Invader_Canuck
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Invader_Canuck
-
-
I just played a QB vs a friend where on about 4 separate occasions I had split tank hunter teams within 30 meters of a Sherman refuse to use their fausts or shrecks and instead plink away with their rifles.
-
Iran is not a democracy, if it was, the religious leaders would have been turfed out of power.
Iran gets bad press because it is pursuing nuclear weapons, promoting terrorism in the region and aggressively seeking to extend its influence in the region.
Its not just the West which is worried, Saudi Arabia, Syria and every country with a Sunni majority in the region wants to contain Iran.
Iran isn't a major regional threat.
Let's just run through the points detailing why they are not.
1) Myth 1, Iran is a threat to the region. Fact - Surrounded by Sunni majority states whose opinion of Iran range from dislike to hate - End result, any overt hostile action by Iran results in a reaming from every direction.
2) Myth 2, Iran is a threat to the United States. Fact - Iranian defense budget is laughable in comparison. Iran has no ability to project power.
3) Myth 3, Iran is a hostile aggressor nation. Fact - Iran hasn't engaged in a war of aggression for centuries, 3 I believe off the top of my head perhaps even more.
The Iranian threat is vastly blown out of proportion, their ability to project power is limited to whatever support they throw behind "terrorist" organizations and even then what is the difference between Iran supplying arms and the CIA supplying arms. There isn't.
The reality is that Iran may buck a little bit, but they cannot take any aggressive actions that would result in the destruction of the regime and the invasion of the country.
Iran getting nuclear weapons does not change this dynamic. The idea that Iran will start supplying terrorist organizations with nukes is a fairy tale. They want nukes as a deterrent against invasion because all the silly rhetoric around them continues to build and it certainly points in the direction of a possible invasion.
Using a nuke directly or indirectly will result in the immediate and final destruction of their regime and most of their people.
The portrayal of Iran is akin to the portrayal of marijuana use in reefer madness. It is silly. The President, nut job or not, has essentially ZERO power. This portrayal is a result of the hostage taking and the embarrassment this caused the United States.
Then we have the Sunni states in the area which also hate them helping to push this agenda along.
-
I prefer wego, but play RT since I prefer multiplayer.
At the company level in CMx1 I would almost always attack on two axis', in CMx2 I will almost always attack on one. Strictly due to the time constraints and the realities of RT. I can't be jumping between two advances because if you are not paying attention you can lose an entire attacking force at a crucial moment.
You also have to be more deliberate in your movements which takes more time. Setting up most of a company for an assault will take 3-4x longer than it would in wego.
-
Combination of assault and quick for me.
If you are attacking across a field I will get a good disbursement and then attack with as overwhelming force as possible.
I'll usually run something like, 3 squads assaulting for every squad on quick. My theory behind this is, assaulting will keep my guys moving and shooting creating as much suppression as possible while I have some quick runners who will advance quickly with less regard.
They arrive at the destination hopefully unmolested and then can pour on the fire at closer range while I start swapping my assault squads to quick moves.
You can do this by clicking on the individual waypoints and reissuing a quick order, faster than plotting new waypoints.
-
I'm not kidding, I would have gladly paid $500 for this game, probably more. (I've spent thousands over the years on boardgames and miniatures, and I never got the stisfaction out of them that I was hoping for.) CMBN and it's modules/new games will fill up my freetime for the rest of my life, no joke.
Now, back to your scheduled progamming.
Quiet! Don't give them any ideas ;p
-
I thought Sobel was handled in an interesting manner in BoB.
He was clearly credited with whipping Easy into a tip top unit, but they portrayed him as clueless in terms of tactics and his ability to remain calm under pressure. Maybe this is true.
Towards the end of the series when he gave 'Popeye' a lift back to the boys he was shown slightly better in that he helped an AWOL soldier return to his unit without dicking him over.
The truth is probably that Sobel was not a great combat leader, lacked the confidence of his soldiers (Something that shouldn't be down played) but was exceptional at training the men up.
Whatever the case may be, I also found it slightly off putting that he was vilified to the extent that he was, when many of the original Curahee men clearly owed him their lives for the prep work he did for them.
-
Who wrote the history of the Eastern Front? (hint: it wasn't the winners)
Haha. This is so true and this is why most school kids with no formal education at a higher level have any idea about what really happened on the eastern front.
The west was fed their information on the Eastern front by German generals who had lost it and had a bone to pick.
-
Translation.
Taki just got beaten in a PBEM and is raging at the game to explain why he lost.
-
The western allies did not give their pledge to the Russian land grab of Finland, given this is your history you should know better. The Allies opposed Russia's actions in the Winter war in 1939 and were ever pondering intervention (more so to cut off the iron ore from Sweden to Germany than anything else). In 1944 Finland, regardless of reasons, was fighting on Germany's side and thus was an enemy nation, few were going to speak out on the issue when more pressing issues in regards to the future of Allied countries in Soviet liberated territories (ie Poland). Relations between Finland and the west were kept open initially, the relations with the UK was kept open until the Fins closed the British Legation (nor quite an embassy) which resulted in a termination of relations which eventually led to a declaration of war in December 1941.
