Schoerner

Wrong, Zimbabwe is the product of nature hostile western politics. In Zimbabwe you can see the benefits of another multiethnical society and how it ends. You could also see, that blacks have different behaviour than white people (we don't eat our enemys, do we? ). Maybe you should learn history and find out, who mixed them up and was (like always) neglecting cultural and ethnic borders? You should also take a closer look at Zimbabwe, because of the following reason: it gives you a taste, how in a few decades the USA will end.

ParaBellum, and all you other hobby inquisitors: Too bad, that you don't prefer that over the present nature hostile system. Yes i believe, the world we see today, the suffering of, in the meanwhile around 80% of mankind, the enormous, never seen before destruction of nature, the treating of animals only for profit, is only a mirror of the established great nature hostile system. The 'democratic western system' in the USA and its satellites are responsible for it. :eek: Not Adolf Hitler. :eek: Not the Nazis. :eek: Every citizen supporting this system, believing it's lies, is responsible for it, and guilty, too because they have all the information available at the fingertips. What happens today on earth, is much worse, than ever before. :eek: Too bad, no Nazis, no Adolf Hitler to blame since almost 60years. How's that possible, that the world is becoming worse and worse for the majority of mankind, if a great system were ruling the world? Maybe you should finally take a look around what's happening in the world? Maybe you should stop hunting the shadows of the bad and evil witches, the system is projecting on the wall, to distract from what is happening in the world today? Yes i really believe in what i wrote and i don't believe the real crap: that mankind were made by an old man with a white beard or that Marx can terminate the result of 4 billion years of life and tenthousands of years of evolution of homo sapiens. Yes, I really believe mankind is part of nature. Yes i believe mankind should respect nature and not trying to slave it. Yes i believe evolution is a fact. If mankind tries to act against it, because of thinking his visions were better, the result in the long terms will be much worse. Yes i really believe, the rational homo sapiens shouldn't use his consciousness to follow nature-hostile visions and feelings, but try to reduce sorrow for future generations although the necessary actions seem to be hard in the present (i.e. environment protection, eugenics,...). Yes i really believe, the Christian religion is extremely nature hostile. Yes i believe, that Communism hates nature and it's principles. Yes, i believe, the more people are hating or not understanding nature, the stronger their believe in nature-hostile, artificial visions of a 'better world'. Yes, i believe, that the interest-system makes economical growth necessary. Yes i believe, nothing can grow foreever. Yes i believe, economical growth results in more exploitation of resources. Yes, i believe, the private- and the state-capitalism (Communism) are in the long terms, unstable systems, due to the forced growth/expansion by interests. Yes, I believe WWII was a conflict between systems. Yes, i believe the capitalistic interest-system has no interest to inform the people objectively about alternative economical, monetary and trading-systems. Yes, i believe in authorized sources, and not what systems want to make people believe about other systems. So, once again, today the world wouldn't suffer anymore from the interest system. The different cultures, ethnicities and races would be respected, not neglected. [ June 06, 2003, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

The economical system wouldn't be based on interests. The differences between cultures, ethnicities and races would be respected instead of neglected.

I play CMBB only. Waiting for CMAK. @Michael Emrys: you can find info about Airborne Assault in THG's special about wargames here: http://www17.tomshardware.com/game/20030510/ww2-01.html

Sergei, Sergei. You missed the point, Towarisch. I don't want the unrealistical time-limits become removed - ofcourse not. I just want this option for scenario-designers additionally. IMO the time limit gives way to much information what can happen during the battle. I'm sure, unlimited-time battles, would become very popular, too. [ June 03, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Therefore the next to the last waypoint of the already existing path would be auto-selected and one additional waypoint could be added.

No, it depends on the commander, how and when he orders his troops to spend the given amount of ammo. I mean, due to the gamey time limit in most scenarios, there's usually not enough time for knocking out defensive positions in a realistically manner. If you have a 81mm mortar available on the battlefield but it would take 3 minutes to order it, would in reality a commander risk tanks and crews instead of waiting 3 minutes?

Dunno if someone already had this idea, so please ignore it, if this idea isn't new: Whenever you set a waypoint directly on an already existing path of waypoints, you are asked 'Follow?'. When clicking yes, the next to the last waypoint of this path is automatically selected and you can plot one additional final waypoint. A 'path detection' feature is already included in the engine, because it is possible to select units by clicking on their movment paths. I think that must be quite easy to implement and therefore could make it into CMAK. Opinions?

