HolzemFrumFloppen

Roosevelt: Sorry... I should have been clearer. I believe that the European version I am speaking of is -- specifically -- the German one (I think there's supposed to be a French and Italian version, too, but I'm not certain). There is also an Australian version; of that I am completely certain. The version you have is likely the original one, purchased online here at Battlefront.com. To have the other versions, you would have to have ordered from one of the online retailers that supplies the German or Australian boxed (yes, boxed) Strategic Command game.

Col. Guderian: As I said before, the graphics are not available to the general public. You would have to purchase a EUR/AUS version to have the 'newer' graphics you want. Other than that method -- as I've also said before -- only Battlefront/BTS can release the graphics as an update to North American version owners.

Greets, Whos. In short, I was asked by Hubert to produce an updated version of my 'elite edition' for inclusion in a European/Australian release of SC. JMBunnelle was also asked to create a series of new terrain graphics and icons for inclusion as well. All of this is part and parcel of the European/Aus release of 2003 (v1.07, btw). As of yet, these 'new' graphics were not released to the general public; only Battlefront can authorize their release.

Herr General: Well, the interface graphics are my own, yes. The terrain was done by J.M.Bunnelle, however (as well as the set of icons you see in that picture, I believe). These graphics combined were included in the Euro/Australian release of SC last year. As of yet, they have not been made available as part of an update to the North American version of SC. My interface graphics that were included in those releases do not suffer from the crash caused by my original release of the 'Elite Edition' graphics (i.e., the crash is caused by my original release's incompatibility with the last NA 1.07 update). Incidentally, I've been using all those graphics you see in those screenshots for over a year.

I'll bet that you're talking about this terrain and iconset.... check these links: Pic 1 Pic 2 If so, let us know.

Yeah well that might have been the plan in 1940 or early 1941 but I bet you anything when 1942 rolled around those plans would have been pushed back. Wayyyy back. </font>

Not really an answer to your question as far as scenarios and operations are concerned. I, too, am a fan of SSG's Korsun Pocket game. I purchased the add-on "Across the Dnepr" a month or so ago and have not had a chance to play it at all. How is it? Have you played any of the HPS Panzer Campaigns series (i.e., Smolensk '41)? If so, how does the add-on compare to it, especially since they cover a similar period? I'd be interested to know how you're doing against the AI (especially since I'm not that strong of a player and AI has been pretty satisfying for me) and what side you're playing. Good to see another KP player here. Looking forward to SSG's next game in the Decisive Battles Series (Battles in Normandy).

I think I could put that together. Stand by for some news regarding the mod.

Bye. :cool:

I would love to see a single post of yours somewhere in an archive that indicated your prior "excitement". Before the thing was even released you were bashing it. Heck, you bashed SC extremely hard (without even playing it, of course) based on the fact that you couldn't stack units ala A3R. The trouble with you, Les, is that you stick your foot so deep in your mouth sometimes that it eventually comes out the other end; and even though the smell is considerably more abhorrent on the way out, you're one of those guys who like to pretend it didn't happen (whilst the rest of us are too polite to complain about the stench). The irony in all this is that -- because you've gone so far out on a limb to criticize various games (HOI is not the only one) in which you possess not a smidgen of knowledge -- you'll never get to play them because so many folks will roast you alive due to your oft-outlandishly negative statements. And it's too bad, really. Because I swear, deep down, I know that you would really like HOI. You're the kinda guy who could really get into a long, 12-hour multiplayer marathon (we have LAN parties where I live), wrestling with other leaders over strategies, stabbing allies in the back, and having fun doing it. I picture you playing a Churchill; a stubborn bulldog till the very end. But, still, a loyal ally when you needed him. Take the plunge, Les. THEN let's see you flood the SC2 fora with loads of new ideas gleaned from another worthy game. HOI and its latest patch (the sixth, btw) have set in concrete what a grand strategy, WWII game can be. And, believe it or not, the folks at Paradox have that same level of outstanding dedication to strategy games that the folks at Matrix and Battlefront do. They're serious about their player base, too, and -- like many posts I've seen from designers in the SP fora -- the Paradox developers can often be spotted posting their comments and thoughts at all hours of the morning (Sweden time, of course)... because they're still at work tweaking code to accomodate players' requests. You strike me as a stand-up guy when you want to be, Les. Come clean, drop the fundamentalism, and give it a serious shot. I would be more than happy to play HOI with you and show you the ropes. Otherwise, I'm going to have to start showing up in an ASL forum talkin' smack about that game. I can say I've never played it, too (although I was, of course, "excited" about it before it went to print)! It'll be loads of blustering fun and we can switch sides for a change.

