BlackVoid
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BlackVoid
-
-
Molotov Ribbentrop:
1. When it was broken, it was already too late, the war was in high gear.
2. The breaking of the pact did not change the strategic situation as the winner of the war would still dominate Eurasia (Russia or Germany).
Thus, US/UK participation was inevitable. The cold war division of Europe served the US/UK just fine. Frankly otherwise WW2 does not make sense. The western allies go to war to protect eastern Europe from German domination, then throw it all away to Russia? (Remember, the war started because of the Polish invasion). Seemingly they did not achieve anything. But in fact they did. Europe remained divided. Mission accomplished.
I do not know if the following made the mainstream news or not, but very interesting (and pretty much confirms my thinking), this is very recent (note the date as well, Russia leaked this info and not by chance):
Margaret Thatcher Told Gorbachev To Stop Reunification Of Germany
The biggest worry of the US/UK is STILL a German-Russian alliance. The US has a good reason to push for NATO expansion, missile shield, etc. To prevent this alliance from happening.
Iraq vs. Afghanistan:
In Iraq there is oil, which requires some kind of stability. A stable Iraq however does not need a large US military presence. Figure out the rest
. Just to be clear: I am not taking sides here, just stating the facts as I see it. If not for the meddling of the Great Powers, countries in Central Europe (where I live) would go for each others throat. Very bad, with genocide, etc. See Yugoslavia.
-
China is not a superpower, they lack the nuclear deterrent.
They are also allied with Russia.
-
The real motivation? It is the GREAT GAME for the control of Eurasia. The US cannot allow a strong alliance on the Eurasian continent (that's why the Molotov -Ribbentrop pact was such a red flag for US / UK). Such an alliance would automatically exercise control over Europe, Asia and Africa, marginalizing the US.
For the last 100 years, thus the US/UK strategy was dedicated to the cause of keeping Eurasia fragmented. That was the motivation behind the missile shield as well. Everybody knows it would/does not work, but it successfully antagonized Russia and the EU. (And no, it had absolutely nothing to do with Iran, anyone who claims so, has never seen a map - or lies.)
Look this up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder
Also this book by presidential advisor / strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski.
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261
Afghanistan is in a geostrategically very important place and has been for a long time. Look at a map. The country borders China (!), Kazakhstan (former USSR) and Iran (!).
However, like every empire has fallen before, the US Empire will also fall eventually. Very likely its fall is already in progress. The collapse of empire is NOT AVOIDABLE. Any human empire must grow (or stagnate and die). As it grows, complexity increases. However expansion/complexity costs more and more, while benefits decline. This is inevitable and the trend can only be reversed if a new energy subsidy is found - has to be better than oil for expansion to continue (highly unlikely).
A good book on this subject:
The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology) by Joseph Tainter
-
I don't want panzer-heavy, I want balanced. Support points are always in short supply, in the mentioned 1500 pts QB Axis on the defence maybe can by 3 Pak 40s. Even if all are traded in for a T-34, still 2 more T-34s remain. And that leaves few points to buy any Panzerschrecks. So you must then rely on mines to kill the remaining Soviet tanks.
-
I think anything in 1943 should fit your bill. Early, the Brits do not have HE rounds which is a serious problem. In 1941, there is the Matilda problem which is unkillable by PzIIIs.
Tigers are really not that much of a problem, the 6 pdr or the M-10 can kill them easily enough. Or fire away at them with small calibre guns until Tiger gets gun damage. If its mine, that is usually within 1 turn.
The Tiger is also vulnerable from the side or rear to lesser tanks, at close range even a Stuart can kill it with a side shot.
-
A note to the topic starter: I am happy to play TCP/IP, both CMAK and CMBB. My ICQ: 100082586
Email: blackvoid@freemail.hu
I am usually available after 9 PM CET. Games lasting till 1 AM are no problem.
-
I have tried to run several searches on this, but could not find any threads on the topic of armor points ratios between axis and allies. If it exists point me to it plz.
I have not played CMBB for a long time and one thing I noticed in my first QB that the Soviets get a much higher ratio of armor points in a combined arms battle. IMHO this really unbalances the game quite badly. In an 1500 pts 1944 QB on the attack, I could buy 5 crack T-34/85s. The Axis side could buy a lone Panther or 2 Stugs. Its a piece of cake either way for the T-34s.
This may be historical, but in the game this is surely a huge unbalancing factor.
-
There was plenty of sand in the areas that were fought over, but mostly it was in thin layers over hardpan and stone. Vehicles could travel over it easily enough, but they would raise huge dust clouds in the process.
I believe that when you speak of "sand" you are thinking of the sand seas or ergs perhaps? Yes, those were virtually impassable for any serious sized formations.
Michael
In the game, you can get easily bogged and immobilized in sand - that is not the kind of sand where the fighting took place, it is the quite of sand that was avoided.
-
"Arid ground" - is that an option in the editor? Because for QBs, I do not see any option to set ground type. I only play multiplayer quick battles, nothing else...
-
When it was released, I have not played CMAK too much, but recently I installed it again.
