Ruthless

This? Why I could make a hat, or a brooch, a pterodactyl...

IIRC, the original report ended with the cryptic statement: "...and there, hanging in the door, was a stainless steel hook."

Suggested Changes: (1) Campaign: IMO, the best way to achieve the illusion of taking part in a digital war is to have the outcome of what you are doing reflected in a high level. I would suggest Falcon 4.0 as a case study, even though it is not a wargame; nonetheless, when the player, for example, destroyes a bridge that the enemy needs, it affects the enemy supply, their ability to move forward, the enemy has to repair it or else use bridging units, etc. It isn't necessary that the player be able to control anything on a level higher than the individual scenarios, but there should be some indication that the battle being fought actually fits into the war (and I don't mean to suggest something unrealistic like a single talented company CO changing the course of the war on the eastern front.) (2) Triggers and events/more flexibility in scenario design (more flexible victory conditions included in this.) The Operational Art of War is a good case study of that. This would give the scenario designers more flexibility and allow them to work around game engine quirks. (3) Make scenario files open so that the community can read the outcome of battles (what units remain, where they are, how the map is laid out, etc. This does NOT mean that the proprietary, underlying game stats for each unit need to available. This DOES mean that the game would produce a file that is readable by a spreadsheet program that would say, for example, terrain square 23 is "woods" and unit 52 is a 37mm anti-tank gun at coordinates xyz.) This could largely reduce the burden for Battlefront to do more for (1) and (2). Also, the game should be able to read scenario files in this format, as well, so that the community can write their own freeware to generate scenarios. (4) More useful tools to read terrain. I don't mind viewing the game from level 1 on occasion, but as it is, it is very time consuming to have to go to level 1 or 2 just to see what the elevation and terrain is to plot moves. One thing I'd like is a floating LOS tools that shows the height and terrain type under the cursor and if the user draws a line, it shows the height and terrain under the anchored point and under the moving end. Others have complained that a floating LOS tool is unrealistic, however, the user can already do something very similar just be moving to level 1 at the place in question and looking around, the LOS tool would just make it easier. Also, the AI already has the ability to do this. In short: There's no difference in realism, but there is an increased amount of frustration without. Alternatively, how about showing the LOS of a unit for its last waypoint that the user places? An elevation grid would be a helpful alternative, as well. Currently, however, elevation changes are virtually unreadable from levels 3 or higher (basically, useful levels.) (5) Better TacAI and/or better orders system. For example, aside from the oft-mentioned "convoy" command, it would be nice to be able to tell a platoon of tanks to move to an area (perhaps bounded by a rectangle the user selects), find positions within that area that are hull-down to a point(?) selected by the user, and to fire if enemy units come within a certain range. Unfortunately, it's somewhat like herding cats with the orders we have. There just isn't a way to convey to the units what you want them to do. And I would like to also second Dorosh's request for more cowbell.