At the moment i'm playing '6th Army Probe' from the excellent Stalingrad-Pack against the AI, and i'm wondering more and more about the unrealistical time-limit in all CM-battles. Especially when advancing over open terrain with deep positioned AT-guns the time limit seems very unrealistically to me. My wish for CMAK, or at least CMX2 would be to add the option for open-ended battles, where the enemy needs to be wiped out (global morale; every leaving unit decreases global morale) and not a time-limit forcing you to risk your men and equipment, because you want to be finished until tea-time. [ June 03, 2003, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

IMO this is not correct: a deviation of 10 degree only, results in a front plate thickness, that is ~17% thicker: cos(10°)=0.17, while the side thickness seems almost 6 times thicker for the projectile (1/cos(10°)). Taking additionally the poor effectiveness of penetration-depth against a 80° plate into account, let's me assume that this should be done by all tanks, also such ones, with paper thin side-plates (10mm x 6 -> ~60mm effective side thickness @ 10° deviation to target. [ June 03, 2003, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I hope you're right. But what if it is so silent about CMX2, due to sqeezing everything out of the CM1-engine and afterwards leaving the business? :eek: [ June 02, 2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

This new title promises a lot. I'm wondering, why BTS doesn't offer any bones about CMX2, like ... does with BC, although release is projected for Q1 2004. Or is it simply to early to give as any tiny CMX2 bones? I hope the silence is a good indicator...

Good question, Ant. But who cares for us poor CDV-version buyers, if the beta-patch works that good with the original ver.?

...but don't expect too much. http://www17.tomshardware.com/game/20030510/ww2-01.html

Great! Thank you.

Any news about the Uniform-Mod? I just visited CMHQ and couldn't find any German Uniform mod. :confused:

I'm asking for exactly this. Well, maybe not exactly, because the space could be filled with the interface. A smaller screen with a, more natural viewing angle, like on DVDs for example, offers more visual information.

The actual battlefield-view creates an unnatural narrow view, to me. I would prefer a less high, but therefore wider view (Cinemascope ). Especially in view level 1, i still have the impression watching the battlefield with blinkers. I would really prefer to have a wider viewing-angle. ps: take the cinemascope advertisement picture with the two Panthers, as an (extreme, but very good), example [ May 25, 2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I nthink foamy means, that the extended micromanagement possibilities take away a lot of the feeling of comanding 'intelligent' units. IMO BTS should heed such 'complains'. I agree, i simply was more fun, but less realitic to give the infantry units their move or run orders and to be thrilled what will happen to them. Will they reach the cover? Now, in most cases you can much better predict, what the outcome of the orders are. Much more realism, but sometimes less fun. Or think about the tanks. Wasn't it great fun in CMBO, not to have covered-arcs available, but being forced to move forward, although knowing, there could be danger from the side? I agree, CMBO was less realistically, but in a certain point of view more fun. Maybe BTS should try to implement two layers? The 'CMBO Style' only offers the rudimentary orders, possibilities and less-micromanagement from CMBO (maybe it would be necessary to implement the unrealistic, but funny CMBO MG/infantry model), while the 'Ultra Realism' mode offers all the level of simulation CM can offer?

