Randell Daigre

I just found out about Russia's collection of MPP's (while they are neutral) on another thread. Sounds like a real problem, but: -do they collect all their MPP's or only part? -if they only collect part, then what percentage? On the point of the delay, however, the demo ends a few months short of the historical date for Barbarossa. I, for one, intend on playing as many games as possible with everybody set on "Random" (in keeping with the spirit of "What if?").

Remember that in the full game you will not have a one-year time limit. The extra time can be used to prepare a stronger invasion against a stronger Russia (tech development and force build-up).

Thanks, Aloid. I'll have to look into that.

Thanks, Aloid. I'll have to look into that.

Hit 'em a few times with Air Fleets and Armies first, until their entrenchment level is zero. After that the tanks don't seem to have any more problems due to terrain than anyone else. Just a casual observation. As Winterhawk said, I haven't actually sat down and taken notes, but it seems to work well.

Sorry about the tirade, folks. I've been hearing (and reading) all my life from Europeans (and some Americans) about how America is only capable of winning battles and wars when it has overwhelming amounts of material and firepower. Comments such as: and: tend to stick in my craw. I understand now that neither of you was saying that the U.S. is incapable of using finesse in war, just that it tends not to. Honestly, I will try to keep the temperture lower in the future. My sincerest apologies.

Yes. As we all know, there was no finesse at all involved in the Gulf War. I mean, the fact that nobody predicted the allied forces' "left hook" around the Iraqi western flank doesn't count as finesse. And of course using roughly the same amount of troops and equipment as the enemy always counts as "brute force". The only people I've ever met who think that the U.S. military bases its strategies and plans on overwhelming numbers alone are people who have no knowledge of U.S. military thinking, little practical military experience, and no desire to correct these shortfalls. While it is true that the U.S. has used overwhwlming force (and numbers) many times in the past, this does not mean that we have ever been incapable finesse, merely that it is often the most prudent course to overwhelm the enemy if you have the forces available. I would, however, point out that while Montgomery was still picking his nose in front of Caen (an objective he was supposed to have captured in the first 24 hours of Overlord) Patton was busy outflanking and encircling the German forces in Northwestern France (an encirclment the Canadian Army let the Germans slip out of).

That's actually very similar to the set I mix-and-matched. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to post an image of them here.

That's actually very similar to the set I mix-and-matched. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to post an image of them here.

Of course, this is all just a big "I'm a tit man and you're an leg man" discussion. Just a matter of personal preferences. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. (Even if their opinion is wrong)

Dammit! Disregard.

Otto- Good points (and well-researched). Just to clarify a few things: I included "sloped armor" on the list mostly as a general principal. Sloped armor makes more efficient use of the metal that's there. Think how much more survivable the Tiger would have been with the same thickness of armor sloped at, say, 30 deg. from vertical (without adding any extra weight). It's just a better design principal. From what you said, it would seem that the main difference in the ability of a Tiger and a Panther to withstand a hit was the quality of the metal that was used. This would seem to indicate that Ferdinand Porche had the right idea in trading armor thickness (and weight) for slope. And once again: Which basically means any operation involving a tank. Sorry to keep hitting on that one, but one of the most important lessons I've learned over the past ten years is that tanks move or they die. Sitting around waiting to get shot at is for grunts (and they don't like it either). BTW, the problem I was referring to with the gun-turret drive system of the Tiger was this: The turret was hooked into the same hydraulic system that operated the brakes. The system was set up in such a way that you could not traverse the turret while the tank was moving. Not actually that big of a deal, though, as it is nearly impossible to hit anything with the main gun of a moving tank anyway (unless you have a competent stabilization system, which nobody did until about 1965 or so). This design flaw may or may not have been corrected on later models of the tank, I'm honestly not sure.

The one real advantage I have seen in rockets is that they never take damage when conducting an attack.

"The Panther was a superior tank technically for all the reasons you listed, but the Tiger was simply better." I've been an M1A1 tank crewman for over ten years. In my opinion, if a tank has: Better power-to-weight ratio Better fuel efficiency Higher speed ( especially cross- country speed) Better mechanical reliabilty Sloped as opposed to "flat vertical" armor A better gun Better optics(can't kill what you can't hit) And a less cumbersome gun-turret drive system, then how can the tank it's being compared to be "just better"? Panzer Lehr brings up the most salient point, however. The whole idea behind tanks is mobile warfare. If you make a tank that can deal death to all while standing still, but has little or no tactical or operational mobility, then some jet jockey, rotorhead (or Mustang driver) is going to turn that tank into a column of smoke and flame while the enemy tankers bypass it (laughing up their sleeves the whole time) [ July 22, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

oops

I doubt very much that the Poles and Czechs would have considered the terms acceptable.

I don't know how far ahead the AI in SC looks, but I categorically can not get the AI to actually excute a Sea Lion or a Barbarossa. I have gone so far as to declare war on all the minors (even Switzerland and Ireland) to remove all possible distractions. I then proceeded to disband every unit I could and had the Royal Navy commit suicide by attacking ports as far from Britain as possible (Med Fleet and Atlantic Fleet). All of this was done with FOW off, so the computer could see I wasn't hiding anything, and the highest level of difficulty set. The AI response was a massive buildup on the Russian border that never quite turned into an invasion.

WWII war game buff since the original (CGA/EGA graphics!) Eastern Front from SSI. Youngsters! I cut my teeth on SSI's Kampfgruppe on a (can you believe it?) Commodore 64. (I've got to be too old for this #*$%!)

I'm having the same problem, with a similar system. I'll send you a bug report, also. No big deal. If it was easy, I'd write my own games.

77885. Download complete. Need beer. Will be out of cave sometime next week.

I'll third! All in favor...

"Gone Gold" means that they have the final version of the game finished and are ready to start producing copies of it. You aren't ,by any chance, related to someone in the Louisiana National Guard, are you?

Finally, no more "End of Demo" message deadlines to meet. Now I just have to find a way to fill up two days of waiting time without driving myself (or others) crazy.

The same thing happened on my computer (I use XP, too). If you put a shortcut somwhere else, then you get an icon, but in the original folder all you ever get is the "stealth icon".

Good point. Many of the most famous Generals of WW II (MacArthur comes to mind) were famous, not only for brilliance, but as the result of shameless self-promotion. This does not, however, lessen their accomplishments. (It just sets off my B.S. detector)