Ok, I have to say something since this is a pet peeve: I agree it is unrealistic, but that's irrelevant. The reason is obvious: You can already go to an arbitrary spot on the map and look around; a floating LOS tool would just make that easier. Now, some may balk at moving the camera to arbitrary locations, but I have a feeling this is the way the game is played by virtually all players and further, it is the way the game is intended to be played (or else this would have been limited already); Since the orders menu is relatively sparse and the troop intelligence is relatively simple, it is necessary for the user to plot covered routes for troops (there is no way to simply tell them to go somewhere, but stay in cover. The user must guide them.) The only way to have an idea if one is in cover (or hull-down, has LOS) is to go to level 1 to plot the endpoints. Thus, I conclude it is necessary and intended for playing anything but a very clumsy game to go to level 1 and move around the map to look around. If one is able to do that, then the floating LOS tool becomes nothing more than a time-saving device. Also, since the user is not a person on the map (the user is not the company commander nor a squad grunt, etc.--BFC has always claimed that CM will never become a "command game" so I don't think this will change), to claim that this is more information than a commander would have is also a bit nonsensical. In real life, a commander could only see from 1 location at a time and would have to physically move somewhere to observe; otherwise, they'd be looking at a map. In other words, as long as the game is not a "command game" (or command simulation), it is useless to talk about "gameyness", except in terms of overall capabilities of force on force. I mean, it doesn't matter that a real-life commander wouldn't have that ability (because we already have WAY more god-like abilities anyway); it only matters if it can cause the player to use his forces in an unrealistic manner. And I don't see that happening; at least no more than now. Heck, I bet the AI already has an internal floating LOS so that it can plot its moves. In real life, a commander would probably have told some of his men to scout, for example, a covered route that is out of LOS of, for example, a town they are attacking. Once they came back and reported the lay of the land and figured out their plan, they could proceed through cover and out of LOS. Similarly, a commander could order his men to take up covered positions overlooking some key feature that they were to cover. They'd probably know well enough that they should have LOS to the area and not take up blind positions. Actually, I think as long as the game will remain similar to what we have now (meaning not become a "command game" or somesuch), the floating LOS tool is a good compromise. However, other options would be to expand the orders menu and the AI considerably so that the men could find their own covered paths (within limits defined by the user) and you could order them to take up positions in an area that have LOS to a location. That would be a much harder option to do programmatically, though, and in reality the floating LOS tool is really not any gamier than the game already is by virtue of allowing unrestricted placement of the camera around the map (so I'd say it is a more practical option.) It certainly is much more unrealistic that I can't order my men to move to the edge of the woods to cover an area and they end up stopping just short of having LOS to the area. Real soldiers would just move forward another meter. I would also recommend that in CM2X, we have an LOS that we can change the endpoint elevation on (so that we can find LOS to, say, the second story of a building.) Well, since we're talking about during the orders phase, I don't think it would be that bad, but it is probably inferior to the floating LOS tool and would surely take awhile to calculate (and would be the more difficult option to code.)

Second Kip's request that maps, troop positions, and results are output in to a (human) readable format at the end of a match (and able to be read in in the same format) so that users can make their own campaigns.

"Mail Call" with R.L. Ermee (sp?)

Just so there's no confusion, my original quote (in entirety) was intended to mean that it's ok for BFC to try to make the game as "realistic" as possible, as long as they also keep it reasonably accessible for those who don't want to spend an hour plotting a turn and pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to play properly. I agree with JasonC's quote above.