Pumped? Heck, you harangued HOI before it hit the shelves. And, as far as I know, you still haven't played it. Well... suffice to say, HOI is a much more complex game than SC1 is in every venue; and its base of players dwarfs SC's. Not that SC is a lesser game, but if it had the variables HOI does (not to mention its larger userbase), there'd be plenty of whiners in here. And we both know that SC was also on the receiving end of some serious whining.... just checked the forum there... looks like it's still going on. Well... day one is a little magnanimous, don't you think? I like SP, too, but if you trail together all the README.TXT files of fixes/changes/additions, you'd have a nice full day of reading, too. Tactical's your cup of tea, Les; but let's not exaggerate SP's goodness. I like it, too; but I'd wager a month's pay that were it not free, it wouldn't have the same following. Yeah, the Grigsby fanboys are about as vociferous (and onerous?) as the HOI ones are. I'm anxious to see what GG's spin on Axis & Allies will be. I've been playing GG's games since the AppleII was god's gift to computing; but most of them are spreadsheets. GG does spreadsheets well. By the way... if you haven't played HOI yet, you really should. It's an overwhelming game for a first-timer, but I'll bet it would take you for a ride. I love HOI multiplayer, but you need a solid 6-8 hour session for a good game. However, if you've got the time, it's like Risk on LSD. It's deep, and you always have flashbacks days later of some such invasional episode. No flaming here, Les. But HOI has come a long way from its earlier incarnation... just as SC and SP have. And there's still 300 or so posts per day to sift through over there. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. That said, SC2 will always be welcome; and you'll find lots of HOI players buying it, too.

Man, I must be falling prey to the placebo effect, then. One thing, however: what speed of system did you try it on?

Pheasant: Well I, for one, am very pleased with this mod. I noted an increase in camera movement right off the bat on one machine. I reviewed all the graphic replacements side by side with their originals; absolutely no difference (save in size) to the naked eye. Great stuff... and I'm looking forward to your terrain base release! Thanks again for this one.

Hearts of Iron (v1.05c + C.O.R.E. Add-On) & Korsun Pocket (SSG/Matrix) Both are extraordinary games for their respective genres.

I'm still enjoying HOI after nearly a year. And yes, the patches have greatly assisted in HOI's ongoing evolution. The thing I like about HOI is the amount of "stuff" that's under the hood.... and there are still many who are trying to figure it all out. Of course, I still love hex-based games like SC (esp. when I don't feel like rolling out HOI in all its mammoth glory). But I have to agree that HOI -- like Hubert's gem -- keeps you coming back for more.

Well, first of all, if you don't have access to a Virtual Software Store like Virtual Electronics Boutique, you're outta luck. You'll also need a virtual car to drive yourself to the virtual software store, too. It can get very expensive since there are virtually thousands of virtual variants. If this seems like too much trouble, though, click here.

This is about the only accurate statement in this thread. No one really knows Kuniworth here; we simply have his online persona present for judgement and -- like all elements of character -- are ultimately in his control. The lesson is: control yourself.

Which explains why you would suddenly become "liberal" in your attitude whenever a fellow right-winger dinger is threatened. Kuniworth has done the same stuff on other boards as well. It's too bad he was banned, but the rules are so dazzlingly simple to follow here and can be summed up in one equally clear phrase: Don't be stupid.

