athlete
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by athlete
-
-
The scenerio is almost done, but I like the map. Can it be saved somehow?
-
By the way, is there a way to save the map at this point? I kinda like it.
-
It's possible...he uncharacteristically took an aircraft in this encounter and it's gone, plus he's got at least two tanks dead, and one I suspect has a dead gun, and at least two atgs are kapput...so I'm not sure how much AT equipment he has left, let alone in position to repel from the direction I choose.
The only thing is that Panthers are expensive; I could lose one of them and the points would be on his side...there's only 5 turns left or I might start moving troops toward the intersection and try and actual assault...i.e recce, tank/inf co-op, prepatory arty...etc...
I think I'll wait this one out, and try a more agressive approach next time.
Big thing for me at this point is that I was succesful in using a tactic in a ME that was not 'race to the objective and defend it', instead opting for a meticulous, co-ordinated approach from an unsuspected direction. Gives me some options later.
-
Well, this is what happened/is happening.
Swung my tanks and one platoon of inf to the south to climb up the side of the ridge and sweep across, had the other two platoons assemble west of the town in a good observation position.
I 'assaulted' the ridgeline, took out a Wolverine and a couple of squads of inf, then set up 3/5 Panthers to cover the town, and sent the other two up the ridge, lead by an L24 equipped HT and the inf.
L24 bought it from a gun at the top of the hill, but arty quickly returned the favor. Inf swept through the squad of inf assigned to cover the gun.
Tanks took out a couple buildings providing a smoke screen for the assembled inf to approach and take the town.
It was basically undefended except by the crew of a truck that I nailed early (with the inf onboard).
Took out one more gun with arty that was set up to cover the top of the ridgeline, and a Wolverine that popped up on the west ridge to engage a moving Panther.
Now he holds two flags, one large, one small, and I hold two small, but I also have two Wolverines, two guns, a truck full of inf, a couple squads and some crewmen on my points list. I figure I hang tight for the last 5 turns and wait to see how the points work out...he knows it's close with me probably having the points edge, so maybe he'll try to score some points.
-
To me the difference between adding the realism of terrain effects and mechanical reliability is this:
The game is supposed to simulate a set of circumstances such that two players can overcome thier own forces' and the terrain constraints to achieve an objective.
Terrain effects are tangible constraints/risks that ought to be factored into any plan. On the other hand, mechanical unreliability can't practically be planned for after you choose your forces.
Look at it this way; the relative cost of a late-model Tiger that you can deploy as part of the combat force could be considered to have taken into account the number of total units one would have to choose in order to get 'x' functional ones, via the rarity factor.
IMHO of course.
-
Well, the game starts with us on the e and w. The hills are passable.
-
Short version (and he might be reading, so I have to be a little cryptic).
2000pt mtg engagement, it is a QB and the map worked out to be essentially hills running n/s on both the e and w sides of the map creating a big valley running n/s in the middle...the objectives are in a town in the valley.
Now, assuming roughly a platoon of tanks, some off map arty, a couple of on 81mm mortars and a company of inf, how would you approach the scenerio?
-
You are not interupting anything.Originally posted by roqf77:dont mean to but into the argument between andreas and athlete. but in the cambridge perspectives in history book i bought i believe it says that the so called atrocities perpetrated by the germans was nothing more than a vague pretext for an invasion.(no iraq war jokes please or i will have to hit you with a licence plate).
Something along the lines of german soldiers dressed in polish uniforms posed a staged attack against a so called german radio station putting already dead german citizens bodies in the radio stations. fake histories were created for these bodies, an thus a pretext for war was created. But this was a matter of weeks before the invasion. the book was called hitler chamberlain and appeasement. Although it may also be in chamberlain and the lost peace.
Yes, this is a common notation in history, regarding the bodies at the radio station. I'm not sure where it originates, but I'd be interested in finding out.
