Lethaface

Are you now referring to your avatar or your real me?

Hold your horses gentleman!

Yes there are those types. I have learned, and am still learning, that it is easy for any man to confront every wrong when it occurs to them, a wise man only confronts those that are willing to learn and improve. Of course sometimes confronting the hordes can be amusing. But remember, never go full .....! Anyway I'm looking forward to CMSF2 and whether others also do or not doesn't concern my interests in such a way that I could say I really care.

Innovation is great, but so is CMSF2! I think it's great the original game I bought around 10 years ago will be updated with all the new features introduced since. At least I think it will be great. I'm in the 'don't like playing with current 4.0 AI behavior bug' and the patch is taking relatively unusually long for BFC. Which is a complaint and a compliment at the same time. Also: I don't know whether they are working on a CMx3 title, but I wouldn't mind if they were doing it. Maybe that's what's causing the delay

Or Versailles? We could also go back to the Franco-Prussian war, had France been more competent in that war WWI would probably have never started. But than at the same time, who knows what would have happened in those alternate realities. Without mad Addy (nice name though :)), Stalin might have had some idea's and decide to bring freedom to West and East Europe on his own.

Only if you put it in neutral, normally? At least for manual gearbox vehicles, in my experience you can make sure the engine doesn't shut off automatically as long as you keep it in gear. Anyway as long as you have a working starter motor and enough power in your battery to have it revolve the engine, starting shouldn't be a problem. But then when in any combat/dangerous situation that depends on the mobility of my vehicle, I'd say turning off the engine is just inviting Murphy. I don't know anything about the actual doctrines in use in WWII or more recently though.

Address the arguments I put forward if you want to argue with my reasoning (that's what discussions are about). Just to be clear: I mean TIK all the best and am happy people enjoy his video's. He does come up with arguments from other (more nuanced) studies, but he presents them in a poor way. At least that's my opinion, I found his video's not worthy of my time while I am interested in the subject. That's not a personal attack. I don't challenge that oil was an important factor. Trying to single out oil as the single reason Germany lost the war isn't the same as professional historians spending years studying and debating how important the availability of (vast resources of) oil actually was as a strategic factor when waging a global war. TIKs video is trying to make a bold claim to attract viewers. In the video's than he presents a bunch of supportive arguments towards his claim, but it doesn't excel in critical thinking (imho). It's a biased plea towards a simple answer for a complex question. I can advise on the book 'Asking the right questions, a guide to critical thinking' with regards to this matter. In my first post I asked a question: if during 1937 or so, Germany happened to discover an oilfield the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves right inside Bavaria, would that have won them the war? Please address that question if you believe that Oil is THE factor why Germany couldn't win any war against the allies. If I was to make a bold statement like that and post in on youtube, I'd first ask myself a couple of these questions. It's not just this video in which he performs this type of presentation. Clickbait is bad. How would you feel if you bought a book for it's title only to discover that the inside of the book doesn't correspondent with the cover, title and preface? At least, the claim on the cover isn't properly substantiated in the book. I would feel 'fooled'. That's why I compare him to politicians that do the same: make a bold claim, present some supportive evidence and voila: a new 'fact' has been born. Some politicians like to rinse and repeat their own 'supportive evidence', while calling anyone that presents different evidence 'liars', 'ridiculous', etc. Asking the 'well how about X' question, without actually addressing the counter evidence is a common tactic as well. Now TIK's video's are quite innocent when compared to state propaganda, but it's still misinformation in my book. Regarding winning or losing wars: (limited) wars are a state of affairs invented by humans. Someone once called them 'the continuation of politics by other means'. Wars are started by groups of people, or factions, that decide that they have a grudge with another faction, to be settled by violence. Usually wars end when one of the parties decides it's been enough and negotiates a ceasefire or surrender. The existence of matter doesn't win or lose wars. Failure to grasp the implications of the availability of matter can sort of lose you a war, or better render a decision to start a war as a stupid decision. In which case the reason you lost the war would have been incompetence; why start a war you can't win? A factor isn't the same concept as a reason. That might be semantics, but to me it's important especially when you claim to have found some spectacular reason for a well known event, that has been researched, documented and discussed for decades, like Germany losing WWII and their access to oil. Regarding Speer: I can think of a motive as to why the guy in charge of Germany's entire armanents and war production said that the Allies oil campaign meant the end of German armaments production. That means that he wasn't responsible for the failure regarding outproducing the enemy ;-) That's just pure speculation though, there's people on this forum that probably have more insight into this subject than me. Just to be sure: I don't think I have a monopoly on wisdom and I may be wrong. If you spot any fallacies in my reasoning, please let me know so I can learn.

