juan_gigante

That's what I thought too. I hope I was wrong.

That's what I thought too. I hope I was wrong.

Oh. Good.

Oh. Good.

"Afrika Corps"??!?!?!?! What the hell! "Korps" starts with a "k"! Am I the only one to see this?

"Afrika Corps"??!?!?!?! What the hell! "Korps" starts with a "k"! Am I the only one to see this?

I was just wondering... what would you get if you combined Dr. Love's wit with waltero's writing style? Would that not the worst poster in the history of the internet?

Seanachai, I think annexing North Dakota would help your plan a lot, because they have many, many nuclear weapons. That way, if Canada (or anyone else) starts to make a fuss, you can nuke them into oblivion. And really, who would miss Canada?

Do they not have pop tarts in the UK? Pity. They are little pastries you buy at the store. They are very sugary, with a strange "flavored" filling inside. They come in both fruit and non-fruit flavors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-Tarts They are famous as incendiary devices. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gmbrown/tart/

When guys get into hand to hand combat, will we get to see them hitting each other on the heads with rifle butts and such? Will the uber-Finns do wire-fu?

When guys get into hand to hand combat, will we get to see them hitting each other on the heads with rifle butts and such? Will the uber-Finns do wire-fu?

I think this is a great thing to be modeled, and would add a lot to realism. But I'm not sure about a strict "pinned, one guy takes off" system. It just seems a little formulaic and unflexible. I don't have any better ideas, but there are probably some out there.

I would dispute the effectiveness of bananas in battle. I point to their life-saving qualities as displayed in the motion picture "Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves" when they save the unconcisous kid's life by feeding him banana while he's passed out. Also, are we talking frosted or unfrosted poptarts?

Hmmm... In hindsight, perhaps it was a poor idea to attempt to steal the identity of General M. Bison. For I am not the insane dictator of a fictional Southeast Asian country (a surprise, yes!), and I am not plotting to create a race of super soldiers to conquer the planet. Yet I misunderstand your anger. While it was silly to select a picture of Mr. Raul Julia as my own, this does not mean that I respect the man any less. I picked a picture of him because I honestly felt that he was a very cool dude - a fact I think most of us can agree with. Consider his role in the classic "Frankenstein Unbound" - pure genius! In fact, after the Bison shot, the picture of Raul and the equally phenomenal John Hurt from "Unbound" was my second choice. So, I understand that my impersonation of another is a crime, but I vehemently oppose the idea that I some how lack the proper respect or honor for Mr. Julia.

I think that trying to model lots of attributes for each soldier might be kind of tough on the engine and the computer running it. And besides, those first three attributes wouldn't have that much of an effect. Swimming - if I'm ordering a squad to swim across something, I want them all to make it. So you might as well have everyone in the squad at the lowest common denominator. Besides, your men will probably be laden down enough they won't want to swim much at all. Driving - I don't we'll see regular infantry hopping into tanks to take over after the crew has taken casualties. So for much of the force, driving skill wouldn't matter. For the real drivers, it wouldn't neccessary to model that skill 1:1; after all, in nearly all vehicles there is only one driver. Using Enemy Weapons - Infantry now have no handicap when using captured weapons that came with the squad. I like that. But I don't like the idea of enough mid-battling capturing going on that would make such a skill helpful. I like the other three though.

I think that trying to model lots of attributes for each soldier might be kind of tough on the engine and the computer running it. And besides, those first three attributes wouldn't have that much of an effect. Swimming - if I'm ordering a squad to swim across something, I want them all to make it. So you might as well have everyone in the squad at the lowest common denominator. Besides, your men will probably be laden down enough they won't want to swim much at all. Driving - I don't we'll see regular infantry hopping into tanks to take over after the crew has taken casualties. So for much of the force, driving skill wouldn't matter. For the real drivers, it wouldn't neccessary to model that skill 1:1; after all, in nearly all vehicles there is only one driver. Using Enemy Weapons - Infantry now have no handicap when using captured weapons that came with the squad. I like that. But I don't like the idea of enough mid-battling capturing going on that would make such a skill helpful. I like the other three though.

Perhaps Seanachai is fasting from the forums in an effort to reach spiritual enlightenment.

That not did hurt, for I am the one without the sleeves, second from right. I've always had a thing for leather and muttonchops. I have always sort of suspected that Australia was some sort of practical joke played on the world by a bunch of Brits. "Hey, what if we can make everyone believe that there is a big island in the South Pacific that we live on?" Honestly, I've never actually seen evidence that it really exists. And if we can use that logic to disprove evolution, I think we can certainly apply it to Australia.

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!! And you thought it would be that easy to get rid of me. Now that I'm done canoeing through Montana, I can go back to my usual business of being snidely irritating from the sidelines.

I think the new map system might be a little like that in Warcraft III's map editor. In that, you paint on terrain using brushes that range from very big to very small. After you have painted grass here, trees here, etc., then you can raise & lower terrain with the brushes and add in fences and the like as doodads. Perhaps there would be a little fence brush that you just drag and you've got a fence along the path you dragged. This description isn't super clear, but it is a very intuitive way of creating maps.

I think the new map system might be a little like that in Warcraft III's map editor. In that, you paint on terrain using brushes that range from very big to very small. After you have painted grass here, trees here, etc., then you can raise & lower terrain with the brushes and add in fences and the like as doodads. Perhaps there would be a little fence brush that you just drag and you've got a fence along the path you dragged. This description isn't super clear, but it is a very intuitive way of creating maps.

Not an agreed upon schedule. Schedule is perhaps not the best word to describe it. The point is that it would take the Soviets longer to doefeat the Germans, and Anglo/American forces would take Berlin first. Stalin would be most displeased about that. Of course, this requires the assumption that we couldn't have taken Berlin first anyways, and gave it up to Stalin as a political thing.

When he said schedule, I think he meant the schedule they followed in real life; taking certain things at certain times. Wicky, you may be right after all. This evening, I shall know more.

You got a source for that, Wicky? “The Manhattan Project yielded three atomic bombs” (Trinity Test, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/bomb-design.html In most stuff I’ve read, it says that it would have taken the US a while to get their act together for a third drop. Unfortunately, I’m at work, but there’s a great book called Brotherhood Of The Bomb about the Manhattan Project that I’ve got at home. Wait a few hours, and I’ll post something from there.

But using an A-bomb on Berlin would leave only one for Japan. And the nuclear weapon production program was sorely strained to produced the three bombs it did (test at Trinity, Little Boy, Fat Man) as quickly as it did. I think that a nuke to Berlin would force a quick surrender from Germany (Hitler would be dead, and his successor hopefully wouldn't be quite as insane), but that might make it harder to extract a surrender from Japan. But I do not feel that a German victory at Kursk would substantially lengthen the war. As Andreas mentioned, the Soviets were putting on pressure in other places. And Allied production capability would still vastly outpace that of the Germans. Even if the Germans won at Kursk, I wouldn't expect the war to go into '46. Numerical superiority and the landings in Sicily and eventually in France would do in the Germans. The only difference would be that more people would die along the way.