Sorry for not returning to this thread--I know ya missed me--but Real Life intruded. I think it's fine to try to make the game as frustratingly realistic as possible for some gamers, but they can certainly add features that are optional (that's why they have different FOW settings, after all.) Right now, I don't particularly want the game to be "gamey". However, it is. There's no getting around it. Part of that is that (and I think some here miss this point) CM is not meant to be a "command" simulation. You are not the company commander, you are not the platoon commander, you are not the grunt firing his rifle, etc. You are all of these to some extent. CM is meant to allow you to create scenarios, to give your troops orders, and to have the outcome be reasonably realistic. (I tend to think they really need to make the game a "command" game with real command effects and more realistic orders before it will really work right, but I think in general the system works well.) So, to be honest, I think the argument about these tools being unavailable to WW2 commanders is totally irrelevant. You are NOT a WWII commander; not in real life and not in this game. In the game, you are sort of "god" with constraints put upon you to simulate the problems of command and control, etc....but you are not a commander. (For example, while giving orders to an entire battalion on one map, I gave very detailed orders to some squads that were completely cut off and waaaaay the hell away from all the rest of my forces, with hostile forces in between.) So, since the goal of the game is not a command simulation, but to simulate the outcome and basic actions during a battle, it falls short some times in its current implementation (for example, as I mentioned before, it is not possible to guarantee that your men will actually be able to see the area you want them to cover, despite the fact that in real life, they'd shift positions if they couldn't see it.) Currently, when trying to figure out LOS, you pretty much have to get down to level 1 and look around. A WWII commander would have less ability to do this than we do. If you wish to simulate this, then simply fix your viewpoint on level 1 locked onto the company commander, never use the LOS tool and never jump to another squad or move the camera except to rotate it about the commander. I think most players would tire of that very quickly, but there are a few who'd eat that up (though I'm unaware of anyone who actually plays that way; even the "CM Ironman Rules" allow you to jump from squad to squad, IIRC.) For most of us, however, we move the camera to where we want to check LOS, we go down to level 1 (or maybe 2) and look around. That's fine, but I don't have that much time to play, I mostly play from levels 3+, so I can see more of the field at once and it doesn't take me so long to play. I simply want tools that will replicate the experience of going to level 1 and looking around, without having to go to level 1 and look around. Also, I reckon that in real life, you could order your troops to stay out of LOS of a nearby town, for example, and they could probably do it pretty well. In CM, this can be much more difficult. Similarly, as previously mentioned, it is very difficult to order them to get to a position where they have LOS on something, but preferrably they stay in cover. In real life, the troops would be smart enough to figure this out. I'd be totally onboard with adding better TacAI and better orders, rather than adding more tools. However, adding tools is a much more realistic option, IMO, in terms of difficulty to implement. Also, the idea that BFC has given for wanting imperfect things to happen (so to speak), is somewhat valid, but is totally incongruous with the game itself. It is, for example, much more unrealistic for me to be able to coordinate an attack with a platoon that is totally cut off from friendly lines--meaning I can use the platoon that is cut off to execute a very complex coordinated attack if I want-- than it is for my men to have enhanced ability to stay in cover and to figure LOS. I would reiterate, though, that CM is still an excellent and elegant design. Certainly it breaks at times and the odd thing happens in almost every game, and certainly we can all name things about it that are unrealistic (time compression, for example)...but overall it produces reasonable results most of the time; I'd just like to remove some of the frustrations of playing and to reduce the number of odd things that happen. What I'd recommend for future releases is that they implement a realistic C&C system and much improved orders and TacAI; then add the grid lines as optional for the player to use. That would, IMO, be the best solution, but MUCH harder to implement.

I'm sorry, but I believe it is your logic that is flawed. In Real Life, an individual soldier or commander would know if he had an LOS to something and could shoot at it; if not, he'd move to get the LOS if he was supposed to have it. This is not possible in CM currently because the soldiers are not smart enough; this will likely never change (unless BFC comes forward big time with an AI upgrade), so a floating LOS tool would do it. If you prefer to not use it, you don't have to. You should also note that in Real Life, you wouldn't be able to see what your soldiers see. You'd only be able to see...wait for it...what you can see! Commanders in WWII rarely played from level 4, as they felt it was too gamey. This is a suggestion for a tool that would eliminate some of the frustration due to limited AI. Nothing more. The designers probably won't go for it, as they've said they don't want people to plot "perfect" positions and routes, but (IMO) if that is the case, we really need better AI. They are also ignoring the rather "unrealistic" part about being able to drive around the map with the camera to see the map from whatever position/angle you like. How is THAT not gamey?! The grid or other elevation map suggestions would also be welcome. Did they have such luxuries in WWII? No. Did they have the ability to scout out the land before hand? You betcha. I guess what I'm saying is: Of course it's gamey. It's a game! (Heck, the interface is "gamey". No one in real life tells their tank commander: "Take your tank platoon down that line, hunting, then go fast down the next line, then turn right 73.5 degrees, then move to contact, then...") The whole game is gamey. This, and other suggestions, however, IMO, make for better results because we can minimize the "gamey" parts of the game (dumb AI, for example.) It's better to have useful tools that you can turn off (if you like), than to have frustrate players.