Grisha, indeed an interesting article. Did you read it? I thought the peaceful Soviet-Union was surprisingly attacked by Germany? No more the tale of the peacefully, surprisingly attacked Soviet-Union? Even this article, showing exceptionally the retreat-skirmishes of the system-conform and well established old winner-propaganda, has to admit, that the Soviet Union wasn't surprisingly attacked. Beside the obvious tendency of this article, several key-questions stay unanswered: 1. the hard facts, Suworow made public, stay once more completely untouched (see this thread above, for only a few examples). Once again, (for distraction i guess) only conclusions are discussed. 2. It's amazing to see, that the author sees Suworow in certain conclusions wrong (btw, without making any references), but he doesn't critizice all the hundreds and thousands of 'historicans' during the last decades and today, having repeated all the tales of the peaceful Soviet-Union, that had no idea about war against Germany and the few Soviet troops were more or less randomly stationed on the german border. Although the author doesn't defend the primitive, original propaganda anymore, from the unknowing peaceful Soviet-Union, it's strange, that he criticizes Suworow, but he doesn't criticize the system-conform 'historicans', which are still defending (esp. in Germany) the - thanks to men like Suworow - already prooven wrong, primitive tales, heself isn't defending anymore. This article is really quite interesting, 'cause it shows the actual stand of the discussion: the old tale, so many in here are still believing in, too, is already dead, the front in science is already broken down, while mass-media and schoolbooks are still trying to hold it, while the second, and last defensive line is built up: yes, the Soviet Union knew about it, therefore the soviet troops in the west, but it wasn't willing to attack Germany. Also a hopeless venture with todays already available facts, 'cause with every step closer to the truth, the propaganda is becoming more and more absurd: nowadays, propaganda admits, that we already have millions of russian troops, ~150 divisions at the german border (only years ago, we learned, there were no Soviet troops and the three million Soviet POWs made by the Germans during the first weeks were only a product of Goebbel's propaganda all our german grandfathers were either liars or idiots; seems they were idiots, but for believing the propaganda after the war), more than 3/4th of the Soviet airforce is stationed there, too, the Soviet Highest Command knows since beginning of May, that around 100 motorized German divisions are as fast a possible moved torwards the border, but the Soviet Highest Command has no plans about attacking Germany. Even more, the adapted actual propaganda now tells us, Soviet HighestCommand knew that they are not well enough prepared for war with Germany, but it (and therefore? ) strangely kept the troops in classical attack-preparation areas, because the evil Stalin (suddenly Stalin is becoming more and more evil; years ago, he wasn't that evil and decades ago, he was even a liberator), was so stupid to understand, that preparation areas and provisional front-airfields full with fighters are not really good for defensive operations (ofcourse, the evil is stupid, too).... [sarcasm off] Ridiculous. More archives to be opened in the next years... [ April 29, 2003, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Oh Wisbech_lad, how could people dare to forget your wise and useful arguments and have another opinion?

Hi OZ77, good aspects, but i'm afraid it's not worth it. You'll get no serious answers in here. Regarding what your grandpa told you about the maps: Suworov showed, that the Wehrmacht found tons of maps about Germany, but no maps of Russia among the defeated russian troops! If you're further interested in this topic, i suggest to read Suworov. In his books he presents a huge amount of undoubted military facts (troop concentrations, kind of troops), almost all 'historians' are bashfully withholding - many of them from newly opened russian archives. Suworov covers it all in depth, for example: - the 2000 destroyed russian fighters (50% of the whole russian airforce) within the first 24 hours, because they were already stationed close to the german border (only girls believe, this is a defensive placement); there do exist excellent german color-movies showing Bf109 strafing over the runways, beside with threaded fighters like on a carrier - the 3 million russian POWs within the first weeks of Barbarossa, when the Germans encircled whole armies, that were stationed furthest west in their preparation areas (although the system's propaganda here in Germany is primitive enough, to claim, that the germans deliberately gave the millions of Soviet POWs so less to eat, that many of them starved, but ofcourse they don't explain to the people like Wisbech_lad, how it is even possible to make such a huge amount of POWs within 6 weeks, against a 'defending' army in such a huge country, while the next News on TV are reporting from the Iraq war, and are mentioning, that the US-army even today had problems to look after a few thousand iraqy POWs... You can tell every unlogical crap to the people and they will believe it, instead of using their brain) - the missing of any defensive preparations - the russian troop-composition - instead of using the strange allied megalomania propaganda against Germany, Suworov shows, how the unbelievable german success, within the first weeks, made the OKW, highest german command and Hitler think, the russians are already defeated - even the USA saw, if they don't jump in as fast as possible with huge deliveries, the Soviet defeat will be only a matter of time. I highly recommend Suworov books to you. That everything is done, to ignore him, is logical, but decide yourself after reading his books, who uses facts from documents and who uses assumptions and simply repeats, what someone already claimed (not that hard with all the media- and system-power behind) ... After reading his books, i recommend to read the replies of 'historicans', too. Very amusing, to see, how military historican's suddenly become very, very calm when talking about the showed facts, but how emotionally they are defending the old hitory's picture of the winners, with political arguments. Have fun. [ April 29, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Yep, much better: is. That's what it means. But not 'My Loyalty', as a personal definition of free choice, but more of the Loyalty (not only to the Führer). [ April 28, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

A small correction: "Meine Ehre heißt Treue." And it was the motto of the whole SS. IMO it's meaning can be better translated with "My Honor means Loyalty". [ April 28, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

A tip for your friend: does he have knowledge about long-time stability of Iron Blue in concrete walls? Without knowing about it, all he can write about Auschwitz has to be fictious anyway... [ April 28, 2003, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]