA loop by making the action irrelevant because of the speed of their advance. The timetable seems to have been the most vulnerable part in the Red Army plans. BY the time the US or German COs got the info and decided on an action and issued orders to their subordinates the situation would have changed enough that those orders no longer would have a decisive impact. And this, of course, lead to the delegation of command to the lowest levels possible as US doctrine evolved to defeat SOviet doctrine with a view to ensuring that the US forces by dint of their very local command levels could react so quickly as to maintain OODA coherency in the face of Soviet follow-on echelons. A very interesting parallel is the Finnish experience in the summer of 1944. Postwar German sources condemn the Finnish course of action as a failure because the Finns failed to follow the German doctrine when defending against a strategic level assault. The Finnish army did not take heed the German warnings and lessons learned they tried to pass on. The German doctrine was to construct a deep defensive zone with multiple defensive lines. That was supposed to dissipate the Red Army strenght until it ran out of steam and the assault was stopped and beaten back (and the original positions were taken back). Admittedly The Finnish army was caught with its pants down. During the static phase (early 1942- June 1944) no real work was done to improve the defensive positions. The intelligence service failed to notify the front line commanders of the clear signs of coming assault. The division to receive the brunt of the initial assault had sent its transportation (horses and tractors) to farm duty some way behind the front line. What happened next is interesting: the Finnish army units facing the attack switched to delaying action and pulled back fighting. The high command started concentrating forces far behind the front line. The Red Army plan went well. They reached and took Viipuri in 10 days (during Winter War it took them 105 days to reach it but they never took it in combat). After Viipuri the Red Army hit a brick wall. From ~20th June until ~20th July the Red Army tried to use massive force to break through the Finnish defences. Any break in the defences would have meant the Red Army would have had a clear path all the way to the capital Helsinki. After July 20th the attacks were called off and cease fire was signed Sept. 5th. Swift local reaction to follow up echelons was relevant only when it meant it could be delayed. OODA coherency during the pull back phase was generally maintained but that was because the game plan was simple: delay and pull back to fight another day. A noteworthy factoid: the Finnish army did not lose any large (from platoon up) formations to encirclements. Any formation that got encirceled tried to slip away and reach friendly lines. The Soviets took only (IIRC) ~2000 Finns as POW during the entire Continuation War, from 1941 to 1944. Beyond Viipuri the plan was equally simple: hold positions at all costs. A breach in the line would mean the fall of the nation. The trick was by then the Red Army units had been worn down. The Finnish doctrine dictated that a defensive line should be in friendly hands at the end of the battle. More often than not this was acheived even if the force had to pull back later on. Of equally importance was the decision to gather the reserves to a location the Finnish army had chosen. If it had been fed to the front line piece meal to try and hold the first line of defence (or a series of defensive lines as required by the German doctrine) the results would have been catastrophic for the Finnish army.

The only real flaw or drawback in the CM command system is IMO the lack of memory of the sub units. You can give orders to them and they act under the influence of the bonuses but if they happen to fall out of CC while they are executing the orders the units are basically SOL without any recollection about how fine, outstanding, inspiring and overall swell guy their CO is. Their attention is at the level of small children (based on their basic experience level of course). The minute they do not see the parent they become roudy and stupid. Since this is a simulation I for one would like to pretend the men in the squads are 20+ and not 2+ even when they are not under CC. (From experience with 1½ and 4 year old sons of my own out of CC even for a minute I think they would make excellent CMBO squad member materiel. ) Having the command delay increase almost instantly is reasonable. Losing stealth and combat bonuses, especially for troops who are not moving or have not moved is ... iffy. Losing moral bonuses is really a tough one. Is the CO inspiring them even when the unit is no longer in CC ? I think he would be. With this in mind: I wonder if the partisan units (and other specialized unit types) in CMBB are modelled as cohesive, organized units or are they representative of the semi-organized ad-hoc bands (or highly independent regular troops in case of non-partisan units). In the Northern sector there was no real partisan activity based on the support of the local populace run from inside the Finnish held territory. Instead the partisan activity was run from across the front lines seprate from the Red Army organization by NKVD. That means the partisans were (in theory) all ardent Communists with above average moral rating. How were they organized in other sectors ? The thing is they attacked mostly civilian targets far inside Finnish territory and when ever they came involved in combat with regular troops they did not fare very well militarily. Several partisan chase operations were conducted and often the partisan units were either destroyed or they driven back across the front lines. They were able to slip from the chasers and usually they did not make a stand unless cornered. And even then they were often able to make good their escape. They took heavy casualties and endured severe hardships. IMO this would translate in CMBB into a above average moral and stealth rating but below average combat (and perhaps command rating) for partisan units (at least in the Northern sector as a whole). [ May 08, 2002, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Doug Beman: Does that mean "understand"? Yes. Makes a wellcome change for "Capishe ?" I hope. Because if so, I believe I do. You were saying that allowing any vehicle to get a freebie bonus by shooting at any TRP (which is there for OBA) is unrealistic. Gotcha on that; sorry for misunderstanding. No harm done. to satisfaction of even a simple majority (not that I'm calling any of you simple, in case you thought there was a pun there), My last name is not Majority. the question: Given two tanks in perfectly equal circumstances EXCEPT one is targeting an ambush marker, how much more accurate should that tank be when firing at targets on that ambush marker? IMO much more accurate than they are now. But that is not exactly qualtifiable. For the record, my feeling is that there should be some bonus. Equilibrium ? I'll be damned. However, in the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the degree, any alteration is going to feel just as abstracted and unjustified, and generate similar howls of discontent, as does "I missed 3 shots at an enemy tank crossing an ambush marker 200m away" or similar happenings-of-excrement elicit from players. The thing is the bum rap the AT-gun's have gotten has not affected the Allies as much as it is the German side as the defender which would benefit more from this tweak more. Take the 88 FLAK for example. No way no how (most of the time) will it hit a stationary Sherman at any range with the first shot. And with absolute spotting the Sherman is liable to knock out the 88 before it fire the necessary shots to increase the hit chance. The AT guns are historically accurately vulnerable but they do not seem to be able to deliver the historical results in hit accuracy. In CMBB-world historically both sides used more DF towed guns and both sides conducted offensive and defensive operations. It remains to be seen if the AT gun performs better in CMBB than it does in CMBO.

