Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
As far as CMX2/CMBN goes, I feel we are about 85% perfect graphics wise...
85% without haze, without desaturating of colors depending on distance? 85% without any impression of field of depth for a tactical simulator in 2011?
What's the sense of the beauty of a tank model, if you see it somewhere in the distance but have no optical FX to develop a feeling just by looking at it, if it is behind or before that house?
Look at the map, move, see the movement, get an impression of distance, compare the distance. Sometimes even use a LOS-tool instead of the natural intuitive reception over the eyes.
Have you ever looked at black and white WWII photos? Very easy to get an impression how far away objects are.
85%? With todays GFX-cards? No way.
I'm not talking about HDR or other high-end subleties, i'm talking about one of the most important aspects on the tactical scale: the intuitive judgement of distance.
BTW: I'm no GFX expert, but IIRC z-data-calculations could be done on GFX-cards?
-
If i imagine that CM would have that kind of operational layer and would allow to play campaigns on that layer against a human oponent via PBEM and/or REALTIME and then solve the tactical battles... :cool:
If this little russian company was capable to create that on their own, i can't understand, that BFC isn't developing at least an interface for a developer or the community, to come up with an op-solution. Once this interface is done, the op-layer would attract additional customers and players but wouldn't require BFC to invest time and money to keep the op-software up to date.
Also offering an interface for map creators should result in a big reward for BFC. If i look how navigation maps are making use of standardized data and how fast they are improving... Instead of developing and keeping a rudimentary map-editor up to date, only updaing an interface should free resources, too.
If both interfaces would exist i think we would already have more than one operational solution even working with huge AND realistical map-data without increased development costs for BFC.
-
Reprisals - as in enforcing a law by punishing a group rather than individuals - is a war crime, and a heinous crime in any democratic society worth that adjective.
Today or during WWII? Today it is not allowed, but at that time it was.
Every army was doing it during that time but you desinformed people only know it about the Germans.
Or was the mistake of the Germans, that they followed the internationally accepted ratio of 1:10 and should have used the US ratio in Germany of 1:80?
As was already mentioned, the tragedy at Oradour was examined from a martial court of the division itself, because of the unexpected explosions in the church.
Can you tell me, how many US soldiers were put on trial for the INTENTIONAL starving to death of around 800.000 german POWs in the Rheinwiesenlager although the red cross was waiting with food?
Why should anybody find binding a peace agreement they don't agree with?
Pardon?
You seem to forget that this peace treaty was the reason, that France could not only keep it's fleet and southern France being not occupied! Which btw had the consequence, that Spain's Franco could easily deny the German request for allowance to close the street of Gibraltar with german troops.
Should have Spaniards remain idle when Napoleon toppled the Bourbons of Spain, instated his brother and pillaged the country at leisure?When France was beaten did the German government arrest the French government like the Allies do all the time? No! And why is that? Because the arresting of a foreign government is AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. Germany followed the international laws and France chose on his own, after resigning of Reynaud, who were the responsible person. Marschall Petain was the regular chief of the government. Yes, De Gaulle was NOT the legal chief of the french governement. He was only a insignificant person that flew to Britain and the British government, not France, decided, that he would be a nice chief of a new governement. Completely against the french and all international laws. But who has the power, writes history. But that doesn't mean, that you or me must believe in every lie. We can inform ourselfes and use our own brain to get a more objective look of the world.
The legal french governement was in France. Everything else is a LIE.
And with the legal french government the peace treay was signed. If you compare the treaty of Versailles and this treaty, you will admit, that it was a generous treaty, that honored the French, the french soldier and gave as much freedom as possible as long as Germany was at war. Now compare that to the tribunals of those, who believe in eternal hate...
If you have a bit of knowledge about european history, you must know, that tribunals against defeated countries, are uneuropean. We've often beaten our heads, but as soon as the fighting was over, the loser had to pay somnething, but we respected each other again. This eternal hate that was introduced in Europe 1918 with Versailles and St. Germain, continued after 1945 and it dominates until today.
