Blashy
-
Posts
3,061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blashy
-
-
Yes we've discussed this but it is not a game breaker and considering the loads of other code work Hubert has done I prefer to see all those new features. Had this been tackled it would have taken time away from some of them and believe me you'll be amazed at the product.
Although if you have it under 4 of supply the player will have to pay full price. So you can do that.
-
-
Did he miss his attack on Vichy France? That would be why it is still functioning as a separate capital, the forces in Vichy France were not operating under Free French command.
-
Le Terrible... best beer bar none and I'm NOT a beer enthusiast but that one is in a class of its own.
As for soda pop, if we have the worst so does USA and Mexico because it pretty much all comes from Mexico and USA, hehe.
-
Jollyguy did some nice moves but Terif getting Turkey which brings all Africa in production probably gives him equal mpps if not more than allies.
-
We'll have to wait until the expansion pack comes out. I don't touch the old one now, I find it lacking to many good things that are in the expansion pack.
Take a few weeks to get used to it and then we can have a go. And I only do PBEM.
-
Yesterday was a most humbling moment as I have lost for the first time vs. the Allied AI at maximum difficulty.
I tried a somewhat historical approach, I invaded the same historical countries except for Norway and did not go into sub building. I also tried a rocket strategy (they are different in WaW) so I bought my 3 rockets (5 chits) (max for Germany now) and all my tanks prior to Barbarossa with all the units I started with.
I took Leningrad, Moscow and Voronezh, regrouped during the winter and the AI hit back in the winter and more so in clear weather. I lost Voronezh and one mine and it put me on the run from then on with overwhelming force. This without even the western allies landing.
My rocket strategy is a failure since I never had higher than level 1 for Germany but level 4 for Italy with their one rocket. Pretty much what cost me the game. Still before stuff like that would not mean defeat vs. the AI but I'm doomed!
-
The two heavyweights go at it again.
-
I agree that the situation is complicated by history and that attitudes are not monlithic. But the hands off approach was tried and failed. Up until 9/11 the US ignored 20 years of various kinds of attacks by Muslim radicals - largely by treating them as law-enforcement matters. The situation was not getting better. I'm not saying Afganistan/Iraq was a practical plan (jury is still out on that one), only that it was an understandable attempt to do *something* to cure the root causes of the problem. The alternative is to sit back an take an occasional shot on the chin, and say "Jeez, I wish those guys would stop killing Westerners! Aren't they getting tired of it yet?" And what if someone slips them a nuke? Given a span of 25 or 50 years its seems far from impossible - especially given the accelerating proliferation of the area. If/when NY or DC disappears in a flash of light what do we say then? "Golly! They must have been angrier than we thought! I sure hope Interpol catches up with those guys!" Absurd of course, but what are your real options in response to a nuke with no return address?Originally posted by letifer:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by arado234:
letifer i work with people that have come from the middle east(iran and iraq).They dont see us so much as canadians brits americans etc they see us as westerners who want to occupy and rule their land.I know way back america wasnt in the middle east it was the brits. and the french mainly.They see the americans just replacing the other two countries.From what my friends have told me is that most middle easterns(muslims)DONOT hate us and dont want to fight us.Its the radicals that do and by us being over there we create more of them.They want to be left alone to sort out their own problems.
Arado, I know you personally do not take this lightly, but there are some who seem to think nothing here is at stake. Certainly there is no easy answer, and the biggest problem is that most attacks are made by non-state actors out of the shadows. But they are not coming from nowhere, and polls have repeatedly shown a deep sympathy across much of the Muslim world for the terrorists' goals: Jihad, and the expansion of Sharia to moderate muslim lands as well as non-Muslim lands. And this sentiment has been on the rise, not ebb. And given the jihadist's complete disregard for life and millenialist aspirations, it's a very serious long-term situation. </font>
-
You have to be reactive as the Allies and there are more ways to do so until Russia joins. If you just sit and wait with the Western Allies, the Axis will only gain from this.Originally posted by targul:I find human play in this game dawl and boring. I watch as someone destroys the Poles, French then proceeds to destroy the British in Africa. Then they march off to Russia where I watch the Axis destroy city after city.