-
Sorry, my bad; perhaps a poor articulation. I agree with you. What I meant was that my view that an opinion can't be wrong is based on the caveat that the person has some capacity to reason. i.e. if people want to use the extreme examples of ludicrous 'opinions' then okay, opinions can be, well, stupid/wrong I guess; but those examples are usually not opinions as much as they are incorrect facts.Somehow the saying that an opinion can't be wrong equates to the inability to reason. That's interesting, since I would argue the converse.Your hypothesis that you could hide behind a pint and not be hurt by incoming tank shells is wrong. (Although, that said, in Canada we'd be loathe to shoot at someone if it meant risking injury to an innocent brewsky).
I think 'opinions', at least in the way that I mean to use the word is something that cannot easily be determined based on the facts available.
Yeah, that was my point. Just trying to point out that throughout the range of extremes there are opinions that aren't necessarily wrong, and those that are calling me, or inferring that I am a Nazi because I don't agree with every decision that the allies made from 1918 to 1940 are, in my opinion being a little harsh.As for your two extremes, I think practically everyone on the face of the planet, or a finite distance above and below, would fall between the two extremes.
Oh, I realise that, and believe me, nobody would ever accuse me of being easily swayed by anecdotes. That's part of the reason that Andreas hasn't gotten an immediate response to his request for proof of Polish persecution or atrocities against Germans. My standard for evidence is high. I have in fact pictures, eyewitness accounts and a judicial inquiry, but all of the sources are German, and that won't fly for evidence. The problem of course is that since 6 years and a global war passed between the time that the alleged atrocities were committed, and it's not likely that the allies, and specifically the Russians who occupied the area after WWII were going to investigate Hitler's claims against Poland, good evidence is hard to come by.I realise I'm doing a bit of 'Me-too' with what Andreas is posting, but at no point have I come close to implying that anyone is a Nazi, pro-, neo- or otherwise. Merely that some of the stuff you are citing apparently comes from people who are. Thus it is important to realise that their view on things may not be entirely... balanced.Hitler was adament that bad things were happening to Germans in Danzig for over a year prior to the decision to invade. He makes reference to it in a communique with England in September. Problem is that everything he said had to be taken with a block of salt, or at least that is common opinion. I also understand (though can't find them), that there were formal protests from Germany to the LoN from as early as 1937 about treatment of ethnic Germans in Danzig. When I have evidence one way or the other that satisfies me, I'll be happy to share it; AND I won't feel bad if I come back and say, "well, I can't find anything to substantiate the claims; maybe it didn't happen" because it's all part of the learning process.
Yeah, open, honest and direct (i.e. blunt) I like, but hurling insults I could do without. It's just juvenile and detracts from one's message.Dorosh is Dorosh. Ever as blunt as a pencil that's half worn down.Andreas is a beastly Germerman, and as such he may be a little bit sensitive about people bringing up such things without solid backing from things other than some rightwing nutjobs. Or he might be swilling champagne in Paris and feeling drunk and belligerent.
-
I'm gonna have me a pork chop.
-
Well, for my part there is underlying assumption of the capacity to reason when I say an opinion can't be wrong. I suppose if we want to tread on the side of lunacy...Originally posted by flamingknives:Yay! The old chestnut, "An opinion can't be wrong"
So if my opinion was that a thin sheet of glass was quite unbreakable by anything short of a nuclear blast, would I be right?
There were Christians that refused to fight Gladiators because they believed that God commanded them not to commit murder. Subject to this OPINION, (or interpretation of the facts), the Brits and the French ought to have trusted in God to punish Germany for any percieved crimes against humanity on judgement day, and allowed themselves to be destroyed and ascend into paradise. Somewhere between this extremist view and the other (i.e. we ought to have attacked Germany at the first opportunity), lies my opinion that we should not have declared war on Germany when we did for the reasons we did. The Swiss agreed with me. The US agreed with me..It's not pro-Nazis unless you would count those with strong Christian beliefs, the Swiss and the US as being pro-Nazi...but keep calling me a Nazi if it makes you happy. Rabbi Ziegler and I will have a laugh about it on Saturday.