It doesn't heal wounds, it keeps wounds open, because it demands from one side to accept eternal guilty and dishonourableness and all the lies of the winners against the defeated ones. Either Europe will find back to it's old european spirit of the ancient times of the antiquity, or it will vanish - even biologically.
Now you say the Resistance wasn't a broadly popular movement. I tend to agree with you that a good deal of the allegiance to the Resistance actually surfaced when it was clear that the Wehrmacht wasn't going to push the Allies back into the sea.That's a very important fact. And it contradicts somehow your earlyier argument: occupied France was a very peaceful and civilized country.
The relations between the German soldiers and the french civilians were VERY good. In fact they were that good, that the resistance had absolutely no chance, as long as it looked, that Germany could win the war. The Resistance had no support from the French people.
And I'm also pretty sure that a good deal of Frenchmen loathed and lamented such inhumane treatment of their enemies. But from there as to say that they were crying a river over it, there's a long long stretch.Ofcourse not. Their country was occupied (Germany still is occupied and even has no peace treaty until today) and they wanted that the war was over soon, that the Germans could leave. If they leave beaten or as winners, was naturally not the most important for the French people. Maybe their sympathies were more on the side of the western Alliies, since a Germany winning the war, would have meant, that France could not play a leading role in Europe. But nothing could be further from the truth, than the legend about the "good" Resistance and that all France stood behind it and was hating the Germans.
The hate grew much later - after the propaganda of the perpetrators of eternal hate developed to the full.
-
Google translation is crap here - as often. "les pièces de la procédure préalable" means "the parts (meaning all not some) of the pre-able procedure" which is the procedure by the juge d'instruction where information is gathered.
Are this the papers of the trial itself and the protocols, or papers gathered before the trial?
Fouché's work was scrutinized in the usual context of the discussion around the Résistance in France - some French are a bit touchy when somebody is questioning the image of the Résistance.
How comes that? Following the legend Oradour and Tulle were peaceful areas. "The french are a bit touchy" is a very nice understatement for the uninformed readers.
The french people, at least who lived at that time and knew how they loved the resistance themselves, is heavily divided about the role of the Resistance. The political establishment tries to suppress any open discussion about it, because that would lead to further questions regarding the myths of the german occupation.
Could it be, that Fouche maybe mentions that this area was full of heavy partisan activity? That even the german high command for the West, knew about it and ordered "Das Reich" to fight the partisans? Could it be, that Fouche mentions that German soldiers were attacked, tortuered and murdered by the Maquisards?
Does Fouche maybe mention the 40 awfully mutilated german soldiers in Tulle and that the german units in Tulle even were encircled?
The trial in the communist DDR was a classical show trial, where even the fightings against the Maquisards, the tortured german soldiers were ignored and the area was portrayed as a peaceful civilian area where the SS without any reason killed civilians - exactly like the media tell the people all over the world today.
Fouché never questioned the massacre and its originators.And although he never questioned the "massacre", he was heavily criticized... I think that shows the spiritual climate and how "just" and "objective" the trial 1953 was (imagine the 9/11 "trials"^2), if even today, the undeniable simple truth, that the Resistance was acting against international military laws (and against the german-french treaty!) and that they were not at all beloved by the french people.
Not only because of the fear of repressions of the Germans, but also because of their incredible brutality, their torturing of helpless soldiers (driving with trucks over people, cutting off genitals and putting into mouth, drilling holes through the feet, putting cables though it, connecting it to trucks and driving around) and their communist agenda?
It's on the page about Vincent Reynouard.
It's very laborious if you are not giving any links.
I have searched the french Wikipedia article and there it is stated, what i was writing: that in 2004 he was convicted for "approving war crimes". He had to fight to the highest court, that this ridiculous verdict (You are doubting the official story of 9/11 - so you are approving it) finally was overruled.