Seems boring since I can find no way for the Allies to do anything about what happens. Russia can rarely even muster a fight.
I am sure it is somehow my poor play but I do so much better in other games verses Humans I wonder why in this one I get to take no actions.
Anyway human play is something I dread and avoid. I am presently playing a gentleman who is play purely historical but the result is the same. Game is boring and I have been unable to do anything effective for 2 years. Winter is coming and we shall see if I can actually muster enough force to actually make an assualt.
-
Russia was supplied via Iran for its convoys. Much more so than Murmansk.
-
You are not serious with this statement, you just can't be.are not there to support a pupet regime and do not meddle in internal politicsHave you ever read US policy during the oil embargo? Henry Kissinger stated it right on camera that if Saudi Arabia were to cut off USA of oil they would not hesitate to invade it to secure the security of USA. This is not denied at all, it was actually contemplated and it is the US doctrine as a standard that they will not allow another country to affect their progress, even if those resources belong to THAT country and it is within their complete right to do as they wish with it.
So USA is VERY much involved in the politics of the middle east and heavily supports ANY regime as long as USA gets the resources. This is how they destroyed latin america, how they keep Africa dirt poor (The European Union is a big factor in Africa as well), it is not different in the middle east.
USA is the basic bully that many other countries were at some point in history and just never EVER learn.
-
As well, this idea of dumping a Republic in Iraq is pure US propaganda because their first excuse of WMDs turned out as we all knew BEFORE (so did US Intelligence) that there was none.
And when you support Totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc... trying to make people believe you are there to spread democracy just shows a total lack of respect for the intelligence of people that live there... they know who the biggest supporter of their corrupt Government is, USA.
So USA as a whole is seen as a hypocrite and a liar which is pretty much true.
Good one arado: Attacking iraq after sept11 makes about as much sense is when japan bombed pearl harbour america goes and attacks mexico. That's funny and at the same time sad.
-
Except of course that no-one in the West really cared about Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and hte Soviet occupied zone, since they were considered the agressors in WW2, and you'd hav to be an idiot to want to do anything to help them in the first place.Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:
I don't think so. USA (so was UK a little) was a huge supplier of soviet hardware if they went to war and cut them off they would not have had the long term supply. Were it not for US convoys Russia would not have survived against Germany.
And all those Eastern European that spent more than half their lives under an oppressive regime might have a different feeling about being liberated by the West in 1-2 years or wait 45 years. That's my opinion.
</font>
-
Taking Turkey you have to be able to cut off any possible troops being operated to help out. If you know you will not be able to do so it is no use trying as it will fail and simply open up another front for the Axis to attack Russia.
-
I don't think so. USA (so was UK a little) was a huge supplier of soviet hardware if they went to war and cut them off they would not have had the long term supply. Were it not for US convoys Russia would not have survived against Germany.
And all those Eastern European that spent more than half their lives under an oppressive regime might have a different feeling about being liberated by the West in 1-2 years or wait 45 years. That's my opinion.
As I said, Western Europe had no interest in Eastern Europe they historically have considered them lower class, this goes back as far as the Roman Republic.
-
You have fighters, tactical bombers and strategic bombers in the game.
Fighters are no longer so powerful versus ground units CTV vs. ground units is 1.
The powerhouse for taking out units is tactical bombers which already uses a tech that exists to upgrade its attack values... I'm not telling which one
. TacBs can get hammered by good tech fighters or AA guns.Drop Intelligence??? No way! Niet! Nada! Again... I'm not telling why
. -
Saddam was a madman and killer of innocents since day one and USA knew that and they did not need to send this nut job chemical ingredients that he "swore" he was going to use for fertilizer when US Intelligence was adamant he was not going to do so or weapons.
USA distanced themselves from Iraq when he stopped taking orders, if he had not stopped he would still be there and USA would support him as long as the oil kept flowing, no matter how oppressed the Iraqi people would be. Just look at Saudi Arabia.
This was not WW2 where you had one side that wanted to control the world and impose their views. The Soviets were not the instigator and they are the ones that fought 75+% of the German army. Still, I have always agreed with the military commanders that wanted to take on the soviets right after Germany surrendered, they knew Russia was not going to leave the countries it had "liberated" from Germany. But the politicians just gave up on all those countries because well... Western Europe has always thought of Eastern Europe as lower class, not as much today but it still exists.