Originally posted by Mattias: Your reply to Tuomas for example, is bordering to the ridiculous in this respect... Since you are not a Finn some of the finer nuances are bound to escape you. I trust you are not aware there is an offical government plan here in Finland to further the image of the country and to make Finland better known abroad. Last time I checked (years ago) it was the duty of MEK (Matkailun Edistämiskeskus - State Turism board) to execute this plan. In case you have not noticed Santa Claus has accompanied our president in numerous state visits to further this cause. This is why getting adverse publicity abroad for publicly displaying icons that some people think is unquestionably unholy and unpure is something the people concerned with the image Finland has abroad will not look upon too kindly. Yes, we are a bit sensitive about the picture we give out abroad. As to my reply to Tuomas being ridiculous: - There are only a few notable Finnish language gaming magazines in Finland. Pelit is the most important PC gaming magazine. Mikrobitti is its sister publication, focused more on other aspects of computing. I am not aware other gaming PC magazine of repute. The rest I know of are console magazines. - Steve saying they have a record of doing things right: Well, he who maketh absolutely no mistakes shall be granted the privilege of throwing the first stone at me. And if you read Steves original remark at least I detect a healthy amount of selfirony in it. - the Finnish swastika and how relevant it is: if it is not included in the original game but you have to MOD it to get it then the localization is not IMO true and thus incomplete. - Keltainen Pörssi is the top Finnish buy-and-sell paper - IMO CMBO/BB is not the kind of game a casual player (what that means I do not know) would pick as his second or even third choice when looking for some good time. For the record: I appologise to Tuomas if I have been unreasonably sarcastic in my reply and offended his feelings.

Originally posted by Munter: THAT would certainly draw people's attention, first to the game and secondly to the fact that there is a foreign company somewhere that has noticed us. Flattering without ruining the game. Guys ! Lets not go totally overboard here. The box art idea is good. Propably also the cheapest one. A clear sign a foreign company has noticed us and is flattering us would be to release the game in Finland first, even before it was available on the net. [ May 03, 2002, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

Originally posted by Tuomas: So having the game available on store shells should increase sales significantly. But that does not require the game be localized. There are also few big strategy fans writing to finnish game/computer magazines. All two of them (Pelit and Mikrobitti magazines). Any other magazines ? but as Steve pointed out BTS has a record of doing things right. CMBO has almost as many versions as NT4 has service packs. Yet I do not hear anybody saying Microsoft has a record of doing things right. No disrespect intended. I just want to point out that the localization trend started out in France and Germany to cater to their needs has no real foundation in Finland. They tried out dubbing the Bold and the Beautiful. That experiment went really well. I do not mind reading the subtitles to my sons when watching cartoons. They pick up both Finnish and English like that. Now the global Disney productions say there is a need to dub all of their cartoons. Yet the original versions draw as much people in as the dubbed ones. I know many people choose not to go and see a movie just because it says PUHUMME SUOMEA in the brochure. They ask WHY ? and walk on by. And about the Finnish swastika. I don't see the relevance here. The swastika was used on tanks and on airplanes and they ofcourse are out of scope. Not if you plan on having them in the all versions of the game. I don't think that you could possibly confuse the Finnish tank version for the Nazi one, the arms are too short not to mention it stands upright. Please do a little check around diffrent Finnish sites on military history. All sites displaying it have posted disclaimers explaining the origins of the Finnish swastika. You know the difference. So do other Finns. But most of the people are not Finns. And they have not gotten the Finnish upbringing and they have not been weened on the Finnish experience. Anyway the box art will be important as Mattias pointed out. Maybe some Finns advancing in open formation Which would not the way they actually advance in the game. or maybe a StuG with logs ambushing some T-34s. Missing the first shot. Some kind of national symbols should be visible also. The swastika on the Stug ? What if some foreighner sees it ? We would make the BBC news for sure. Finland would get free publicity we so desperately need. In conclusion I think that there is a clear market for a totally Finnish game. I disagree. There are many players who just want to play few remaches against the Russians every now and then, they just want to kick some Russian ass and the TacAI should suffice for that And when they repeatedly get their arses handed over to them at Tali-Ihantala how soon do you think Keltainen Pörssi would be filled with "Myydään: vähän käytetty TTXX" adds ? With a Finnish game and few good articles about the game in local mags I think the game would sell much better in the Finnish market, especially in this casual player group. I hope and trust BTS will not have to resort to bribing the journos to write up good articles on the game just to get the word out. I think all the efforts to localize the game to Finland are better spent improving the game.