Although equally unrealistic (and IMO, an equally irrelevant point since the C&C structure is hosed, the fact that I can move the camera to any spot on the map and look around, etc. make it so), I'd like to add what what tool I'd like: A floating LOS tool. What I really want to know is whether or not my unit can see something when they get there (or if they will be under observation from a position while on route somewhere.) It IS unrealistic, but in real life, you could order your troops to get to a position of good cover with LOS to a spot, which the troops in CM aren't smart enough to do on their own. It would also make it easier to see what kind of terrain is under my cursor without selecting a particular unit and using that unit's LOS to determine what the terrain square is. And in real life, individual soldiers would have a lot better knowledge of when they are concealed from a location than the user gets on CM.

I had the privelege of taking out my email opponent's IS-1(?) with my Puma...that was an excellent moment...

True, but they'd know if they could see a particular spot from where they are and act accordingly. The units in CM do not (because, as good as the TacAI is--IMO--it still is not really that close to how real humans would act...thus the micromanagement still exists, only it's harder to do without the grid.) Yes, of course having a grid is unrealistic, but then so is being able to see every part of the map at once in real time and to see what your squads are doing and what they see. If you want that level of realism, CM would have to change drastically: Only give the user a realistic military map with occasional updates from units which report in. Of course, then the 3-d would be almost superfluous since you wouldn't seem much anyway and you'd only get to get text reports about unit status and position. I don't think BFC is going to take CM that direction, though a few die-hards would enjoy it immensely. Yes, it is an abstraction for a real command system which, I think, they are hoping to introduce in CMX, and I hope they do, too. I'm not crazy about it, either, but even though I disagree with a lot of their design decisions, surely we can all (or most?) agree that CM works fairly well most of the time. There are problems and things that didn't happen in real life, the games are compressed (as in a 30-minute fierce battle would probably in real life have been played out much more cautiously over the course of a day or something like that.) But, taking into account that BFC must balance playability with realism, I think we should be able to agree that their system works reasonably well most of the time. Agreed. Borg spotting is a big problem, but a grid is a lot easier to implement than a realistic command system; Actually, now that I think about it, IIRC BFC has said that their solution to Borg spotting will not be a full-blown command system but more likely a slightly refined system of what is there now (units must spot other units themselves before they can fire on them.) But don't take my fuzzy memory as the final truth on that subject and it's possible that even BFC doesn't know at this point what the changes will be like. Well, yes the routing behavior is yet another issue that could use work. But, really--and I'm no grognard--isn't part of a company commander's job to establish defense positions? I mean, wouldn't he(or she?) tell their platoon commanders or section commanders: "Hey, go up on hill 137 and establish a defensive fire position on that road over there." or somesuch? In CM, to get that kind of behavior, you have to be company commander, platoon commander, and squad commander and tell the guys EXACTLY where to sit and look and what to do. I don't really expect CM to be improved to the point where you can give the guys orders like that and I fully expect the level of micromanagement will have to continue. The problem being that we are forced to micromanage because AI is really hard to do (and is very CPU and memory intensive), but the micromanagement is not mitigated by good LOS tools.

The other side to this is that many (perhaps most?) players are adults with little time to play as it is and simply don't have the time to get down to level one all the time. As it is, I play most of my games from higher up because otherwise it would take several times as long to both issue orders and, even worse, to replay turns. If I have to watch the replay from every other squad's viewpoint that would greatly multiply the time it would take to watch a replay. Now, this is not as bad as it sounds; with some experience a player can check a few spots each turn for LOS by getting down to level 1 and looking around, but it's still kindof a pain and occasionally you mess up a LOS by just a pixel-length and so your unit can't see where it needs to--where in real-life the guy would just move forward a little so he could see. And, as someone pointed out above, there is a problem in the realism in that a real-life unit would be able to find a spot with LOS pretty fast (assuming there were one nearby) whereas a human player HAS to micromanage to get the LOS (in most cases), which is kindof contradictory to the anti-micromanagement argument you are making. But, what we really need in that case is a "search for LOS to this spot in this area" (user specifies location for LOS and a box on the map in which the unit would try to find a LOS to the spot.) However, that'd be a heck of a lot harder to code than adding a grid option. In short, having a grid option would add enjoyment and playability for many players--in fact, probably more than lower fog-of-war settings do (since I doubt many use them.) Realism issues about this are pretty much non-issues since in real life a commander wouldn't be able to see all of his squads all the time and issue orders to them and to see what they see in real-time, so we're well past realism in the sense of what the commander can and can't do/see. OTOH, it isn't like CM isn't still one of the best deals out there in terms of $/entertainment and the completeness of its package. I can think of all sorts of things I'd like to see (number one would a be a real operational layer or realistic command system), but we'll probably have to wait for CMX for any new major improvements and that's fair. I'd just ask that you keep the grid option on the wish list for CMX.