JJ: Ummm... well... would you kindly explain to me what the need for military bases anywhere is if there isn't any property/resource worth protecting? Nations like posting troops in various locales throughout the world for one of two things: natural resources or cheap labor (both require a military presence due to the demand by multinational corporations for protection/enforcement/muscle). No war has EVER been fought for anything save economic reasons. WWII, the Crusades, War of 1812, you name it. I always giggle when I hear someone talk about the continuing Irish-British conflict... as if it were really about ever-so-slightly varying interpretations of Christianity. Yeah, right. If you still think that somehow -- out of all the coincidences humanly possible in this admittedly strange world of ours, with a cabinet of 14 individuals wherein 11 were former oil executives (hell... Chevron has even named one of its supertankers the S.S. Condoleezza Rice!) -- the current administration wasn't really after oil, well.... I've got a very nice suspension bridge over the Sahara you might want to buy. Love and kisses, Holzem P.S.: Just so I stay on topic, I'd have to say that both Molotov and Ribbentrop would agree with me on this.

Hans: Greets. Thanks for posting your thoughts on this thing. The thing I really wanted this for is for strategic-level maps; I'm not really as interested in the battle maps, per se. Are there some decent theater-level maps, especially those concentrating on the Eastern Front or Euro Theater of operations? If so, are they zoomable so that province/country names are shown? Hate to belabor you with questions, but I'd love to know! Thanks again.

Malakovski: I can vouch for the excellence of two of the books on your list: 1. Rise and Fall of the 3R (Shirer). Gripping. 2. Blood, Tears & Folly (Deighton). Deighton isn't a 'professional' historian, he's a mystery writer by trade. But he tells a great, objective tale on my opinion, sans all the cheerleading you sometimes get in pre-war analysis of failures. Additionally, I think Bullock's bio of Hitler is hackneyed at some point. I highly recommend Ian Kershaw's two-volume treatment of AH. If I may, I'd also like to highly recommend Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn, a fantastic analysis of the Allied war in North Africa. Even if this isn't your 'theater-of-choice', as it were, it just might be after you've read Atkinson. Very impressive and objective in scope. Regarding Battlefront's bibliography posted elsewhere on this site, I think it's a fairly good one. I would exclude one book, however: Hans Von Luck's Panzer Commander. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how anyone can recommend this book. It's chock full of more tales about the quality of tea and crumpets in various regions than anything else; but combat and tactics? Hmmmph... hardly. I've read the damn thing twice and I swear I feel like I'm listening to a Starbuck's barrista detailing his/her experiences behind the counter. Just my two pfennig. Above all, have fun with your reading.

Wings: Whoa... never saw this before. I'd love to know how extensive the whole thing is. The downloadable version is only 15MB.... hmmm... I wonder. Anyone have this thing?

