StellarRat

"The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources," (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. George Washington University. August 13, 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Yes, SOME of their war production increased. BUT, it was impossible to disperse oil production. Without gas there is no mechanized warfare and no air warfare. If You do want to carry this further we would have begun bombing them with mass B-29 strikes (four times the bomb weight) at some point. Really the Germans were pretty finished by Spring 45 no matter how you look at it. Had they kept fighting nukes would have changed the war from a battle of nations to the genocide of the German people. Most of the population would have been killed in a few months for no gain. I just dont see your scenario happening. The US was capable of building three A Bombs per month in 1945. Three bombs were planned of September 1945 and three more in October.

Well it was a German that managed to bring out the powers of Magneto. Of course, the US developed Captain America from scratch. Tough call.

What's contradictory is you confirm the A Bomb was meant for Germany then you say the war could have dragged on for years. Do you really think they would have carried on with one or two major cities being erased every month? Even the fanatically suicidal Japanese threw in the towel after two bombs. I doubt the Germans would have lasted much longer. Not only that they had nothing close to fight back with or a way to deliver it to the US. Even if they carried on eventually there wouldn't have been any Germans left to fight and zero industry to build weapons.

Your statement is a little contradictory. The war wouldn't have dragged on more than a few months. As we would have nuked the Germans with or without Russia fighting. In fact, we didn't even need the Brits to survive really. With B29 we could have delivered the A bomb from Iceland or Africa.

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument 1. US tanks were not effective - They ran, they had supplies, they outnumbered the Germans 4 to 1 2, US CAS was not effective against tanks. - That's why the Germans were reduced to road movement only at night, right? 3. US troops were subpar. - See number 1 4. US machinguns were not very good. - Hello, can you say M2? You know, the one that goes through any normal cover. 5. The Garand was not very good. - Semi-auto and the Germans had??? 6. US artillery was what won for the US - Comm net, practically all the ammo they needed (who else had that?), proximity fuse... 7. Supply lines too long. - At least they had supplies, they Japanese didn't even have food sometimes and the Germans weren't too much better off.

Make sure to keep all the squads in your platoons close to the platoon HQ. That's really important!

Just so we have everything straight...prop driven aircraft are very vulnerable to radar directed AA and guided missiles. This is just a reality of they modern world. They are simply too slow vs. modern AA weapons. On a battlefield where they enemy has limited AA capability they will perform well, but the US Airforce plans for worst case scenarios when looking for weapons. Hence, the US Airforce's rejection of the Pucara look alike. Next gen of ground support aircraft will probably be drones.

Isn't calculating LOS/LOF constantly anyway? It has to do that for the spotting AI to work. Besides if its something that takes a button push the players can use it understanding It might pause the game. Personally I'd probably use it a lot at the setup phase to get the lay of the land and not much after that.

I asked for this very thing months ago and everyone poo-poo'ed the idea. I don't really care if I can see iNTO terrain I just want know if I can even see the spot at all.

If the tank was moving I can't conceive of any way it could "sneak up" on stationary infantrymen . Tanks are just too noisy for that to ever happen. I also can't imagine infantry ignoring a tank even if they're looking the opposite direction.

OK, I'm late to the party here, but I'll make a general comment about the quality of German units based on my reading: Properly supplied, equipped, trained, and lead, they were the equal of British or American units and somewhat superior to a Soviet unit. But, they simply weren't able to field proper units after 1942-43, too much fighting and not enough industrial capacity caught up with them in the end. When you're outnumbered 10 to 1 you're bound to lose in the long run.

I've never heard that. Their payment was freedom.

Well if CMBN "used" them realistically I think the closest they could come would be some type bonus/penalty to CnC of the HQ they work for.

Thanks Mark.

Well in RL they are kind of like an office manager so you can't really see their value in CMBN. But, they do make a difference to a busy commander specially in preparing for a battle in RL.

Sorry. Only have my phone to post with right now. Just do a search for Armchair General magazine. The article is on the opening page.

It shows how the game relates to WW II field manuals. Interesting. The author doesn't care much for RT.

All I know is that the bigger the guns the longer it takes normally. Also who is calling the fire and whether there is a TRP near the target is important.

I think everyone is jumping the gun with the technical stuff here. The first question you need to ask yourself is how much do I need to defend to win?? If you have three objective areas, but can win by only holding one of them, you should allocate your forces to make sure you hold one and the throw the rest to the wolves or defend them just enough to delay the enemy. If all the objectives are of equal value defend enough of the ones that are easy to defend to win then worry about the others. The old adage is "he who defends everything defends nothing". After you've got that figured out then worry about the technical stuff. If your map has only one objective point I suggest moving forces out of the town at the beginning to escape any pre-planned barrages and then moving back in after the artillery is done. Also, keep in mind that sometimes it's better to position forces OUTSIDE the objective if that helps them get a better defensive position or more coverage. For weapons with good defense and a long reach, like a Tiger I, probably want on a hill outside of town where it will have excellent LOF because it can effectively shoot the whole map, others you'll want to put in an ambush position and defend only a tiny slice of the battlefield, like an AT team.

Mostly I think its art work that chews up time. You can't really automate the production of that kind if stuff too much.

I worked at a small programming shop. To give seven people a decent living and benefits we needed a revenue of about one million per year so they probably need sales of at least 10000 - 20000 copies and their other income to survive. With only five of them they are probably making a pretty good living. Running a software company that depends on each title being popular takes a lot of guts.

Well back in the "before" times BFC didn't have many offerings. You have to remember they sell more than just CM. I remember when they only had a couple of titles for sale. As far as I know CM is the only thing they actually write the code for, but they get a cut from other titles and the number of those has exploded compared to the CMBO days.

Hey you can do some OK sound ranging with two guys, a couple tin cans, a pair of compasses and a map.

It took me all of two games to figure out the interface, so I wouldn't call it "bad". It could use a couple more commands and some additional tools, but its quite useable.