Or even simpler, is to have them go back to where they came from.Follow their own waypoints back! Whats even more frustrating, is I give them orders to make their way back to cover, and they ignore it and continue off on there path to death. Most casulties are from the chicken dance of death. :mad: </font>

As I understand it, the problem is not that the unit can't find good cover (like a nearby foxhole or woods), but that it is incapable of distinguishing LOS-blocking. That is, the AI doesn't know that a few feet away is terrain which will block LOS; rather it seems the AI seeks out the terrain tiles that are relatively close (and usually that are further from the enemy or at least no closer) which provide better cover (meaning the TacAI checks the cover/concealment values for terrain tiles and how far away they are.) I agree this is a significant problem with their TacAI. I'd offer the suggestion that the player can designate to a unit a single waypoint during each orders phase for them to fall back to if they come under fire. That would be a lot simpler than adding the necessary code to the AI, but perhaps with the new game engine coming out (in a few years?) that problem will be squashed with improved TacAI.

Just wanted to comment on this: (1) I agree that a campaign system is probably one of the more difficult things you could add to CM--might even warrant a separate release just to add something like that without other major changes (In this case, I'm not speaking of just adding hooks for the community--that should be fairly easy; I'm talking about implementing the campaign system yourselves.) (2) I agree with BFC's focus so far. BFC team is so small that they can't get overly ambitious with each release--and this is a good policy because none of your titles end up half-finished in some way or buggy. I'm glad you chose to focus on tactical part first and you've done a credible job separating it from the operational/strategic. Of course, now that the tactical engine is pretty good (still could use work, as we all know), might be time to work on modelling how the battle affects the war (3) The problem with playing unbalanced scenarios is that most people would not be satisfied getting a few shots off, then getting overrun or routed, but relying on bonus points to make up the difference. Most players look for a "balanced" (which usually means ahistorical) scenario. However, with the inclusion of a campaign system, perhaps if the player knows he/she must conserve their forces and that they will fight again will be motivation to play more unbalanced (historical) scenarios. If one has higher-level concerns, then they might not mind trying to make do with a lot fewer troops. Just a theory. (4) Glad to hear you guys are considering it! Now that you let that piece of info out, would you mind telling us what the next theatre/time frame will be?

New Macintosh Ad

" Another thing I suggest would be allowing exporting and importing AAR data for third-party campaign programs (or hand-written if the format is documented well enough). The program writes CM a file for creating a certain kind of battle, then after the battle CM exports a file that tells the program what happened and what losses were taken and so on. It would take some extra programming effort from BFC, yes, but less than if BFC had to design and implement a campaign system. At least it is more realistic to expect to happen, and it'd allow people to create as good or bad campaign system as they could." I would like to throw my support behind that. I've been asking for this feature for awhile, as well, and would be--IMO--relatively easy to be programmed. (I say this as a professional software engineer.) The game already has to store data (probably some kind of array of tile types, locations of fortifications and structures, their damage levels, craters, stuff like that, probably keeps a list of units, their type, their name, their status, locations, etc.) to a file for PBEM and to save and load games. All that is required to is code a second way for it to be stored and loaded: In form a human can read. This also does not need to give any proprietary information (detailed internal stats on things that BFC wants to keep private), just needs to say, for example, that a particular tile is "Woods", or a particular unit is a Russian Rifle Squad '41 with weapon types xyz and casualty levels abc, etc. etc. This would free BFC from having to satisfy the community's desire for a campaign (which may mor may not end up being realistic) as well as being the easiest implementation for them.

