Cary

If I were to look for animals, I would look for units with motorization level 0. It's true though, the Soviets fielded some Cavalry Corps which (just barely) make it above the scale threshold.

.. thanks... glad you took it that way.

You mean the book that turned up in Palmyra, New York?

Kuniworth, Large donations to PACs have been shown to change American policy -- talk to Beijing and Taipei. (I suppose the Europeans made a mistake in not funnelling some of the Marshall plan money back to congress....) Inflammatory, or even reasoned debate seems far less effective. At least with the donations, you can direct it to the people who vote. Eventually, of course, we may decide that our political system's permeability to foreign influence might be dangerous, but I suppose one uses the loopholes while they're there. Would you prefer the League of Nations? I really would avoid complaining about the UN given that we have the Security Council veto. Too many Americans complain too loudly and the Germans, the Japanese, and the Indians will want it as well. Or maybe that doesn't matter. Of course, if it doesn't, how long before they decide that nukes and ICBMs are vital to their security as well? ... but here, as well as with Israel, we really are into current politics. /salute... with Israel, terrorism and the UN thrown in, I suspect one would stir the pot to keep it from boiling over. I imagine this baby can keep bubbling quite happily of its own accord. [ July 14, 2006, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

I'd certainly like to agree with you, the problem being that I'm afraid the "smaller, way to crowded, too dangerous" logic led directly to the idea that we were fighting a "war to end all wars" in 1917. You are right about Hitler and Stalin in many ways: to my mind they were products of the First World War -- both German and Russian society were so torn up by the war and its aftermath that there was an opening for kooks and yahoos to come to power. (Whether it was Stalin or Trotsky and Lenin who were the kooks is a debate for another day). It remains tragic that Hitler was the particular kook the German elites chose. Carthaginian Peace, btw: the Romans' very conclusive end to the Punic wars. Tactically, the Romans were generally uninspired. But they were very thorough. Diced, a very good point. I guess the main answer I'd give is that I think as a peasant I'd much rather have Marlborough's army (or Lord North's) tramp through my cornfield than Wallenstein's or Karl Gustav's. But you're right, there's much to be said for bringing wars to a good ending. 1918 and 1945 were not, 1989... well, I guess the jury's still out, but I can think of far worse. [ July 14, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Funny, I thought I was defending the "PC Liberals." Frankly, on the issue of entangling alliances Buchanan is in good company: the fact that he seems so far-out is part of the reason for my signature. "Neither allies nor enemies, only interests" worked pretty well for Castlereagh (and Churchill) and he didn't have slaves (or, I grant you, a toaster and an SUV), while "never ally" worked quite well for Frederick I. Conversely, the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary came to an instructive end. Given the Arab's tendency to fight themselves, and the Israeli's innate resourcefulness, I have little concern as to their actual need for American aid. I sincerely hope that they are less addicted to our aid payments than we are to foreign oil. As to the issue of Europe and oil, I'm sure there will be some interesting responses from across the pond. Sadly, however, it may be how Russia wins the Cold War. No question. There are a number of people who talk about Dresden or the nuclear bombings without knowing what they are talking about, and I can understand why you'd find them annoying. And I'd very much like to accept your logic about war and hell. But my own considered opinion is that accepting Sherman's line leads down a very dangerous slope. This is not least because few modern societies can actually accept the Carthaginian peace -- kill the men, salt the wells, and, in a concession to "humanity" sell the women into slavery -- that is consistent with Sherman's logic. And the problem is that committing fully to war often makes the Carthaginian peace the logical end-point. The problem is that once one accepts that war is an instrument to achieve a political end, then a very significant effort has to be made to ensure that the means don't make the end impossible. To me, it is plausible that the horrific century we are trying to escape began its downward spiral when the combatants in the first world war lost sight of the limits of war. Only if it was a "war to end all wars" could the casualties be made good, but the hope of a "war to end all wars" led directly to the terrible bungle that was the treaty of Versailles. If we accept that "war is hell," we can only justify "unleashing hell" on each other with the promise that we will build heaven on earth in the aftermath. Our record on this is poor. [ July 14, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

A fair point. But cuius regio, euis religio worked far better than the alternative. Let's say that "faith-based diplomacy" was pretty much discredited between 1560 and 1648. The Westphalian adage is even more appropriate in the age of nukes than the age of the stake, the pike, and the musket. Personally, I believe that killing is a mortal sin. Yet in international affairs I accept that people sometimes cannot or should not act on this belief: war is sometimes justified. This latter I would call an acceptance, not a belief. [ July 14, 2006, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Because we generally accept that mixing religion and politics is a disaster. Hey Rambo not often I agree with some of your views but I agree 100% with you on this. Every time I hear a PC liberal tell me how sad it was that all those poor 'innocent' people died at Dresden it makes me cringe. After all Hitler was brought to power by the German people, sure once he got to the top he made sure he stayed there but for me bottom line you just can't make AH the scrape goat for everything that happened. AH didn't personally kill 6 million Jews, I would be surprised if he personally killed any of them. He didn’t personally invade France, Poland, Norway etc etc. He didn’t personally bomb London or Warsaw … well you get the idea. It is so much easier to blame one person, or even one nation for the crimes on humanity but ultimately we are all responsible. It makes me sad how easy people are to blame a single person, well maybe it is so that we can live with ourselves and suppress our own guilt. … gets off soap box and goes back to more fun topics ….. </font>

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them. Please stop that. - Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948. - Press Israel to follow the public international law. If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>

Well Rambo, since you've jumped back into the conversation... Is this bashing us or praising us? Seems like Liam's saying that Americans are cowards... Perhaps we'd better get our story straight.