-
I'm aware of what you meant, and it's funny because an opinion can't be wrong; in my opinion.
I'm done with you. You are not worth responding to anymore. It's painfully clear that you don't want to debate, you want to insult and prop yourself up by trying to annoy me. If it makes you feel good, fire away.
-
No, I said PROOF, not just a statement or an account. I want to see documents produced or discovered by objective third parties, accounts by eye-witnesses that are named, something of this nature.
I anxiously await your response.
-
I'll tell you what, you dig up proof that Germans dressed up two prisoners like Polish soldiers and shot them and I'll give you the proof you want of the atrocities in Danzig. Deal?
-
LOL. Yeah, I've encountered this attitude from MD in several threads. If you don't agree with him, you're stupid and have opened yourself up to insults. Thankfully there are still some intelligent, objective debators in the forums such that we can ignore guys like this.You're a moron.
This is hilarious. Absolute certainty that another person's OPINION is wrong. What makes you think that anyone's opinion is subject to your singular judgement?The thread served a purpose, even thoughMichael's initial premise was wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg, but it shifted in its meaning even during the war. Being wrong on the premise however does not make the thread silly and pointless - these fora are there for information exchange and learning as much as for discussions about mods, or campaigns. If it bothers you so much, don't open the thread
As for the last line, dude, you've been chasing me around the forums trying to label me a Nazi because you didn't like MY opinion. If it bothers you so much, why did you open the thread? Oh yeah, I forgot...to defend the rest of the community from my nazi-rubbish.
-
Andreas:
Hero of the Battlefront forums.
Defender of long-dead politicians.
Sworn to defend the the weak minds of forumites everywhere from 'neo-nazi claptrap'.
*trumpets*
-
Andreas, you are free to stop reading and responding. I for one am done responding to you until you can start debating and stop simply trying to provoke a response.
Bigduke, I'm at work, as soon as I get a chance I'll respond. Might not be until tomorrow as I want to do some research. I'll prob start a new thread, and summarize my position as a preamble, or if you would prefer, we can just continue it offline so as not to invite trolling. Your call.
[ June 09, 2005, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]
-
I think we ought to move this debate to a new thread...we've hijacked the hell outta this one.
-
Well, live in a country where your forced to capitulate to unreasonable terms for 20 years, and then quote me international law. I won't even bring up the US invasion of Iraq as an example of how so-called 'noble' countries violate international law whenever it suits them, and if they have the power to do so with impunity. Ooops, I guess I already did.Originally posted by Andreas:[QB] How about some facts for a change?
Poland had no claim, and made no claim on Danzig that was not backed by international law. Germany did.
Well of course they did dumb dumb, they had seen nothing but benefits from those treaties.Poland accepted the status quo of the international treaties. Germany did not.
No he didn't order an attack in April; he ordered his armed forces to prepare for an attack on Poland. If you think armed conflict is inevitable this is simply a pragmatic and prudent move, ala Desert Shield circa 1990.Germany nullified the non-aggression treaty from 1939. Hitler ordered the attack on Poland on 3rd April 1939. Poland did not nullify the contract, and did not order to go to war.
Well, they declared their intentions to negotiate a corridor through Danzig and then walked away, then the chief of their military told Germany and the world that Poland intended to go to war with Germany whether Germany wanted one or not. Turns out that wasn't a smart thing to do.Poland had not repeatedly lied about its intention and had not taken land of its neighbours, or destroyed independent states and made itself completely untrustworthy in the process. Germany did.
Well, it was a German city, occupied by Germans, policed by Germans but "under contract" to Poland via the ToV. If it walks like a duck...It would be like Canada insisting on running customs and having free passage through Alaska. The US would never accept this...Poland did not conduct a take-over of Danzig before the start of the war. Germany did.
Yes, and historically this was the only reason Germany cited for going to war with Poland. Give your head a shake.Poland did not put a couple of prisoners into polish uniforms and shot them outside a small radio station near Gleiwitz to manufacture a reason to go to war. Germany did.