I soon realized that the desert terrain is flawed. Why? Sand was pretty much impassable for armor, vehicles and infantry. So the actual fighting was limited to the parts where there is not much sand. The Sahara is not all sand (common misconception), but largely rocky, flat, barren terrain - IDEAL for motorized warfare. Yet, this kind of terrain is pretty much missing in the game. The quick battle generator creates landscapes which are mostly sand with occasional rough patches. This is all wrong.
-
Don't forget a lot of books on WWII reference to B.H. Liddell-Hart's works, and a large chunk of his post WWII work came from interviewing German Generals just after the War.
As a side comment, if there was ever a litmus test for being a WWII Grog, it's knowing who Liddell-Hart is.
His history of WW2 is the best book on the subject IMHO.
-
The old chestnut about victors writing the history might have been true in the ancient world - but there are a *huge* number of German books written on the WWII. Many of which we recognize now pretty clearly glossed over certain issues...
Yet, all the reference here are from the Allied side. What if scenarios cannot be answered in history and is futile to debate them. It is foolish to reach conclusions on events that were not even seriously tried/considered.
Victors writing the history is even more true today. In the ancient world the enemies records were simply destroyed, today they are buried under propaganda. Remember the WMDs in Iraq.
-
"The Allies' initial attempts at amphibious operations were far from resounding successes"
ANY initial attempt by the Allies at anything were far from successes. This is no argument.
-
The books mentioned by Michael are both written authors on the Allied side. We know that victors write (and more often than not, falsify) history.
We will never know if an invasion could have succeeded or not. It is one thing to defend Britain at the extreme range of German fighter range, and another to attack an invasion fleet close to the shore where fighter defenses can be easily concentrated. And we all know from history that the fleets would have been irrelevant in the invasion, battleships are large slow targets (remember Prince of Wales).
----------------------------
Back to the topic: I am extremely glad, that the CM franchise is returning to WW2. I do not care much about the lopsided conflicts depicted in CMSF, so I did not even buy it although I have all 3 previous CM games. For CMSF NATO vs Warsaw pact would have been much more exciting.
-
CM is a game and players do not really care about losses. In CM you will carry out your task of defending or attacking even if you suffer losses beyond 50%. Real life commanders rarely did such a thing.
Real people are also more cautios than digital soldiers....
Airpower is a pricey gamble in CM anyway, so simple just ignore.
-
There was one poster who was not aware of the WEGO nature. Of course there is some waiting - normally the attacker takes longer to plot and the defender takes longer to set-up.
I played all my online games with a time-limit, otherwise things go very slow.
Of course large battles are better PBEM, but 500-1500 pts quick battles are fine online.
-
I really hope the battles can be played TCP/IP. I imagine orders are issued in CMC and there are a few days to play out the battles. This should work...
TCP/IP only suited for LAN? YOU gotta be kidding me. I played more than 150 battles using TCP/IP on the internet!!!! And the majority of these on a simple modem!
It is funny that some people who post have absolutely NO IDEA. CM is a WEGO game, there is NO WAITING for your opponent. You can also set a time limit which helps a lot.
-
Yeah, if it is a very damaging shot, counter with the card that you have several of.
Save ace pilot and vertical roll for tough situations (out of the sun/last defense) or when they give you good advantage (smoke/kill).
-
Quite often, messages do not appear in the lobby chat, because they are black! If I select the line (by highlighting with the mouse), it is readable. Happens a lot.
-
I have played (or rather started) about 10 game now and I am more puzzled than at the start.
The AI seems to have an infinite number of cards, most of the time I have only 2??? Why am I not drawing?
Why is the AI able to play more cards than me? I do not understand. I was really looking forward to this game, but so far it is incomprehensible.
The game starts - I am not able to play any cards. Then its the computers turn, he plays like 4 cards and shoots me down...
-
Don't forget that the russians had about 5 times as much of everything, not just arty.
They could have put in a +500% rarity for almost everything german. Now how much fun would that be?
-
Also in a scenario I played yesterday, one of my Pz4s fired the last 4 of its AP rounds into a dead tank, when other threats were still around.
It happened at night at a range of 150m with a regular crew. Of course this is the result of the TacAi not 'knowing' about the other threats.
Also this may be realistic, I don't know.
-
Thanks for the great statistics!
I never said, I don't like the death clock, it a good feature. And yes, the penetration info you get is too detailed, that is the reason you know a kill before your crew does.
Those stats however, support my point: vehicles should burn more often in the game. CMBB's hardware requirement is not so high, so it should not be a performance issue for most players. Others can always switch off smoke.
-
But why are tanks burning so rarely?
.
Motivation for fighting in Afghanistan?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
"In an extraordinary frank meeting with Mr Gorbachev in Moscow in 1989 — never before fully reported — Mrs Thatcher said the destabilisation of Eastern Europe and the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact were also not in the West’s interests. She noted the huge changes happening across Eastern Europe, but she insisted that the West would not push for its decommunisation. Nor would it do anything to risk the security of the Soviet Union."
Ooopsy.