Later, in 2007 the father of eight children was sentenced to one year in prison and 10.000 EUR for "denying crimes against humanity" for a brochure called "Holocaust, what are you hiding".
-
From the article "Cinquante ans après les faits, les archives s'ouvrent et paraissent les premiers ouvrages scientifiques sur le sujet comme ceux ..." says 50 years after the facts the archives were opened etc.
Could you please translate that?
The google translation does not state explicitly that all records of the trial were declassified. And it uses the phrase "records APPEAR open" and "become available including PARTS of the pre-trial".
The google translation even seems to indicate, that the first scientific work from Fouche on the topic, because he could use original papers, draw heavy criticism from the preservators of the legend. Strangely the Wikipedia article also seems not to contain any infos, why Fouche's work was criticized?
Vincent Reynouard was tried but not convicted for this book, since "la Cour de cassation a cassé cet arrêt, les faits reprochés ne constituant pas une apologie de crimes de guerre, mais une contestation de crimes de guerre, laquelle n'est pas réprimée par la loi"I can't find this text on the Wikipedia page. Do you have a link?
The page explains, that 14 of the 22 supects came from the French region of Alsace. This created a big uproar in the region when they were convicted. So the French parliament passed an amnesty shortly after the process and the Alsatians were liberated almost immediately.An uproar for murderers? Liberation of murderers because of an uproar?
And this is an "explanation" that satisfies you?
For the remaining the death penalties were then converted to prison terms. They were then liberated a few years later like many other people convicted for collaboration and war crimes.The biggest war crime in France with over 600 victims and 500 women and the "muderers" are freed after a few years because they were comin from a certain region? It's hard to imagine that you can be satisfied with such "explanations".
But if you would read the link to the affirmation in lieu of oath of Eberhard Matthes, Obstlt. of the Bundeswehr, the link i gave you, then the whole story suddenly becomes explainable.
And why were the higher ranks not put on trial in 1953 but only the lower ranks?
Why was Stadler in Austria never interrogated from the police?
And why did the french legal authorities never ask the british foreign office for extradiction of Lammerding in Düsseldorf (British sector) even more, since Lammerding never denied to speak openly about what happened at Oradour?
BTW Standartenführer Sylvester Stadler CO of SS PzGren Rgt "Der Führer" seems to have ordered a court martial for Diekmann.
If that is true isn't that interesting? The "criminal" SS was investigating what happened (btw: how many court martials did the allied forces order when german civilians or german POWs were killed?). What was the result of the investigations of this court martial?
My grandfather was also put on a court martial (after a russian breakthrough he was not capable to blow up the ammunition anymore and could only take the "clasp"(?) of the ATG with him). The investigations showed, that he had acted correctly. So a court martial on the german side did not mean the suspected was automatically guilty.
-
@winkelried
"Works we don't need to discuss here"?! Who determines that? You? Do you really think, that only mainstream papers should be allowed in a discussion? Then you can't be concerned that the US-senate just passed with 93% approval a legislation, that from occupy-wallstreet protesters to bloggers, everyone can be imprisoned as long as wished and even be killed without any court being involved. Why? Because this scandal is not openly discussed in the mainstream media but only from "conspiracy-theorists"...
Too bad i can't read French but i used Google to translate the page:
I couldn't find any infos regarding the locked papers of the process. Could you please show it to me?
I also cann't find any infos, how the author of Le Massacre d’Oradour, Vincent Renouard, was persecuted because of writing a historical book about that topic (the article don't even reference the book), what happened to him and that the huge and precious amount of the collected papers were "confiscated" and not given back to him, and that he was put on trial because of "approving of the massacre", although in his book he comes to the conclusion that the claimed massacre did NOT happen that way.
I ask you: can you explain to me, how can you, me or anyone be "guilty of approving something", if the person in fact argues that the crime did NOT happen?!
That's the same like saying: "You don't believe in the official version of 9/11 therefore you are approving it!"