No, I'm thinking of Danzig. You're just wrong here.BTW - Russia never got Danzig. You must be thinking of Koenigsberg, in which case I suggest buying an atlas.
Working on it. Btw, try to calm down and respond like a debator and not like a typical forumite, else I'm going to just stop responding to you.So, now that we have settled this, how about proof of the claims for the Polish atrocities? -
This is, in my estimation funny. Kudos.Originally posted by Bigduke6:[QB] Athlete,
Ok, maybe you're not a Neo-Nazi, and good for you! I like people who are not Neo-Nazis. Many of my friends are not Neo-Nazis. And thanks for answering my questions, that was right polite of you. I apologize for even insinuating about trollness.
Well, in short because when the Germans agreed to an armistice, it wasn't because they were routed. It was because they were facing inevitable defeat. To chase them back to Germany and finish them would have been HUGELY costly in terms of human life. So in good faith, the Germans agreed to a ceasefire, then to disarm. That's when they got screwed. The terms of Versailles were ridiculous, and never accepted by the German people. Protest after protest came from Germany and the rest of the world said, "tough crap, loser". Very well then. Germany dealt with it, for about 20 years. Took them about that long to become strong enough to say, "Tough crap eh? Well now we're taking it back, try to stop us." It's all rather childish really. On both sides. First, France and England really put it to the Germs in 1919. When Germany started coming out of it, they MUST have known they weren't going to continue to accept those terms. They had NEVER accepted them. So the smart thing to do, in my estimation would be to really think through what was equitable...not wait for Hitler to take something back, bitch, then capitulate, wait for him to take something else, bitch, capitulate...etc...It's stupid. Just give Germany what's fair. This is different from Russia...first Russia had made no bones about Poland (to my knowledge) until after they had occupied it. Second, the USSR was supposed to be a Republic of Communists, Republics are made up of VOLUNTARY governments, not conquests. Third, and quite frankly, time. The time difference between 20years of continuous protests vs. 70ish years of relative silence and then suddenly (after the fact) an explanation of why we did it to me is intuitively different. Just my opinion really. Still have yet to hear a good arguement for why the Russians were British allies after doing to Poland the same thing Germany did, but without any real warning or justification, but I'm a patient guy.But I fear I have some questions for you:1. Why is it okay in your mind for Germany to get to invade the left side of Poland, but the Soviet Union can't invade the right side? Why do Germans get to recover ancient lands torn away by imposed treaty, but Russians doing the same thing to the same country are, in your words, "opportunists."
Uh, no, I don't think I am. I don't ever remember saying that Germany was on the morale high ground to be honest...though I'm open to opinions to the contrary. Really my point was, by my standards, I don't think Brit and France should have started a global war because of the conflict between Poland and Germany. They should have been peace-brokers; and probably long before we got to the Poland issue. As soon as they realized that Germany was still extremely dissatisfied with the redrawing of the map and the other terms of the ToV, AND that they were well on the way to being a major power in Europe again, I think they might have rethought their conditions of peace. The alternative, which they exercised, was to confront Germany militarily and try and enforce specific terms of the ToV. I don't get it. Like I said, as long as your willing to enforce the terms with your military forever, then that's fine, but if you want a lasting peace without having to constantly hold a gun to the heads of 50-odd million Germans, you should probably treat them with respect. It's just a choice. I don't like the choice we made.2. Germany lost more of its population, percentage-wise, than any other country in the war with the exception of Poland, and you don't need me to tell you why the death rate in Poland was particularly high. Are you arguing this incredibly high German death rate, plus occupation, plus having the Red Army come through your Eastern provinces, is somehow evidence Germany was on the moral high ground during World War Two? That somehow the Germans were victims?
Insofar as I think that Germany could be expected to take back what had been theirs, I don't think it was unpredictable, and I think it might have made sense for the LoN to facilitate the transfer, so long as the populations of those areas were not vehemetly opposed to it.3. Do you think it was okay for Hitler to reannex the Rhineland, Sudetenland, and Austria? That should be an easy one.