Ummm... it wasn't from any "side". The surest giveaway of one's "side" is the subtle terminology used to describe combatants. For instance, you say "Communist Russia" when referring to the Soviet Union (or USSR). This term is the equivalent of using "Capitalist America" when referring to the United States (or USA). Surely if I used the latter term when referring to the U.S., you would be quick to jump at my obvious bias. I would be on guard against employment of these types of terms since they do cloud the argument quite a bit and, need I say it, reveal more of the author's bias than any other statement of intent. Additionally, another dead giveaway of one's side when discussing these matters is the use of the term "regime" to describe the USSR (hence, the prolific use on these boards of "the Stalin regime", or "the Communist regime"). The use of this term is entirely self-serving and, again, does nothing but give away one's inherent -- and often inaccurate -- bias. We should all shy away from these hazy terms since their casual use often taints the argument, especially for those readers who are not apt to notice the subtle propaganda such misused words engender. That's why I'm glad this thread was entitled USSR/Allied Relations before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Had the italicized been replaced with "Hitler-Stalin Pact" or the ubiquitous "Nazi-Communist Pact", this thread's conclusion would have been decided at the outset. The use of the latter titles is essentially equivalent to calling the The Munich Agreement "the Hitler-Chamberlain Pact" or, more sharply, "the Capitalist-Fascist Pact". As for your opinion regarding the pre-war UK views, the British Secret Intelligence Service considered the Soviet Union to be the real enemy, and so of course did the French General Staff. I recently finished Stanley Baldwin's (British Prime Minister 1935-37, Tory) memoirs; I enjoyed his frankness when, in a 1936 meeting of Parliament, he stated: "We all know the German desire, and he has come out with it in his book [i.e., Hitler's Mein Kampf], to move east, and if he should move East I should not break my heart.... There is one danger, of course, which has probably been in all your minds -- supposing the Russians and Germans got fighting and the French went in as the allies of Russia owing to that appalling pact they made, you would not feel you were obliged to go and help France, would you? If there is any fighting in Europe to be done, I should like to see the Bolshies and the Nazis doing it." (applause) Now we all know this was facile, self-deluded thinking, for once Hitler had glutted imself in the east, he could turn back west with far greater strength, as Churchill, for one, had observed. The great fear, of course, was that the defeat of Germany would lead to a triumph of bolshevism while the Soviet Union was an ally of France. And for Baldwin, as well as Chamberlain, no sacrifice or concession was too high a price to prevent this outcome. In short, all the hypocritical (and often, patently false) information about the 'weakness' or 'lack of tactical ability' of the USSR's army, all of the anti-Soviet campaign of generalized slander that -- to this day, mind you -- is methodically plastered across the pages of newspapers, books, forum threads, etc. was/is intended not only to justify capitulation but also to hide the real fear of the right before the success of Soviet arms in war. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the West's creation, and the literal last resort for the USSR which -- quite accurately -- perceived that the U.K. & France were just as likely to team up with Nazi Germany as Italy was. Poland was downright sympathetic to the Nazis, again because the latter served as the most extreme bulwark to Communism; they loved getting a piece (Teschen) of Czechoslovakia when it fell, but didn't realize that they were next. And, of course, we all know where Finland went, don't we? Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?, and see where this thread takes us. If it takes us where I think it will, I'll find it funny -- as I have hundreds of times before -- to watch various and sundry posters take personal offense at the idea that the Western 'Allies' might have done things for selfish reasons. I find it neither offensive nor shocking since, on a daily basis, I do nothing at work or at home that doesn't serve my- or my family's interests. Why should I expect any self-respecting human living in the modern (or pre-modern, for that matter) to do any different? Do the same and much of the rhetoric of WWII disappears in an instant, and history -- in all its base and petty contexts -- becomes clear. Don't let idealism blind you to what you already know deep inside: that your worst fears are true.... The great figures of the past -- no matter their ideological leanings -- were just as petty, barbarous and cruel as you are. I mean, after all, what kind of a guy likes to play games that let you slaughter millions of troops with the click of a mouse, or let you re-live the glory of gobbling up Poland? Hubert, get cracking on SC2, baby!