I want to differentiate between “realism” and “historical accuracy”. There is no question that the accuracy and detail (i.e. armor thickness, ground pressure, striking velocity etc.) that BTS has provided in CM are basis for it appeal. It’s the reason CM has been my war game of choice for the past 3 ½ years. Moon said: I disagree with this statement emphatically! War gaming is second to my interest in history and I have debated this point endlessly. I would argue the opposite; CM's current game play “can be fun” even if it “bends reality a little”. In the CM Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. I can’t think of anything more “unrealistic” without mentioning hoverpacks. I agree that CM provides a BEST player vs. player experience the genre has to offer. It is the reason a large majority of gamers are attracted to CM and this community. It does not, however, always provide the most accurate tactical combat experience. Several years ago, Steve used Close Combat 3 as an example to defend BTV’s position on campaigns. The truth is, he was right. Very few war games have implemented a campaign format that achieves historical accuracy. Games like CC3 have created a stigma, which has limited the exploration of campaign play as the next evolutionary step for CM and other tactical war games. This is particularly frustrating because a war game with the caliber of CM, offers the greatest opportunity to provide a quality campaign experience. Hundreds of CM players using Biltong’s system or participating in Meta campaigns attest to this. A well-executed campaign system would allow the CM player to take the role of a unit commander on the same organizational scale that is already supported by CM. The player would the command his units through a series of engagements lasting from several weeks to several months depending on the situation. Considerations like supply, reinforcement, enemy strength etc. dictate elastic objectives. Example: You are the commander of an armored company with orders to capture a key rail junction in a small town. Intelligence reports indicate limited enemy activity in the area but after several turns initial contact reveals enemy units that are dug-in and reinforced with strong AT capability. Do you commit all of your forces with the prospect of heavy losses when you have limited supply and no reserves? When the temperature is dropping, the roads are covered with ice and snow and Moscow is hundreds of miles away? Knowing that the possibility of a counter attack is high and you may have to fight again tomorrow? This scenario is the type of game play that campaigns offer! Depth and context, that is realism! PS. I intend no disrespect to Moon. I appreciate the contribution he has made to BTS and this community over the years. This forum provides the rare opportunity to be heard by the very people whose creative inspiration produced CM. Out of respect for that opportunity, I feel obligated to express my opinion, especially when it is in opposition to the consensus. I hope that I have done so constructively and with respect. I feel very strongly about this topic precisely because I love Combat Mission so much. regards, Zach </font>

I'll field the ones I know--sortof try to do something for the community to earn my keep an' all that... when is the new patch I don't know. I doubt anyone does. what is cmx Probably referring to the new game engine (we are playing with the same game engine since CM: Beyond Overlord, though it has been overhauled greatly for Barbarossa to Berlin and a little for Afrika Corps. The new game engine is their next project as far as I can tell. what is bbr ? Never heard that one. CMBB or "BB" usually means Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin. what is the next cm title As far as I can tell it will be the new game engine. I don't think they've said what the theatre will be(?) why cant i see the planes They don't have graphic models Probably would have been hard to do with the engine and wouldn't be terribly useful since they are usually pretty high. where do i go to get someone to playwith Go to the Opponent Finders Forum on this very website CM rocks its awsome I agree!

Andreas, Grisha: I'm not going to read any posts here, because it would likely make me mad again, but I just wanted to say I'm sorry for snapping at you, in particular Andreas. Between this thread and the one on the General forum, I felt like I had 4 separate individuals that I was arguing with this weekend who refused to even acknowledge the other person's view, but still I shouldn't have lost my temper. I think I'll be in lurker mode for awhile or perhaps just leave the forums for awhile altogether as it has frustrated me as of late.

