Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Steiner14

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,410

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Steiner14

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by kenm:

    Try this out. The German high water mark was 12/7/41. As unpopular as this will be, in my opinion, the Germans lost the war when their allies the Japs pulled one of the stupidest attacks in all of recorded history and attacked Pearl Harbor.

    Kenm,

    my vote goes for that date, too. smile.gif

    It also shows very good the non-existing collaboration of Germany, Japan and Italy, while the western Allies, despite all ideological differences, showed and excellent cooperation with the USSSR.

    Was Hitler already silly enough, to help Mussolini always out from his disastrous adventures, instead of stopping him, but which i still can understand with good will from a strategical point of view, i have absolutely no clue, why Japan preferred to attack the US-fleet, with no chance to come the end of war only one step closer, but to involve the sleeping US tiger, while the Germans were almost pleading, to attack finally Russia in the east and to bind the rest of the red forces and to cut off lend and lease deliveries (IMO the difficult situation of Hr.Gr.Süd followed by Stalingrad, wouldn't had happened).

    OK, this 'great' japanese decision was followed by Germany's genius act, the declaration of war against the USA :rolleyes: , but IMO this wasn't war-deciding, because it was only a question of time, until the USA would have entered the war against Germany and was only waiting that a good reason appears (what a joke, that Germany itself presented that reason on a silver-tray).

    IMO, on 12.7.41, with that attack, Axis gave the close victory against the USSR away, which only had to be grabbed, and lost the law of action freely to the Aliies.

    Maybe someone has infos/opinions/theories, why Japan ignored the German pleading (please, rational ones, not 'because they were evil and stupid' ;) )?

    [ June 05, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

    0

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    Guys, Steiner14 was threatened with banning by Madmatt once already. I saw the reference to "Jewish influence" in his post, and his juvenile remark regards "experts" in an earlier post, and came to some conclusions about whether or not to respond to him. I might humbly suggest others review his posting history and draw their own conclusions about what can be accomplished by discussing with him. ;)

    Reading helps, liar.

    Sometimes a doctor, too. :rolleyes:

    0

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hat Trick:

    Though I will grant you that it is possible that Hitler, seeing the world through his anti-semetic haze, may have thought that such a thing is possible, hopefully no one here is dim witted enough to believe such statements.

    Hat Trick, if you are intersted in understanding history, why and how things happened how they happened, it is necessary to try to understand the reasons of the acting parties and not to judge them, like politicians.

    Personal opinions and judgements about right or wrong, good or bad, are not good in trying to understand why things happened.

    There does not exist one truth. Neither you own it, nor me.

    This is the reason, why every court follows the principle "audiatur et altera pars". You have to listen to both sides, before you can judge.

    And i clearly stated, i'll try to show the german point of view.

    Do you have a problem with that?

    If yes, i suggest to rethink your understanding of history.

    You'll never be able to understand why things happened in former times, if you are judging everything from your point of view today, with simple 'good' and 'bad' categories.

    History is much more complicated and it makes it necessary to try to forget the own point of view, to be able to understand how involved persons decided and why they decided.

    Ofcourse this is often contrary to the personal opinion, but that is not the standard if you're interested in history.

    'Good' or 'bad'?

    Depends on the point of view of the acting parties.

    THE Truth?

    Nonsense for the masses and necessary for the politicians to drive the masses.

    But not of interest, if you want to understand why things happened.

    Classical theme for tragedies: the different realities for different persons or parties. Sometimes it's also called fate.

    Taking a closer look abroad the simple 'good' and 'bad' categories, European history is full of such tragedies.

    0

    Why 'IS' and not 'JS'

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by OZ77:

    Because it was called IS on russian, not JS.

    The russian spelling of Joseph is Iosif i.e., Iosif Stalin= IS

    Thanks OZ.

    So Iosif means Joseph, or Josef in German -> JS in English and German or otherwise the correct russian kyrillian letters. But IS in English or German is definately wrong.

    0

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by CombinedArms:

    They seemed to forget that the Allies had a huge navy and massive merchant service and (in the Pacific and to North Africa) habitually transported invasion forces over thousands of miles.

    Forget? :rolleyes:

    Guys, we're not talking about a game, we're talking about the invasion of a whole, highly industrialized country with the most powerful Navy, excellent airforce, well trained infantry and being an ally of the USA.

    The preparations that were made on the german side were nothing, compared to the necessary size of such a huge operation.

    Ofcourse Germany did everything to make the British secret-services and the government make believe, that Sealion could happen, if the government doesn't return on the peace-table.