You hit it square on the nose. Many of us don't like facing it, but the truth is, Herr Hitler was courted -- publicly! -- by Great Britain, France and, to a certain extent, the United States. Critics were silenced, and the term "appeasement" became the catchword after the war to describe the policies of those countries that gave Hitler a free hand in Europe. The reality? Again, so simple. Nations that would comprise the 'Grand Alliance' in the not-so-distant future saw Fascism as a bulwark to Communism. The U.K., France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, et. al. knew they needed the Soviet Union to threaten Hitler, but they were all too bound up in conventional, anti-Communist policies to admit and deal with it. The result? A forlorn hope that Hitler would turn East and spend his aggression on the USSR. In countless diplomatic documents, they all pointed out that they would turn a blind eye if Hitler moved East since they knew Fascism had more in common with the Western democracies than -- dare I say it -- Communism. They knew they could deal with Hitler; Stalin was a different story. So after countless wrangling sessions where the USSR basically pledged over and over to the defense of Czechoslovakia as well as reiterating the undeniable (denied only by the Western democracies, of course) fact that Hitler and his Nazi cohorts would never curb their aggression unless faced with overwhelming force, France and especially the U.K. played for time and handed Hitler just about everything he asked for, all in the hopes he'd turn east. We all know he didn't and, thus, was history written and poor Mr. Chamberlain's political career sealed. And, I might add, sotto voce, good riddance. Don't wanna deal with this oft-startling fact? Head down to your local university library, find an open microfiche room, and begin reading major U.S. newspapers beginning in 1934 thru 1938. You'll find that there are thousands upon thousands of articles which positively gush about how 'Herr Hitler' was really doing some 'great things' with Germany. How things were really 'shaping up' in Germany. How great it was that he was crushing all those nasty, corrupt union fatcats who were draining the economy with their ridiculous demands. And, need I say it, a nice fat handful of anti-Semitic rhetoric thrown in for good measure; all this in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle.... Heck,... Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man-Of-The-Year" in 1938, and what a lovely figure he cut on its color cover. Who woulda known what a great guy Mr. Hitler was without reading these tasty morsels!! Sheesh... and I always thought he was a maniac. :cool: Well, oddly, all those evil, pinko Communist spies that were everywhere (and still are according to Strom Thurmond!) would snip these little articles every day and send them back to Commie HQ; the result was an extreme state of paranoia for the USSR and a legitimate fear of a UK-France-Germany-Italy alliance. Sound crazy? Think twice before you say so. Soviet newspapers, prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, literally showered the Nazis with hateful rhetoric, calling them "monsters", "gangsters", et. al. Then, abruptly, the tune changed when the Pact was signed, and all those articles vanished from the front page and op-ed pieces. Bang! Flash! All in the space of a week did this reversal happen. Funny thing is, once England was at war, all those pro-Nazi articles disappeared from Western newspapers as well. Bang! Flash! All in the space of a week did this reversal happen. What's my point? Here it is. In the United States, we're all educated about EVENTS, about LEADERS, about DATES. But we never discuss the nitty-gritty about WHY leaders decide to become...ummm... leaders. What makes a man want to become President of the United States? Or Prime Minister? Or Premier? The reason that a man wants to become a national leader is pure and simple, but never discussed: the need for raw power. Power as an end, not a means. It always will be, whether the man's name is FDR, Winston Churchill, Daladier, Stalin, et. al. And anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or a fool; re-read your Aquinas and Macchiavelli or, much more simply, peer inside yourself. So why did the U.K. and France keep blatantly pro-Nazi policies at the forefront of their international agendas? Quite simply, because the leadership felt that such policies were more likely to keep them in power (yes, Virginia, it's true). Why did Stalin endorse the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Because it would buy him time to stay in power. Why would American corporate media outlets print such praise about Adolf Hitler? Because Nazi policies were extremely anti-labor, and so were the American media magnates. So utterly simple, it boggles the mind. Imagine... people doing things for purely selfish reasons. Can you believe it? The trouble with discussing such things on online forums is that ideological rhetoric clouds everything. It's always the "other guy" who's power hungry... but not the guys on our team.... heavens no! My own take on history isn't pro-American, pro-Soviet, pro-anything. And I'm not afraid to look human behavior square in the eye and know that ANY leader can be as petty as I or anyone else on this board can be. In fact, I count on every leader being petty, selfish and power-hungry as a matter of course; and when I do count on that, historical events become crystal clear, unclouded by rhetoric, and immune to the ideological bias of any author today, yesterday, or even a thousand years ago. The lesson is: tend to the wolf within your own fences; the packs ranging outside may not even exist.

Ahh, yes.... possibly. But it is even more certain that the majority of those who lived through the McCarthy era and watched all those televised hearings had no idea what was really going on. A witch hunt that was utilized to take John Q. Public's mind off other things. I can ask just about anyone who lived through it and they can hardly remember how insane it all really was. The trouble with living in an insane time and not being the type of person being hunted generally means that you hardly notice it happening. And if you do notice it, you just bury your head in the sand and salute the flag when required. It just might be the same today, but instead of "Pinkos", there are other phantom archetypes. History has an unerring tendency to pass just about everyone by. The lesson of the McCarthy era? Simple, really. Lo' and behold, there weren't any communists at all! Just folks who opposed increasingly right-wing policies. Those who knew how to fight back weren't televised; those who were easily attacked were televised and humiliated before a bloodthirsty populace. Funny, when you think about it. Il Duce and Hitler used the same techniques. J. Caesar said it best: give them bread and circuses and they'll do anything you want. Likewise, JJ,... likewise.