Andreas: You are, IMO, only looking at facts which support your case, and minimizing any facts which support mine. You are also extremely certain (or at least you seem so) that the Soviets would have been victorious over the WA, whereas all I've been arguing is that I am skeptical of that claim. This makes me assume that you are biased since you can't seem to even acknowledge the possibility that the Russians would have been repulsed in such an adventure. In fact, rather than just admitting we are all just speculating, you simply accused me of being the only one speculating. Sorry, but that is academically poor, and you should know better. Additionally, as it seems to be a Russian(?) and a German arguing with me, I am not highly impressed by your attempts to prove something which is unproveable, particularly in light of European/Russian revisionist history that has gone on for quite some time now. (The line about down-playing the effects of lend-lease was in direct response to it being downplayed on the previous pages of this thread, for those who missed it.) Now, as I am finding this nationalistic baloney increasingly frustrating and I may not be able to be as civil as I am (which perhaps is not much anyway) for much longer, I will depart this thread and allow you to carry on with your Russia-worshipping. ------------------- Grisha, I have no problem with that. I agree that you and Andreas might be correct that the Russians may have easily rolled through Europe blasting the WA to the moon on the way. Of course, the opposite is also a possibility. I doubt either one is true and most likely it would have been a grinding stalemate for both sides, but that's just my opinion. However, it seems like some here think that the Russians were supersoldiers or something or that their superiority in some way would obviously mean that they could beat their opponents, and that's just silly. No one knows how a war will turn out until it's fought. In 1941, I'm sure the world thought that Russia would fall to the Germans. That didn't happen. It's easy to say now that the Germans had no chance, but how do you know that in 1941? And thus, how do you know the WA would have fallen to the Russians in 1944/45? -------------------- Ok, enough animosity and nationalistic hooey for/from me for one day. I give up on this thread.

Ok, there is way too much here to answer, and--I'll remind everyone--we are all still speculating, including you, Andreas; so I will just hit some highlights. Ok, Grisha, my mistake; the S.U. was modernized by WWII. As for Korea, however, I believe that the N. Koreans fought very similarly to how the Russians would have fought. To whomever criticized the US performance in early Korean War, perhaps they should remember that Korea was considered an afterthought as far as American policy was concerned (even though the US made lots of promises to watch out for Korea, very little was done to equip and train the Koreans for their own defense.) However, once the US put their full effort (and it wasn't even really a full effort as China was left untouched), the N Koreans were routed--badly. As I said before, every nation in the war had their successes and failures. The Russians towards the end of the war did spectacularly push back the Germans. Of course, this was after having to retreat for a few years and allow the Germans to roll over them and then they attrited the Germans considerably. I've still seen nothing that makes me think that the Russians could easily roll over the W.A. in western Europe. And you guys are still discounting the rather massive effect the atomic bomb would have if the Russians were not totally victorious in a very short war against the W.A. You guys can dig up examples of Red Army successes and W.A. failures as well as statistics 'til you are blue in the face. It still is meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. The two sides never fought and I don't agree that the Soviets could have easily rolled over the W.A., not with the war in the Pacific wrapping up and many nations opposing them, the WA developing the A-bomb, the WA complete naval advantage, etc. That link I posted, if you read it carefully, notes how after WWII, the lend-lease contributions effects on the war effort were minimized by the east. Sound familiar to anyone? I'll highlight an excerpt from the excerpt I posted: "[lend-lease] aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45 etc." That sounds significant to me.