Frankly, I don't know anything about this area. That said, if they had it prior to 1919, then they had an arguement...if the occupation of that region was as a result of the Polish conflict, well, for security reasons it might have been necessary to occupy it for a time, and had Eng and France been neutral in the conflict, they might have influenced a withdrawl from the region over time. Can't really be specific...I'll put it on my list of things to research.4. Do you think it was ok for Germany to annex Polish Silesa?
Same as 4..don't really know.5. Do you think it would have been ok for Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine, and Saarland had France and Germany been in a state of peace?
The line should have been drawn if and when Germany went on an expansionist campaign that included areas with populations that opposed German rule. (Note, the occupation of Polish territory east of Danzig/EPrussia and subsequently France etc... doesn't count to me, because that was simply in response to armed conflict with the respective countries. i.e. You can't 'half-invade' Poland or you risk counter-attack and that is just dumb. You can't wait for France and England to mass on the borders of Germany to start fighting as that would be dumb too.) Now, I don't know enough to say for sure, but the occupation of Czeck beyond the Sudentland MIGHT have been an example, though this too is on my list of things to really research...(i.e. were the Czecks resistant to German rule? Why did they occupy the rest of the country? etc...)6. You think France and Britain made an error by drawing a line for Germany on Poland. Fine. Where and when SHOULD they have drawn the line?
Well, they signed because they had disarmed. They disarmed as a condition of the armistice. They agreed to the armistice because they knew they must eventually be defeated. BUT, they had not surrendered. They weren't routed. The cost to the allies in terms of lives to actually invade Germany would have been HUGE. That's why it wasn't a surrender; but then the allies screwed them. Well, probably seemed clever at the time, but just 20 years later...7. Clearly you think the Versailles terms given Germany were unfair. Why do you think the Germans signed, then? What was Berlin's alternative?
Well, it's alternative would have been to defend Germany. Nobody wins...Germany would eventually lose, and the allies would have lost hundreds of thousands of troops in the effort. The armistice made sense for everyone, and especially Germany; and for the reasons you cite, the western powers felt justified in punishing Germany. Well, in my mind, if we learn anything, it's not to unjustly punish countries for losing wars unless like I said, we're satisfied we can enforce the terms through force forever or we're certain the population will eventually just accept it. In hindsight though, this is a BIG gamble. Losing the gamble costs about 40million people.8. Why did Berlin have so few alternatives left in 1918? Is it possible the "blank check" issued Austria-Hungary, the violation of Belgian neutrality, the introduction of poison gas to warfare, and unrestricted submarine warfare against the strongest country in the world could have had anything to do with that terrible state of affairs?
Quite the contrary. Wars are dumb and generally fought for dumb reasons. Let's face it, WWI was the most colossal clusterf$#@& the world has ever seen. Talk about a completely meaningless war! That's why it baffles me that we were so willing to fight for Poland's right to hold the title on the Danzig, but we won't go to Rwanda or Darfir. It's bizarre. I'm not arguing that it was okay for Germany to use it's military to take what it pleased...I'm suggesting that the LoN didn't do what needed to be done to avoid a war (i.e. give the frickin land back), and that it was probably pretty stupid for the Polish government to suddenly walk out of talks with Germany about Danzig, and for Smigly to start sabre-rattling. I'm also suggesting that had France and England thought it through, they must have realeased that they were defending a term of the Treaty that was not going to be accepted, and really ought to have pressured Poland back to the table, NOT simply guaranteeing them military aid.9. You are arguing might makes right; Germany was strong and took what she wanted, and it was up to the rest of the world to deal with it. What I want to know is, why is it okay with you for Germany to do what the heck it pleases, and to use force to get its way, but not okay for others to the same thing to Germany?
Well, I don't mean it to be...once again I come back to: the world went to war in Europe over Poland's claim to Danzig. Six years and 40million people later, we gave it to the Russians who had NO claim to it, really. So the mission to secure Polish sovereignty was a complete failure wouldn't you say?Again, it sure does seem like that pesky old double standard.