As for Iran... deposing a democratically elected Government and imposing your "ideal" leader is not going to make you friends with that country. But USA has done that pretty much all over Latin America, so that was nothing new.
-
Originally posted by Hueristic:
Not really, some people might believe the "devil" is the only god type creature and creator of humanity. Heck it almost sounds plausible considering the 100 000s of years humanity has existed and just keeps fighting, oppressing others, etc... I mean the biggest quality that is expressed in humanity is greed!Well, I don't believe in gods of any kind and religions are fables created by man to help control man and sometimes actually help him be a better person, but always under the guise of those who invented it use it for power.
-
If the Govt decided to turn against the people (well it already has but...) those guns would be useless versus the hardware the military packs.
And as someone said, something written 100s of years ago might need to be revised.
-
Arado I don't see them getting the Russians on their side in the current context, the reason for the invasion was for land and resources.
If they had not invaded, Russia would not have gone to war and simply kept building its military and who knows what would have occured.
I find there is too much speculation on that part for it to have a possible conclusion of knowing the outcome.
If Russia had stayed totally neutral I still see Germany loosing because of USA massively outproducing them and having the manpower, UK would not have been far behind in matching Germany's production and would have had more manpower because of their CW countries.
Basically anything I look at all avenues I personally only see Germany being able to hold on much longer. In the context Russia would not have joined I could see the Allies agreeing to peace and letting Germany keep the countries they had pre-Barbarossa but this would still mean war in the future as none of those countries would have accepted a foreign power and civil war would break out with USA-UK jumping at the chance to help the rebellion. They were (are) just as greedy for power and any chance to bring down the expanded Germany they would have jumped at it.
As for a mod with full German production in 1940, no I have not done so because if I did I also would have to prime USA's production and UK because when one country builds up intensely the others always follow. So I find it unnecessary.
-
All I can say is at this time this feature is not in the game.Originally posted by vveedd:Still, would like to answer on my very important question, please - shall we have swap move?
In SC2 we need it. Now with new units on map we absolutely need it.
-
Depends on the length in Canada, the blade has to be pretty short and you're allowed to carry it.
I think in USA someone could have a broad sword carried on his back and no one would say anything, lol.
-
I think this is the best approach when we wish to look at history and say "what if" , nit picking at some major errors is not going to get your answer. Like saying if Germany had cut off Dunkirk, Rommel had the proper supply.Originally posted by letifer:Thanks for the welcome JerseyJohn. Been lurking for a while ...
I agree with your points - especially with regards to the Romans. Yes, Trajan was looking for an excuse. If you start something with the Romans you had better be able to finish it! Carthegenians found out the hard way.
Actually the 2nd Punic war is a good illustration for this thread - Hannibal was able to invade Italy, beat the Romans silly up and down the penninsula for several years, but still lost. A critical weakness can doom a vastly superior army. In Hannibal's case it was his army's deficiency in siege warefare. He had the run of Italy, but was unable to take any cities.
I guess my point is that everyone makes mistakes in war, usually fairly serious ones, but they are seldom fatal; very often there is some overarching weakness in strategy, tactics or even equipment that turns the tide. So discounting individual German mistakes, is there something such that if the Germans were better they would have won despite their mistakes. For instance, if they had had long range fighters and heavy bombers in quantity would that enabled them to overcome Russia?
In the end there is always ONE underlying cause for the failure of one side and in both WWs it was Germany not having the industrial resources the Allies had. Even if Germany had went into 1944 production in 1940, it would have made no difference in the end result, just the timeline.
We might think it was the lack of not one goal for both wars but in WW1 not ONE country had any idea of a goal... what defeated Germany was lack of resources.
.
[Rambo IV] There is a God! How pumped am I? LEGENDARY
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
Good point arado, I never understood why we let cars and bike be sold that can go over 100km/h (55mph) if the maximum limit is 100. Makes too much sense.
Canada does not even permit the sale of pepper spray because they say criminals would use it... WTF??? If they don't have that they'll use a knife.