I don't know how about you, but if state prosecutors and courts turn laws of 180 degree around and rape logic that way, then i become very sceptical. And i become even more sceptical, if the mainstream, like Wikipedia, is not capable to deal honestly with the arguments of both sides but instead work the usual way: using ad hominem arguments, denouncing the critical voices as "conspiracy theorists" or "revisionists" instead of presenting the arguments of both "sides" objectively and let the reader decide.
I also can't find any explanations on this page, why the claimed "mass murderers" of Oradour were freed after a few years. Do you have an explanation for that?
And what do you say to the affirmation in lieu of oath from Obstlt. Matthes and why he was silenced without giving him the chance to proove his affirmation in lieu? Is it really satisfiying for you, to use words like "well known revisionist sites" instead of dealing with the arguments?
-
Steiner14, I don't intend to click these links in light of your past record on this board, but they wouldn't by any chance happen to be yet another attempt to deny, justify or whitewash brutal Nazi crimes, would they?
Ofcourse. The links are not for people, who think to know everything. They are only for people that know, that during, but even more after every war a lot of lies are spread about the defeated ones and therefore are open minded for unknown arguments to build a more profound and objective personal opinion about certain topics.
This has nothing to do with political views or parties, this is simply a matter of character, curiosity and the capability to make conclusions on his own - for example just like the 9/11-topic, to name an actual one.
-
in addition they left a trail of war crimes against civilians on their march northward (Rouffillac, Carsac-Aillac, Tulle, Argenton-sur-Creuse, Marsoulas, Oradour-sur-Glane, Trébons, Bagnères - just to name a few of the villages hit).
http://www.militaria-archiv.com/showpost.php?p=1765010&postcount=102
http://www.nexusboard.net/sitemap/6365/die-wahrheit-uber-oradour-was-geschah-am-10644-t296511/
-
When i'm home in a few weeks i can look after it.
-
it seems that there were even less lost to direct airpower - somewhere in the 10%. most of the tanks were either abandoned or destroyed by the crew. which in return can be caused by missing spare parts, missing time to retrieve a vehicle or indirect effect of airpower (interdiction). so to buy airpower shouldn't help either ...
Allied airpower was that massive, that movements during day became almost suicide.
One of the three SS Pz. Div. (i have forgotten the number) that had to alarm itself in the night of the invasion, because the traitors around Speidel in the german HQ didn't respond to the alarms of the troops and coordinate them, was rushing torwards the coast. As soon as the commander had sent the message, that he was moving on his own decision torwards the coast via radio, the HQ surprisingly immediately responded, ordered to stop and move in the other direction away from the coast, because "enemy parachuters have landed". When the tank regiment arrived at target, there were no enemy forces and the commander once again turned around and rushed torwards the coast on his own decision. The result was, that the night was over while still on it's march torwards the coast instead already at the beachhead, it was that heavily decimated from the air in the following hours, that only very few tanks - and much too late after the decisive hours - reached the beachhead.
Ofcourse this doesn't mean, that the alliied airforce was everywhere and always present but when it was, it was often decisive because it made movement during day impossible. Ofcourse the Germans protected their tanks as good as possible. But then they had to hide them and couldn't use them in the usual way.
-
Don't forget, that only 17% of German tanks were lost due to allied tanks in France.
Therefore if you want a statistically more accurate result of a won allied battle, give the Alliies 200% - 300% more purchasing power, buy less tanks but buy air support until the sky is dark and then try again...
-
Green as Jade,
I must agree. But not only most of the enjoyment and fun of tank battles has been lost that way, it simply feels broken and highly unrealistic.
@Mad Mike
This kind of damage modeling was also in CMSF, where the russian 40mm automatic grenade launcher was the biggest threat to western tanks.CMSF-fanbois also have praised the game, when it was in an awful, for many in an unplayable, condition with HUGE problems. But on the other hand it had realtime action...
Now we have brittle heavy tanks and tank tactics have become as important as showering small calibre fire on tanks to get the lottery of the subsystems rolling.