It was a good thread indeed , brought me some distraction when I could use it. Now that I think of it again: if one does make gross over simplifications like TIK does in his videos, there's a better one to make. If there was never enough oil for Germany to wage war, there can be only one real reason they were ultimately doomed to lose the whole endeavor called WWII: stupidity, or as I like to call it, incompetence. Chiggity check yourself before you wreck yourself and start massive offensive wars against big powahs Only a fool driving from Berlin to Paris to Moscow with just $50,- cash on hand for fuel and toll boots (let alone hotels etc) would blame fuel as the main reason he didn't make it to Moscow. It's the fuel dude. Edit: that's why I think those click bait titles and reasoning are very bad. One can have interesting discussions regarding the effect of various factors on the (geo)political, diplomatic and military strategic/operational/tactical levels. That's what makes me come back to these forums. Poor constructed reasoning or poor reasoned information, more properly called misinformation, is already plentily available elsewhere nowadays. The president of the USA/world, among other world leaders like the Russian president for life, gets away with poor reasoned bull**** on a daily basis. That's why I think it's important to call out poor reasoning and or misinformation and address it with proper reasoning. So, thanks for your informative post. Gives a more nuanced impression of the macro geopolitical issues of the time versus the international diplomatic, national political/military strategies developed alongside the programs/campaigns (operational level) undertaken by the various factions. .

In occupied Holland wood gas cars were 'normal' as oil was rationed / not available. Another reinforcement of TIKS point ;-) @Ivanov, thanks for the links. Good to know we're not the alone finding problem in TIKs reasoning :-)

Even better, although with carriers they wouldn't be affected by the blockades ;-)

My 'decisions win wars' comment was a little tongue in cheek (as denoted by the smiley), although with a touch of seriousness. The problem I perceive in TIKs movies is mainly in reasoning. I'm a bit of allergic to his type of reasoning, because I see it a lot these days. In my opinion his videos are compromised with root cause attribution errors. I will try to explain why: The most easy way of going about this, is by reversing the statement or removing the factor from the equation: So, would having 'enough' oil have won the war for Germany? The answer to this is not obvious yes (possibly even a simple 'no'), from which I conclude that oil is not 'the' reason Germany lost the war. It's a gross oversimplification, like Ivanov has very meticulously explained in his posts. So, another tongue in cheek: I call TIK's oil and raise it with aircraft carriers: Germany lost the war because they didn't have aircraft carrier strike groups.

Well, opinions of researchers differ on this subject but that doesn't really matter in the end: how much comes down to a few. Edit: in the (recent) version of Achtung Panzer I have read, the liddel Heart issue is addressed and the outcome is different to your view. Anyway Guderian doesn't claim anymore than just building further on idea's of others. Personally I don't care, idea's dont have 'owners' (apart from legal fiction). At the same time they are often only grasped by a few.

Thanks for the answer. Actually I also consider PBEM most interesting, but RL prevents me finishing those. Fortunately I get to enjoy SP campaigns and scenario's too Maybe i'll try some QBs or a scen without too much arty before the patch comes. Good weekend.

If I'm one of those throwing stones, not my intention. Just a bit allergic to flawed reasoning lately due to professional related stress. Especially clickbait reasoning LD Anyway, thanks for the interesting observations. For 3.): after reading Guderian's Panzer Leader a couple of years ago, while realizing the anecdotal aspect, I was under the impression that a better grasp of the frontline situation at highest command stations might have made a massive difference in the campaign towards Moscow. The same goes for Dunkirk, to name two checkpoints out of many in the war. It's comforting to know that lunatic despots usually make plenty of unsound decisions, especially on the more conceptual / higher levels of the decision aiding/making processes. At the same time, from a military historic view, I think it's interesting to wonder what the outcome would be if the Pz / Mot Divisions would have been allowed towards Dunkirk. Or what if more appreciation would have been given to the consequences of deep armored combat in the strike towards Moscow and the terrain in Russia (Napoleon left some notes). With the limited available resources, more could have been done towards a decisive strike around Moscow. The diversion in Ukraine was costly with regards to both casualties (material and experienced personnel) and time/initiative, even though a military success itself. For me those are some of the 'checkpoints' in the war, where given the known constraints (as was the fuel situation), the Axis lost the war they started. Because morale is a sketchy thing, I'm personally of the opinion that things could have turned out very differently if the German leadership acted more competent versus the Allied leadership acted less competent. The Red Army was crumbling but held out, the Brits had their 'finest hour' and stood strong in uncertain times. I think it's interesting to see the importance of individuals on world events. If one would stripe away one of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mao, Chiang Kai-shek, Guderian, any military important figure, etc, events would have probably turned out significantly different. At least, that's my impression. Personally I'm intrigued by Guderian, who after observing the concepts of radio and tanks during WWI, seemingly came to concept of the Pz Div and after writing Achtung Panzer, took his theories into practice as described in Pz Leader. Even if most of what he wrote was exaggerated: how much of our history comes down to the doings and decisions of individuals? Anyway decisions win or lose wars, not oil. Simply because oil itself doesn't start wars, neither loses them ;-P.

May I ask what you have been playing? I'm itching to pick up a scenario or long campaign (have all CMx2 content available), but especially the troop running from artillery issue makes me hesitant. When I play a CM game, i always try to go full retard and spend time reading briefing and observing the terrain. Knowing that AI troops will run from their position under artillery feels like cheating. I want to play the CMFB german campaign another time (just played some scenario's during testing), or the CMBN scenario pack brit pack, but want a genuine experience. You didn't notice the issue while playing? I just played a little with 4.0 but this issue became quite obvious in a CMBS game I played. The good thing for me is that I have the patience to wait for the patch. It will come when it will come, not too far in the distance so I might as well wait.