Good points Hyazinth, and well put. (Your English is so good that it's clear I disagree with you. ) Note first, the "Yellow Press" is almost as likely to print "In Flanders' Fields" as another photograph of "the fallen." There was a study out about six years ago trying to get a handle on just how "casualty averse" different groups of people in the United States actually were: in general politicians were least willing to accept casualties, the professional military somewhere in between, and the general populace the most. There was significant disagreement, for example between people in governnment and the public as to when to pull the plug on an operation like Somalia (in 1991). Politicians seemed to think 40 casualties was too high, the general public (I'm trying to remember, but I think the number was) 400. So there's something more going on than just the public seeing pictures, not liking them, then saying "pull out." This is, by the way, in line with most studies of Vietnam -- popular protests were much less significant than disaffection amongst political elites (George Kennan, Walter Lippmann and other cognoscenti first, but then widening circles of high officials -- George Ball, then eventually even McNamara and Bundy) and increasing concern within the military about the damage stalemate was doing to their institution. Certainly there were a bunch of noisy students on the campuses, but by and large the American populace was still relatively willing to believe that Kontum was a vital national interest for which it was worth fighting and dying. (How many people remember where Kontum actually is, speaking of our vital interests?) As to this, catch Rambo in a bad mood and he might argue with you for implying that Americans are cowards who put too much value on their own skin.... I'll save my breath on that argument. But have you any data on this? A comparison of Russian and American behavior in the Cold War doesn't really support your hypothesis: the U.S. seems quite willing to send boys to die for places like Kontum; at least given the casualty figures, the Soviets far less so. Granted, the Soviets are quite happy to spend North Korean, Vietnamese, or Chinese lives at a high discount, but that's not particularly a surprise. Do you account for the fact that in World War II Soviets were dying at home, while "our boys" were dying abroad? Can you give an estimate of the home-court discount on casualties? And finally... I detect a bit of sarcasm here, but wouldn't causing 4/5ths of the battle casualties the Germans suffered between 1941 and 12/44 count as bleeding the Germans white? I'd suggest leaving your PC fantasy-land to engage with facts. Granted, there's a little debate about the numbers Wiki used (Overman's), but it's at the margins and doesn't concern the ratio of losses between fronts. Further, the data is German -- ethnic stereotypes aside, the records are available and have been available for half a century, in contrast to the less-reliable soviet records. [ July 14, 2006, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

.... ahm.. nvm. [ July 13, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Granted, the Soviets were right at the edge of destruction, probably unable to breath anywhere near easy until after the 6th Army surrendered in 1943. And, further, the duece and a half was critical in allowing the Soviets to make it to Berlin. But, contrary to an above post, my calculation is that the Soviets caused about 80% of the German military casualties between 1941 and 1945. Maybe I'm just PC to think that this is a significant contribution to the war effort. My numbers are here, admittedly based on wikipedia, but, well, if you're sure they're wrong, change them... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=019963;p=8#000184 Hyazinth, in general I agree with you, but I'm not so sure about your first point -- France, Germany, and Britain all do quite well at bludgeoning each other into bloody pulps from 1914-1918. The Western Allies we would, of course, consider modern democracies, while Germany's resilience owed much to the concessions Bismarck and the Kaiser had made to democracy in the decades before. Granted, a drunk (Grant) won the American Civil War, but he was a democratic drunk. And, for that matter, the Franco-Prussian war would have lasted much longer had Napoleon III not been a fool and gotten himself captured. A more interesting question is what the world would like like today if the United States had made an even smaller contribution in World War I. Agreed; Trotsky was a brilliant ideologue, well read, and cultured. Stalin was a union organizer from Georgia, somewhat brutal, but not a thinker-- few Bolsheviks took him all that seriously. He was given the job of keeping the party membership cards up to date.... We know how the story ended. As to Stalin's personality: Paranoid, and willing to act on his paranoia? certainly. A drinker? ... need one answer? A lunatic? Highly doubtful. Did he almost lose the Great Patriotic war before it started? Unquestionably -- forward defense with an army that you've stripped of NCOs = Bad idea. Did he do a good job of leading the Soviet Union in war? Well, I guess the crucial point is that he realized he was in over his head, and, surprisingly, gave over strategic command to his generals -- Zhukov not least. The Soviets could have had far worse leadership 1941-1945. [ July 14, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Never mind.. sounds like a great effort [ July 13, 2006, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Of course you might say Russian beliefs stem from being a military highway between east and west. The fact that Putin is truly popular is explained in part by a common belief that Russia needs a strong man to run it. Which is, of course, part of the reason why Stalin maintained an undercurrent of popularity even after "destalinization."