What a huge step forward.
-
The much worse self preservation capabilities of hidden units, at least for WEGO, IMO was a showstopper for me.
Just rush with a fast unit through expected defense lines and until the player can react a whole minute later, with only a bit of luck, the aquired intelligence will show big parts of his devensive plan.
This behaviour forces players to micromanage even more. Grrreat...
-
The reference book about the Tiger is this huge beauty (AFAIK only available in German): http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/3881897798
-
Development dead?
-
Many nations have great scientists of the period. Rutherford (a Brit) realised that there was a nucleus to split. Turing was British. Fleming was British. There are so many great scientists worldwide that claiming German supremacy is, frankly, cracked.
I guess the NASA should have some insight: in the 1980s NASA officially admitted, that without the german scientists, they wouldn't have landed on the moon even until the 1980s (paperclip).
You can clearly follow the results, too: Since the generation of German scientists had retired, the NASA didn't achieve any major goals anymore. But the Germans did not only bring the USA and the USSR into space - they even were the fathers of the European/French space program (ESA, Ariane).
Not to mention the biggest robbery of international patents and scientific papers ever. At the end of war, parts of the german industry and fundamental research was 10-15 years already ahead. Most of the achievements were not destroyed from the scientists and were robbed and it was one important part of the base, why the USA became the world's biggest superpower.
Even the official US-story about the atomic bomb leaves several important questions unanswered. And Einstein, btw, was a plagiarist.
The USA need a drain of foreign intellectual input from all over the world, because the school and educational system is very bad. Additionally the demographic base of the USA is changing rapidly, while the less intelligent groups have the highest birth rates and the intelligent ones have the fewest children. But political correctness cannot deny the laws of nature - which means in that case, that intelligence is highly heritable.
To me it is clearly visible, the USA are falling victim of their own propaganda (or their propaganda was turned against themselfes) and are destroying the fundamentals of their power rapidly themselfes. They do not preserve the productive european blood, mostly germanic, that built them up. Nothing really new, since that has been predicted from a big german politician more than 70 years ago. What is new, is that we can observe the fullfillment of the prophecy in an accelerated manner.
Ofcourse the Brits had lots of great scientists and engineers. Remember who wanted peace with the germanic Britain and admired them and who wanted to destroy Germany? The most stupid politicians have won the war (the most stupid of the stupid recognized after the war, that they had slaughtered the wrong pig) and the result for the white nations can be observed everywhere. QED.
-
This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument
1. US tanks were not effective
2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.
3. US troops were subpar.
4. US machinguns were not very good.
5. The Garand was not very good.
6. US artillery was what won for the US
7. Supply lines too long.
I am a novice when it comes to these subjects. Those grogs who have info on these subjects are hereby petitioned to explain what happened in Normandy 44. If of course they deign to do so.
1. Look into the air (not reflected in 99% of all scenarios).
2. Look at the resource base of the USA.
3. Look at production numbers (the Lend & Lease Act only to Stalin delivered more, than the whole German war production over 6 years).
-
Steve,
if the drawing is heavy on resources, here's another suggestion without any additional LOS-drawing:
-
Here is an example of a color coded LOS representation at the action-spot:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
-
There is no clean way to show the possible heights you can see to each Action Spot. This is especially true for infantry which themselves have different heights, frequently at the same time (some guys prone, some kneeling, some standing).
Have you ever considered not to use a single line to display LOS, but draw several lines from each of the possible heights? A line being drawn from each height (prone, kneeling, standing) to the different heights at the target spot?
The graphical result would be similiar to a vertical standing rectangle with direction to the target and being filled with the two LOS-indicating colors.
I have tried to visualize it:
That way the player checking LOS from a prone unit, would nevertheless immediately see, how the LOS would be, if the unit was standing (or from the height of a tank). The player also would see, if he would be able to see a hull down tank, although the LOS to the ground level would have no LOS and therefore is indicated as "reverse slope", because there would also be a line drawn to the height of a tank.