Please stop beating a dead horse... just ignore, I will try to do same ;-)

Interesting. Personally I like the vagueness too, makes it more difficult for me to (subconsciously) game the system instead of trying to use actual tactics. Of course that doesn't mean all commands should have 'magic functionality', so long as a command performs more or less as how one would expect it to function (according to RL or manual) it's fine from a design standpoint. C2 In the CMx2 games I've played, having troops in C2 definitely made a difference when in contact with the enemy. With regards to morale: the lower the experience, the more important C2 is in my experience. The importance of information sharing is (also) very situational. Keeping long distance (AT) weapons in C2 with eyes up front can make a big difference. Whether C2 is worth risking your HQ running across open terrain, that's once again up to the context imho. My strategy: In ww2 era I generally try to remain C2 at all times, apart from scouts/sentries and the like. In modern ERA C2 is most of the time less of a concern. For NATO/US/RUS/UKR it isn't because almost everyone has a radio/pda whatever. Because of that I generally try to keep the HQ in safe positions with good observation or inside IFVs providing overwatch. For Syrian / unconventional units maintaining C2 is often not really a viable option, so I adjust to that. Fatigue I had always assumed tired/exhausted units would also degrade combat performance. Although thinking about it, fatigue is only really a factor in offensive/maneuver situations where being able to make a sudden quick/fast dash IS important for having tactical options and or keeping the initiative, so I guess this new knowledge won't really change how I will order my troops around. A question someone may know the answer to: does fatigue affect spotting?

Well said! I would say it is flawed reasoning.

After your message I watched the video (not fully though). In my humble opinion his videos are a bit of a incoherent bunch of statements shoestringed together. Obviously Germany was, due to its isolated position and resource situation at home, going to be in a bad position for a war of attrition (oil access is only one of the factors here, although especially important for motorization etc). The whole world (and especially the German general staff) was very aware of this 'problem/feature' even before WWI. Basically all he is stating in the video is that control over resources, while denying the enemy access, means that in the long run you will win. That's not really something spectacular, although it might be for some. Imo the whole political aim of Germany was too increase their access to various resources by means of wars of aggression, which spiraled out of any form of control pretty damn fast after initial successes. Stating that they lost that wars because of oil, seems a little moot. They certainly failed to get access to the resources necessary for a ongoing war against the allied factions. Besides, would a fresh untapped oil field the size of Saudi Arabia's discovered in 1938 in Bavaria have really won Germany the war? perhaps. ;-)

I think I saw another video from him about the Ost front and thought it wasn't worth the watch.

My opinion: CMBS is worth it's price. It offers a lot of content, hours of play (100+ at least I would say). Maybe not as much (yet?) as CMSF, but more than I have been able to play. So as you seem to have enjoyed CMSF, I would recommend CMBS because it basically takes the fight to another level. There are a lot of new features and RED has a lot more teeth when compared to CMSF. Also, the scenario designers have gotten better at it over the last decade so expect more 'professional' content. Whether 100+ hours of enjoyment are worth $60 to you, is a question only you can answer. Of course your financial situation influences the answer. Personally I consider $60,- cheap for what I get in return. Of course there might be other games that offer more hours of gameplay for less, but then they are not like Combat Mission so that point is irrelevant to me. Plus I like to support (niche) developers like BF.C because I like there to be CM games around, whether I have time to play them or not.

I think this is really an 'eye of the beholder' issue, a real classic one for that. As being part of the 'old guard' myself (at least I think I am after 10+ years and 1000+ posts and having done some beta testing in the past), I don't see any problem with SgtHatred's post. At the same time I understand IanL, Sburke and others because often people that are trying to be helpful on the forum get flak just for having their own viewpoint. I think everyone is entitled their own viewpoint. Conceptual attributes like 'game-braking' are as subjective as attributes can come, because what exactly defines game breaking? Personally I have been so busy with other things that I have rarely had the time and or energy to play CM over the last 2 years. When I tried some 4.0 games, I did encounter the 'run from prepared positions under arty fire' behavior. Because in that particular scenario it did break my immersion, I decided to wait for a patch so I can enjoy the content I play in the most optimal form. I mostly enjoy campaigns when played the first time, so that's why. In the end we are all here to enjoy the game. It's good that there is an old guard on the forum, at the same time it's good that there are new people on the forums. Obviously opinions about bugs, due patches and other things will differ. That's what a forum is about. Anyway, I don't see the problem with this discussion and most of the viewpoints offered here. As long as people keep discussion civilized and not take or make things personal, its all fine imo :).

Whats up with the admin appropriation? ;-)

Enjoy! At least you can get a nasi goreng kampong for just 2-3 RM. Any decent takeaway food here cost from ~Eur 15,- pp and upwards.

I would advise buying CMBS now and CMSF later when it comes out ;-). The RED forces CM:BS are significantly more competent when compared with RED in CMSF. Engine 4.0 brings a lot of game improvements and of course scenario makers have also learned some new tricks after so many years!