Jump to content

Grimly Fiendish

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by Grimly Fiendish

  1. I'm getting weird behavior from my CMBB. I don't think it was a problem with a game file, because behavior A showed up with the last file in the game and also now with previous files when I load them. Now, behavior B shows up with this latest file (I don't know about previous files). I have completely reinstalled game, v103, and Dark Steel BMP mods, and I still get behavior B. A = the play button took me straight from 0 to 60 seconds, so I could only view the battle in 10-second increments. A routing unit trembled like they were running in place at high speed. B = a negative countdown a
  2. I hate to be a downer, but I find so many things about DropTeam to so silly, so outright laughably dumb or poorly executed, that I don't even know where to start. But I'll try. (1) My GEVs are often literally uncontrollable, and I don't mean just hard to drive. Turning them left or right causes them to only turn right. Doing anything with them causes them to wiggle like a bee doing a pollen dance. (2) Constant crashes preceded by intermittent video. (3) The auto-updater causes the game to crash cleanly to desktop. (4) I have had bots literally drive in circles rather than move t
  3. It was a day that I had been waiting for since I watched the towers fall. I had helped take the fight back to those that would see people terrorized. Now we were terrorizing them. Sad to see such misdirected good intentions and misspent energy. What a waste.
  4. I have to make some long-witheld comments regarding the above discussion. I see two potential uses for Hitler. One is to demonize him (to separate him from the rest of humanity as an example of inhuman evil), the other is to apologize for him (to blame his lesser actions on everyone else and deny the worst of the greater ones). Neither is honest. The usefulness of apology is clear: it allows sympathetic alignment with fascism. A politician could deny the Holocaust, excuse the destruction of Germany, and propose "reforms" that bring back national militariam, and everyone would feel better
  5. In the previous thread, I just noticed the following statement made, I believe, by John D Salt. "A classic example is Herr Doktor Goebbels' assertion that it was the British who first invented the concentration camp in the Boer War; not true, but so widely repeated by now that it may as well be." If this is false, then why? And what definition of a concentration camp are we using? To me, a concentration camp is a place to concentrate civilian enemies, not POWs, and the British apparently invented the term, in addition to using barbed wire for the purpose.
  6. Jason, sorry I didn't read any of your responses until just now. I went skiing and then I kind of lost interest. But I think I have to answer if for no other reason than that you seem to think the way to win an argument is by shouting, and I will not be shouted off a thread. I remain firmly convinced that Barbarossa and OIF share enough similarities for a superficial but useful discussion of the whys and hows, and that only partisan blindness could prevent one from acknowledging this. I'll respond to each of your posts individually. (1) You complained that I have introduced politics into th
  7. Jon, if aerial bombardment of civilians is not specifically spelled out as a crime in 2004, then what would have made it any less a crime in 1943? Not that I'm arguing it was---from a legal point of view, it either was or it wasn't. Of course, even if it was directly banned in 1949, that doesn't make it honorable in 1943. Or '45. Mr Jingles, here's a point you might consider. In a lot of pastoral/nomadic cultures, retaliation is honorable. Under the GC, which as Jon notes was intended to suppress retaliation, it is not. Therefore one might posit 2 kinds of honor: the kind in which aid is e
  8. Thanks everybody! I realized after I posted that the book was probably chewed over here years ago. At any rate it's out in paperback, for those who are as cheap as I am.
  9. JonS, thanks for the link and the clarification. Oops, link not found!
  10. Sorry, Jason, all I was trying to do was pick a contemporary situation for a rough comparison that is, in fact, as far from 1940s ideology as I could get---that was the point. I was as unaware of your brilliantly simple distinction between history and (ugh!) politics, as I was that Nazi politicians still live and breathe. (Fundamentalists, however, are much the same no matter their background.) It seems to me that nothing is truly immune from honest analysis, and if you think my comparison utterly wasteful, then you should be able to answer the following questions about the Iraq war plan:
  11. Any opinions on this book by Rick Atkinson, 2002? Not a a source for scenarios or anything quite that crazy---just for getting a sense of the theater and a feel for the ebb and flow of events.
  12. Andreas and John Salt, I'm confused about something and I hope you can clear up a distinction for me. From everything I have ever read on the topic, the USAF deliberately targeted the residential and industrial areas of certain German cities to create terror among the civilian population and weaken their "resolve," such as it was. Whether they succeeded or not, my understanding is that is was a matter of policy. I would call this something of a gray area: something one would rather not do but that seems necessary under the circumstances. (The theory behind these bombings has now fallen out