Additionally the thick red line representing the action spot and the heights above it, could be colored depending on how many clear LOS-lines "hit": i.e. the height being hit with the maximum of clear LOS-lines (i.e. clear los from prone-kneeling-standing & tank -> 4 lines out of 4) receives the clearest color representing clear LOS. If a height receives no clear LOS, then it is painted in the "blocked-LOS color", while everything in between receives a gradient of the two colors.
That way it could be very easily possible for the player to get an impression, which height of the target area can be seen.
-
I am basically looking for a strategy game with plenty of depth and replayability but doesn't depend on my clicking as fast as I can.
Does CMBN fit that bill?
Depth? You will get much more: with CMBN you will learn how extremely deadly a battlefield really is, and what applying "tactics" from typical games or seen in hollywood war-movies or action movies in the real world would have led to... You will develop a feeling for the real world tactical capabilities of all the weapons, instead of a feeling of "action"-weapons.
You will also develop a feeling, how difficult it is, to make all the different weapons and units work together like a clockwork and support each other in the best possible way.
You will also get a feeling of the tactical power of every single weapon, and under which circumstances and terrain it could be used for best effect.
And when you have gone through the phase of frustration and your tactical skills have become better and the computer is no longer a real challenge, you most probably will begin to play against a human player. And that will be the biggest revelation of all, to recognize what good tactical players are capable to achieve and how they can bring you in deep, deep trouble.
I think especially CMBN should fit, because in WEGO mode, it simply doesn't matter, how fast you can click.
Also I don't have a great deal of time to play - does it lend itself to half-hours sessions here and there?
Half hour sessions are not long, but enough. Expect not more than to watch the action of a minute, plan and plot the moves of the next minute for medium sized battles.
The bigger problem will be, that you need high self discipline not to plan the next minute and watch the next movie, and the next one, ... As long as you play against the AI. Playing against a human oponent via PBEM also fits perfectly for people with not much time.
The good thing is: the less time you have available to play, the more time you have to sleep over the problems and solutions on the virtual battlefield.
-
Thanks. Indeed!
-
Ever heard about relative spotting? You can only see the Sherman, if you haven't selected your tank. If you select it, the Sherman disappears. -> Relative Spotting.
-
There are no small guns in CMBN. Pak 36 is half the weight of even the Pak 38.
RKT Otto Riehs described, that he couldn't make a Stellungswechsel (change of position) with his PaK40 during the soviet attack, because they were entrenched on a forward slope and the RSO was too far away on the reverse slope.
If the deploying would have taken so long, then the german Panzerjäger wouldn't have been able to fight the T34 at all (strongest available gun was the PaK 38 at that time). Extreme speed and surprise was the only factor that could compensate the missing calibre.
A fast change of the position was absolutely no problem with the PaK 38 for the excellent trained german crews (seconds vs. minutes).
I actually posted the wrong video before.The sequence I was talking about is where they unlimber the gun from the horses.
There's also a bit of some guys pushing an unlimbered gun down the road at 3:37.
Nice video. It also shows, that ATGs were used on streets without any cover. That was not because it took 5+ minutes to change the position.
FWIW, I've several times moved a gun that weighs over 2000kg over distances in the hundreds of metres.Strawman argument.
Nobody is talking about taking a walk with an ATG. The complaints are that there are no emergency movements over relatively short distances even for smaller guns like the PaK 38, even with best ground conditions and the tremendous time it takes to deploy and the extremely slow turning time.
Advantage: Attacker?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
One of the first things soldiers do, is digging holes and preparing defenses.
If scenario designers would give the defenders more defensive tools, it would make things harder and more realistical for the attackers.
But if holes and sandbags are more precious than tanks, then something simply is not well balanced and therefore realistical results cannot be expected.
If the engine would offer a bigger variety of defensive tools, that would help, too. I.e. purchasing bonuses for walls, simulating sandbag or other kind of protection.