I don't mean to cut them any slack...I mean to voice my opinion about how 1936-1939 Germany was handled...I think it was handled abysmally.It's one thing to appreciate a nice Pils or Reisling, but you are cutting the Germans a bit too much slack.BTW, I have to say that I really appreciate your civility. I don't fancy myself pro-Nazi Germany, and frankly the opinions I have on this whole topic are subject to evolution. I'm actually fairly new to the subject having only really been interested for about 6 months, so I have some gaps to fill in my knowledge of the facts...I've pointed some of those gaps out in several posts across a couple of threads. These sort of questions you pose prompt me to take notes and get back to the books, and I enjoy the debate. I'm sure I'll get another salvo of 'you're a Nazi' or 'this guy is nuts' or whatever, but the beauty is that you are all faceless peons. (That's meant to be humorous). So I can debate the subject with relative impunity. Also, some of you faceless peons make good points. I like when that happens.
[ June 08, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]
-
Well, Germany didn't lose 40 million people, the rest of the world did so who's mistake was it?
-
Of course the point is ignored and we resort to sarcasm.True. All we need for peace to break out is for countries not to go to war. Thank you for that staggering insight into global disarmament.Point was (in small words) that Eng and France unnecessarily escalated the war, and were not IMO obligated to do so. I mean, yes, when the conflict looked likely to happen, a pact was signed but THAT was the mistake. They were bound by a treaty they should not have entered into. Instead, since (according to Andreas, and of course common sense), Germany already had enormous influence in Danzig, and most of it's citizens were Germans, it ought to have been simply given back. Oh sure, it hurts the Poles; but (and this is not a disputed fact...I can quote Encarta on this one), Hitler
So Poland says 'war is coming whether Germany likes it or not' (that's paraphrasing Smigly),and this is the principle that England is prepared to defend; and of course once again, after Germany invades, they are given an ultimatum. Russia invades and no such ultimatum comes, and at the end of it all, Poland is occupied by Russia. Shouldn't we then have gone to war with Russia?admitted Poland's need for free access to the sea, but insisted that Danzig was a German city. Yet it had "contracts with Poland which were admittedly forced upon her by the dictators of the peace of Versailles." In his negotiations with Poland, he had proposed the return of Danzig as a Free State into the Reich. In return Germany had been prepared to recognize all Polish economic rights in Danzig, and to ensure a free harbor for Poland with unimpeded access to the sea.[ June 08, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]
-
It wasn't under German government, if so they would have just built the bloody road, they wouldn't be looking for permission.Originally posted by Andreas:Confused? Let me help you out - post some proof for those alleged pre-war atrocities against Germans in Danzig, a city under the government of Germans at the time, with a majority German population.
It would be nice if, unlike all your other arguments about what Poland should or should not have done, and how evil everybody was with Germany, this proof did not come from neo-nazi or revisionist websites or books.
Clearer now?
Second, I'll have to wait til I get home to dig up a quote out of a book...as much as I'd love to bring my library to work...further, the justification wasn't solely based on atrocities, but as I mentioned earlier, the intransigence of the Polish government to give up a corridor to E Prussia and the subsequent Polish saber rattling.
Further, as much as you love throwing the neo-nazi words around, it isn't revisionism, it's historical facts that I'm referring to. Now, that said, as history is written by the victor, you do have to dig to find some of this information. For example, I COULD quote German sources that conducted investigations into the crimes committed against Germans after the takeover of Danzig, but of course that would be thrown out as Nazi propoganda. i.e. those who would best know are considered not credible. So now I have to find independant evidence of these events. Fortuneatly the Nazis didn't last long enough to hold congressional hearings into the effectiveness of thier intelligence services as it pertains to the information presented to the nation's leaders that caused them to invade a sovereign country...we have to wait another 60 years for that sort of thing. heheh)
I'll see what I've got.
-
???More neo-nazi propaganda
Quick question...can I save the map from a QB?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Okay, thanks. What about in premade scenerios?