  13. John D, I'd be happy to do some CMAK armor PBEMs with you. I also have noticed the AI has an advantage in handling its tanks tactically, but I think that only makes up for its inability to plan anything. So you rarely get a really balanced game: in a QB, you can meet, get beat up by, outflank, and finally destroy enemy tanks and then after the AAR find several more wandering around in a corner of the map you never went into. AI tanks get bunched up, they expose their sides, they do all sorts of dumb stuff that you need to to take advantage of to defeat them. In exchange, they get a better sens
  14. Civdiv, here's a link I also just posted on CMBB. It's a classic, so probably many people know it: the Army basic training manual, illustrated version for dummies. http://thetrainer.info/infantry1.htm Relevant quote: ANTI-MECHANIZED FIRE Should hostile armored cars (reconnaissance vehicles) be encountered or in case of attack by light or medium tanks, antitank rifle grenades are employed within effective range (75 yards). Riflemen fire upon personnel carriers and armored cars. So there you are.
  15. knalla, to answer your post more precisely---the command difference will be seen after a unit has pinned, panicked, broken, etc., not during the firing. If they are in command range, they will recover faster and you can keep moving. If too many squads sneak out of command range, the HQ may need to stop or go back to get them. No more than one squad can be left behind to recover on its own, or you will not beat the clock or the ammo limit. Here's a cool link to an old Army basic training manual. There are several sources for this, as it's a classic: http://thetrainer.info/infantry1.ht
  16. I have no doubt that 110 can be done with very few casualties, although I haven't gotten there yet myself. The main drill is very simple, and I've done it before in similar but less severe situations: don't let the MG spot any of your guys in the open for more than 20-25 meters running (I don't know how many seconds that is) without taking fire himself, suppressive or otherwise. (There's a Civil War term for this that I can't recall: rushes and bounds or something.) Make sure at least 2 teams are firing on him while everyone else does the run & drop. Move toward the MG through the house
  17. Not to mention that, in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, he was secretly negotiating an unconditional surrender to Cuba.
  18. Pirx is right: the AI considers halftracks to be non-armored. You have to use the cover armor to focus any unit to fire on tanks alone.
  19. Any serious analysis of honor in modern warfare has to include the media and other forms of myth. The suppression of atrocity is just as much a part of the story, and so is the exaggeration of it. Today, the US military gets tied in knots trying to avoid looking like it even occasionally or unintentionally kills civilians. The modern US soldier has it rough: his actions are scrutinized and he gets little credit for behaving properly. Along with the artificially elevated and highly selective standards set by the global media, there is the question of media control by governments, which at o
  20. zmoney, I agree that this thread has degenerated into nonsense, where it might once have had a chance of being a good discussion. But please allow me 2 points, and I promise not to flame: (1) Ideology matters. Some people wish it didn't. It especially matters when the discussion centers on how important a single person's decisions were (as in Hitler vs General Staff), because then you have to wonder about all sorts of things that aren't clean and neat. Some of those people like to say "keep the politics out" because it makes them uncomfortable for various reasons. I feel I have safely and r
  21. It doesn't hurt if you split your squads, too, so each squad can handle suppression and advancing by itself if necessary. Whole squads won't break at once. The main thing this scenario has to teach is discipline in applying what you already know: cover, command, and suppression. My first try was laughable, as 1 squad ran right off the map. My second got me up past the fence and close enough to get the MG to duck, but not in good order, and I ran out of time. You definitely have to make no major mistakes. The longer your men are delayed, the more ammo you have to use to hose the MG.
  22. Jason, I think I've finally figured out your angle on this. Let me know if I get it wrong---oh, of course you will. You can't help it. (1) You fear being stupid more than anything else. (2) Therefore, being stupid is the worst thing a person could be. (3) You have proven to your satisfaction that Hitler was stupid. (4) Therefore, any competing or even slightly different analysis of Hitler must amount to a lesser charge than that of stupidity. (5) Therefore, any criticism or description of Hitler other than simply "he was stupid" is an apology for him and an excuse for him. I get it!
  23. Michael, I haven't complained about anything except Jason's use of his posts as a blunt instrument. (Actually, I should thank him for forcing me to clarify my thoughts.) Still, he has sent out a platoon of Tigers to swat a Greyhound. In addition, forgive me if I take being called a Hitler apologist a little bit personally. Maybe I'm just not used to it. Lucky I'm not a "historian"! I still have heard nothing that has contradicted anything I have thrown out there. I appreciate all the comments of course, but they miss the point. I do not argue with them, but I did not base my thoughts on the
  • Create New...