Ok, so we agree that they could not have easily rolled over the Western Allies. Which means what? Stalemate? IMO, probably. In either case (WA attacks or Russia attacks), the defender would likely be pushed back a bit then the line would pretty well stabilize after much death on both sides. I agree Russian operation art developed substantially during the war. However, even at the end, the Russians were clumsy on the tactical level and I see no reason to believe they were superior on the operational level, at least not to the point where they would be victorious by that advantage. The USSR was a huge landmass with little need for outside resources (much like the USA). Naval airpower would've been of negligible value in this instance. A heavy bomber campaign would've also been unfeasible until Belorussia was under western allied control. The USA would've probably got the upper hand in the long run with a working atom bomb, but before that Europe would've been Soviet. </font>

Grisha--your post is too long for me to quote and I am tiring of this debate (as I don't believe either side has any really useful way of determining which side would win) so I'll say that I HAVE studied (though perhaps less than most here) Russian operations in WWII and I am not as impressed as you and Andreas. As I just told him, there is a reason that the Russians didn't try to take all of Europe and it wasn't out of the goodness. On paper, you could argue the Chinese in Korea could easily beat back the US and UN forces as they vastly outnumbered them. However, US airpower, artillery, and long supply lines (and poor logistics in general) led to the Chinese taking 2/3 losses before even reaching the front. It is true the Soviets fought admirably and their operational art was good, but you guys make it sound like they would easily roll over the western allies and I see no reason to believe that. Unless you have some magic box of facts to present to me, I'm going to say you will be unable to sway me. And, I maintain that strategically, the western allies were far superior. Russian industry and supplies (oil for one) would be vulnerable to air power, especially from aircraft carriers (if we assume Japan is out or at least contained to the point of no longer being a threat.) All Russian ports would be closed up by western allies (and that is not a trivial issue for Russia.) Eastern Russia would be vulnerable (think the Chinese wouldn't want a piece of Russia to have as their very own?) I really think that although there is little chance the western allies could have conquered Russia, for Russia to try to take Europe would be an extremely foolish and costly mistake for them. But really, we are all talking out of our arses, aren't we? No one really knows and no book in existance is going to prove one side or the other. ---Edited to add: Lend-lease to Russia Excerpt: "n addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi­ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc. A price tag was naturally attached to all deliveries, with following typical fighter prices: P-40 Kittyhawk - 44.900 dollars, P-39 Airacobra - 50.700 dollars and P-47 Thunderbolt - 83.000 dollars. Regardless of Soviet cold-war attempts to forget (or at least diminish) the importance of Lend-lease, the total impact of the Lend-Lease shipment for the Soviet war effort and entire national economy can only be characterized as both dramatic and of decisive importance. The outcome of the war on the East front might well have taken another path without Lend-lease. There were undoubtedly big difficulties in the early period: aircraft modified for tropical conditions were delivered to Arctic ports, Russian-language instructions were lacking, a big number of aircraft were grounded because of lack of spa­res, ammunition, bombs or high-octane fuel. Soon many technical problems 'were overcome, Soviet guns and bomb racks were installed, and numerous other technical improvisa­tions were made in Soviet AF frontal units. Soviet specialists developed also ingenious technical improvements and modifi­cations of the original aircraft versions. In parallel the new American technology was systematically investigated in research and design institutes, and the total impact for the modernization of the Soviet aviation industry was certainly immense. The ultimate peak of this learning process was the post-war copying of the Boeing B-29 in only two years time, resulting in the Soviet nuclear-bomb carrier Tu-4. Lend-lease aircraft amounted to 18% of all aircraft in the Soviet air forces, 20% of all bombers, and 16-23% of all fighters (numbers vary depending on calculation methods), and 29% of all naval aircraft. In some AF commands and fronts the proportion of Lend-Lease aircraft was even higher: of the 9.888 fighters delivered to the air defense (PVO) fighter units in 1941-45 6.953 (or over 70%!) were British or American. In the AF of the Karelian front lend-lease aircraft amounted to about two-thirds of all combat aircraft in 1942-43, practically all torpedo bombers of the naval air forces were A-20G Bostons in 1944-45 etc." [ October 18, 2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Ruthless ]