Expense is of course the problem with paper games -- designing a rules system is essentially a programming task, but then you have to futz around not only designing the components but also finding suppliers, collating, and all the rest. Interestingly, we're at the point now where there are almost as many serious computer wargaming shops producing games as paper wargaming shops; I don't really see this balance changing.

I've been playing a couple games of PBEM SC2, and overall I love it, but I'm beginning to notice that the short time-scale is a drag. Certainly one of the nice things about SC2 in solitaire and TCIP play is that you can whip through your turns quick, and the game moves very fast. This is much less the case with PBEM, where exchanging turns inevitably slows things down. Has anyone thought of trying to mod the game for PBEM to seasonal turns? One of the nice things about many PBEM games is that they come to an end at roughly the 60th e-mail exchange. With vanilla SC2 we're talking about 120 turns -- four times that number of e-mail exchanges.

Good question.... ASL was certainly frustrating, and I can understand why you'd react against it. But it has kept its following: how many other 20-year old games are still alive and kicking? Given the wholesale assault of new media on paper anything, it's hard to think ASL could have done that much better, whether or not individuals viewed it with disgust. It's easy to see where ASL's flaws came from: frankly that "telephone book" made a lot more sense than the frankenstein's monster that SL had become by COD/GI. At least the ASLRB was, in a sense, alphabetized! .. sorry, Rambo, the thread seems to be being hijacked. (Maybe we'll all be happier if we just stick with Topp's post on Bush and Blair). :eek: That goes double in ASL when the dice are hot and rate keeps coming! (That is until the other side's sniper wakes up).... .. OBA? true enough... one of the true disasters of ASL -- you know you've got a problem when the flow-chart hits a page in length. I haven't gotten to play Lock n'Load, but I am excited about the upcoming GMT system -- Squad Leader scale maps with Up Front's card system imported. The thing SL/ASL never captured, I think, was the way time slows down and speeds up in combat. Breaking the IGOUGO lockstep is crucial in a tactical game. [ July 08, 2006, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Yup.. some of the most fought-over pieces of virtual real estate... Nothing like the kill-stack with a 9-2 and 3 MMGs.

Take a gander at the Guderian's Blitzkrieg II rules for Aerosans, Russian vehicles that Dean Essig described as "effectively sleds with aircraft engines and propellers designed to transport supplies across the snow. They were of very limited effectiveness due to the need for specialized aircraft fuel and parts that were not readily available to the infantry they served." Even after the purges there were, evidently, some people in the Soviet military with an excess of imagination.

HOBOY! You betcha that's a classic set up: Scenario 2, The Tractor factory... I think I could redraw much of Board 1 blindfolded, though some of the players I've played against would do the same thing and get the LOSes right. Mmmm. Paw of the Tiger, Hube's Pocket, Sowchos 79. Been a good while for me too, though I did take the step to ASL, and got back to it when Red Barricades came out. Figured the Rattenkrieg was worth rereading that monstrousity of rules. Check out www.vassalengine.org Some good souls got started porting ASL and SL to a Java-based TCP app. They didn't stop, so many of the classic wargames can now be played online. You've got to love all the grognard debates over ASL's realism when the designers decided on 666, 447, and 467 by "feel." [ July 07, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

Strange thing is, wool holds it better, in the sense that wet wool gets warm and stays warm -- the water doesn't evaporate as fast. I guess it's kind of like a wetsuit. Cotton T-Shirt, AKA Hypothermia rag. This thread may be locked by the cotton lobby soon!

One thing to note is that some of the weather effect is abstracted into the turn-compression: December goes by awful quick.... This would be one of the reasons why movements in mud don't drop to one, instead of two -- you're moving at a "1" rate over twice the time. All said, I'm not so sure this is a good design decision -- variable turns are somewhat quirky, and it is dividing weather effects into different "modules." (to say nothing of inflating production in summer). But this is the design as it stands. A second note -- there's an influential literature significantly revising the relative effect of the Russian Winter and the Russian military in halting the advance on Moscow. Basically, one of the problems we've had in assessing the Russian campaign is that our sources were disproportionately German military witnesses. The had a vested interest in emphasizing the "dumkopf" theory about Hitler while deemphasizing the degree to which they were stymied by the Russians themselves. In terms of games subscribing to this revisionist view, probably the most influential is Dean Essig's Operationial Combat Series (published by Multiman Publishing -- www.multimanpublishing.com) It is worth downloading the designers note for the system to explore his thinking and the literature it is based on. http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/ocs/GBII.pdf

Nice idea....