    Sealion was a classical bluff and i'll try to show why it was necessary for the germans from their point of view and why they had no other chance:

    1. If they do nothing, Churchill would not come back to the peace-table. All the german efforts were rejected: letting the british expedition-army escape, was the biggest possible sign, a country can make, that it doesn't want the war with GB.

    2. The bombing of city centers without any industry showed to the German command, that Churchill wanted the escalation.

    3. The obviously support of GB by the USA.

    4. The mass-media in GB and USA were full of anti-german propaganda, showing the germans, that governments wanted to bring the people on the anti-german side, while people, especially in USA, still didn't want to become involved into the 'European War'.

    5. The jewish influence in USA, that even had grown, with the immigration of the jews that had to leave Germany.

    6. On the other side the USSSR, with the communistic highest priority aim of world-revolution and that world-revolution needs Europe and to conquer Europe, Germany needs to be thrown down first.

    This is not Nazi-propaganda, this can be found in Lenin's considerations and plans, was supported by every Communist and official line of the Highest Soviet.

    Long speech short: the Germans knew, that the war in the east is only a matter of time and it will be only possible to stop the Red Wave, with highest concentration of all available german forces.

    They also knew, that such a huge army - at this time already the strongest one in the world, with the best and most tanks - can not be stopped within a few kilometers, once it is rolling.

    Several hundred kilometers will be necessary to stop such a huge and well equipped army.

    Once rolling, the red army would easily run until Berlin and, further in the German conclusions, Europe would be lost to Communism.

    What could be done by the Germans?

    On one side, they knew that the war in the east is unavoidable and only a matter of time.

    On the other side they had Churchill, absolutely unwilling to grab the reached out hand.

    There was only one solution: to force the British government to come back to the table.

    The chances were not that bad from the German point of view: the opposition against Churchill's strict pro-war course still was huge.

    But what Germany didn't know: Churchill already had Roosevelt's word, that the USA will join the war as soon as possible and that Churchill was really willing, to deliver the whole empire to the US-money-lenders.

    While before WWI, GB were the biggest money-lender to the US, during WWI, this turned around and WWI was a huge deal for the US, and GB became deptor of the US.

    In WWII Churchill sacrified the rest of the Empire.

    From the german point of view, it was unimaginable, that a British Leader would really prefer to continue the war against Germany, while losing the rest of the Empire to the Wall Street.

    [ June 04, 2003, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

    0

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Ant:

    Sorry Steiner14 but your post seems to go off at such a tangent that I've got a crick in my neck trying to follow it ;)

    Sorry that you can't follow my academic argumentation. ;)

    All I'm saying is that operation sealion had absolutely no chance of success whatsoever and any serious military commander at the time must have known that. Therefore there can be only two reasons why such elaborate plans were drawn up.

    I didn't mean the discussion about sealion, but the plan for Barbarossa, you mentioned.

    Regarding sealion:

    Absolutely sharing our opinion, that this was pure fiction.

    Such plans were made. Yes. Ofcourse they were made.

    Once again: the existance of such a plan, has not much to say about the real decisions.

    IMO, the propaganda by those who win a war against those who lose, cannot be overestimated.

    IMO, Sealion was only a hypotetical what-if general-staff-game.

    The german Marine had by far not enough ships for the necessary troops.

    Not to mention, that the Empire had the most powerful Navy, many times stronger than the tiny german one.

    Looking closer at the german naval transport-capacities, amount of heavy ships, and the complete miss of long-range aircraft, i have the impression, Sealion is used more for propaganda, than anything else.

    If we take a look, what Hitler really did, to avoid war with the Brits, no one else in Germany could have dared to do that:

    - stopping the german troops before Dünkirchen instead of eliminating a whole army

    - waiting several weeks after first British bombing of german city centers, before the first geman bombers were allowed to attack industry targets at Coventry and London (while, i.e. Britain declared war only two days after Germany attacked Poland, and not GB)

    - the flight of Rudolf Hess

    Yes, i totally agree, Sealion was made to bring the British government back to the table and to support those Anti-Churchill forces, who wanted peace with Germany.

    But i don't agree, that if Sealion wouldn't had been planned, Churchills government would had not lied to the British people, that they are threatened: like Roosevelt (and mass-media) told the US-citizens, that the Germans are even planning to invade the USA.

    0

    "The High Water Mark" for the Germans?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Ant, such plans are normal part of each general staff.

    Especially under the political circumstances in the 1930s, every army had to make such plans.

    Even today, but as we all know, the Germans lost the war, and therefore we know everything about the plans, while the plans of the winners stay secret.

    It's not correct, to make the conclusion, that an army was already well prepared for an attack, if the general-staff had made investigations and plans.

    It's another topic, that the german plans still are presented to the uninformed civilians, to make them believe, Hitler had planned to attack the peaceful USSSR long ago.

    Following this logic would mean, during the last 50 years, almost every state had planned to attack it's neighbours.

    No, the plans for Operation Barbarossa had to be made by every statesman caring for his country.

    What do you guess, was planned by the NATO?

    Nuclear destruction of Germany, for example.

    Or what was planned by the Soviets?

    What i want to say is, that the existance of a plan, doesn't say much.

    What's necessary is, to take a much closer look at the real unit-composition, how well the troops were prepared for the climate, how good were the tanks, what about maps, ...

    Taking this into account - and comparing with the USSSR troop-concentrations on the border, and -movements and the official political target of the Communistic Highest Soviet and all Communist parties, i wouldn't dare to say, that the german attack was planned well and who really was better prepared for an attack-war...

    0

    Patrix's Uncertainty Principle [PUP]

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Dieseltaylor,

    totally agree, that the visible size of the flags, even the flags itself, can lead to a unrealistic gameplay.

    IMO the visible flags lead to concentrate the troops/firepower on the main flag(s), eliminate the weaker enemy forces easily, becuase the enemy tries to conquer all flags, and afterwards spread the troops and take the other flags.

    I wish there would be an option for playing without any flags and creating whole (invisible) areas that need to be hold instead of single points.

    0

    Would You Pay for Additional Features?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    In the meanwhile there are so many great ideas for the next engine, that CM will become even better for a ridiculous low price, compared to other games.

    But there are also excellent ideas for different-game types (i.e. Biltongs Campaign Rules, The Forever War Rules) that i can't imagine, BFC can iomplement this into the main game, within a reasonable time horizon.

    I understand that the price of the game can't be rised, due to the rules of market, but wouldn't it be a good idea for BFC, to sell seperate PlugIns that fully integrate into the game?

    You want long lasting single-player campaigns?

    A PlugIn similar to BCR gives you what you want.

    You want to create scenarios with additional scripting-support to make the TacAI really rock?

    A PlugIn gives you the opportunity to support the TacAI in the design process.

    Whoever wants to play such scenarios with enhanced TacAI needs to buy this PlugIn, too.

    You want to be part of a huge multiplayer-campaign?

    Get the PlugIn for that.

    Would you buy such (and others) PlugIns?

    I would definately pay ~20.- Euro for each PlugIn (and i would buy them all ;) ).

    0

    Couple of missing features

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Quenaelin:

    Features which should be added to this game or next patch.

    Sound:

    2. Sounds are still quite undynamic and I found out that you are using still same explosion samples as in CMB0, explosion sounds are weak and speech is loud this is quite unrealistic to me. Tune up those explosion sounds little bit and lower other sounds, you can calculate desibels if you like. Air pressure for explosion is much much bigger than yelling it should damp every other sound under it, explosion is about 140 db and yelling is about 80-90 db, machine gun fire is about 130 db. So every time when you increase 10 db loudness of those samples should be doubled. So explosion samples should be 64 times louder than yelling samples (somebody correct me, if I am wrong about this), but anyway explosion and machine gun fire should be very much louder than they are now.

    I completely disagree.

    The sounds of CMBO have good dynamics and especially they are not that much psychoaccoustically enhanced for small speakers, that they suggest bass, but there's none.

    My two subwoofers let the earth shake when i turn the volume playing CM up.

    And driving with the vehicles @ zoom level 1 when suddenly a grenade explodes or even hits, lets me quite often twitch.

    I also like the non-linear increase of volume when zooming in and also the stereo-field is quite natural and gives good impresions of distance.

    I doubt you really want realistic volume levels - :eek:

    And it's not possible to transmit the volume-relations onto a game, using only 16bit samples and most people are using only small loudspeakers with weak amplifiers.

    If you want 40dB dynamics between sounds, this is much more than small sound-systems can handle - either you'll hear the explosins but no speaking, or speaking but the explosions would become completely distorted.

    Also -40dB and less volume on 16bit samples introduces lot's of digital distortion to the samples.

    But nevertheless, it's a good idea for sound-purists: if i find the time, i'll try to make a ExtremeDynamicsSoundMod smile.gif

    In CMBO it is a great compromise between playability and realism. I even find, that the

    surroundings' sound was a little bit too loud, and once the loops are detected, it is getting annoying.

    [ September 12, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...