Again on Czechoslovakia, the allies didn't "let" Stalin occupy any lands. In fact Czechoslovakia was not occupied after the war by the Soviets, held a democratic election but a communist coup in 1948 brought it under the iron curtain. The only land ceded to the Soviet Union was the Subcarpathian Ruthenia, a territory that was frankly in despute long before WWII, having been granted to the new country Czechoslovakia at Versailles because:
1) Hungary, one of the claimant nations, had been an enemy nation and thus was given nothing.
2) The Soviet Union, another potential claimant nation, was not liked by the west either at this time so got nothing.
3) So that left only Czechoslovakia, which had to give the region autonomy anyways since most people didn't care to be part of it.
For starters, this is a D-day thread so the Fins, the Russians and whatnot in the east has little to do with what I said. You are making an issue out of stuff that was not even referenced by me. As far as I am concerned the Soviets are not much better, but I give the soldiers more credit because they were legitimately fighting for the existence of their people. As for Allies ignoring Soviet crimes, at best you can point to Katyn, which was basically the Soviets words against the Germans and the Germans were the bad guys. While Churchill may have assumed the Soviets were to blame, they had no evidence either way. And I doubt your average allied soldier knew a thing about what was occuring in the east, let alone about red army crimes so trying to make a moral issue out of it is futile.
This is my problem, saying that one recruit has no say demeans those spoke out and suffered because of it. It excuses those who did not have the morale courage to speak out against a government that engaged in clearly morally dubious actions (racial laws, illegal pogroms, removal of citizens rights etc during the 30's). A small portion of the population stood against what Nazism stood for, many ended up murdered or in camps because other were willing to go along and support the government. 130,000 German Political prisoners perished under Nazi rule. Because people went along with it, the war occurred, not because the Nazi's said so. Because they allowed for the preconditions to be created by waging wars of aggression, tens of millions died. People did have a choice, many Germans made the right choice but more made the wrong choice to go along with the Nazi's.
Your argument is a slippery slope. There was no clean war fought by any single one of the combatants. As victors we can sit from on high and pass judgement on things like war crimes. Fact is the bombing of German cities for the specific purpose of causing panic and chaos among the civilian population is a war crime as well.
Additionally, your final paragraph is fighting proven human psychology. Most people, as in the vast majority will go along with whatever the group is doing so as to not stand out. More over, Nazi Germany was a police state where public dissenters tended to vanish.
Lastly, the entire argument is anachronistic. The mentality of people at the time is not what it is today. Going to war over what we now consider stupid, petty and ultimately untenable goals is not only wrong, it can be classified by law as a crime by the international community under a number of statutes. Then, it was pretty much par for the course.
Holding leaders in different regard is one thing. Holding known politicized units in different regard is another. By Fall 1943 the Soviet Union was no longer fighting for their existence, Germany was. So are all these German lads who ended up fighting in the war from 1943 onwards, who were not involved in initiating the fight, but were now fighting because sooner rather than later their homes, their families, their wives and girlfriends would be in a very real danger, are they somehow worse than the Soviets, or Brits, or Americans or Canadians or Aussies or Kiwi's or whomever?
At the end of the day most soldiers fighting didn't really care about the ideology, they were just trying to make it from one day to the next and they were fighting because their country told them too.
-
Like a boss!
-
Because all the manly men went to Canada where they slept all night and worked all day.
-
Bold statement, so tell me how many T-34's or any other Soviet equipment did the USA and her little buddies use to defeat the Nazi’s? None but I do know that the Soviets used equipment the USA and the UK gave them such as tanks, trucks etc…… Plus I do know Stalin was begging the Allies to start an offensive push so as to relieve pressure on his forces.
The Allies were also fighting in the Pacific, something the Soviets weren’t. The Russians only had one front while the US/UK had multiple fronts to contend with.
I do agree though, the Soviets had to endure the greater part of the German military machine due to poor decisions Stalin made before the war and it is a shame more people aren’t well versed on the east front because it is a very interesting study. For a war game it is far more interesting and diverse in my opinion. I truly don’t understand how anyone would consider it boring.
The USSR defeated the Nazi's, we sped the process up, although Bagration in late June 1944 had more to do with the collapse of German resistance than Overlord. They didn't need to send us anything because they took care of business on their own for most of the war.
Of course Stalin would beg for a second front. I don't think anything more needs be said about that, it's obvious why he would.
Germany was stopped on two axis' of advance before any Lend Lease arrived. The third axis was stopped ~8 months later when Lend Lease was still barely trickling into circulation. For all intents and purposes, the German impetus stopped between December '41 and August '42 before much if any war changing materials arrived to aid them. The Soviets took the impetus of the war in December '41 - November '42.
If you look at Lend Lease figures, the majority of all goods shipped to the Soviet Union arrived in 1944 and 1945. By the time Kursk rolled around and with it the German failure, the ultimate winner was no longer in question.
I'm fairly certain that if you combine every other front the Allies fought in, into one singular front, it still isn't even half as large as the Eastern. In terms of military deaths, the Eastern Front claimed 15-16 million lives, the Allies suffered less than 1 million between them.
I don't think being accurate is a disservice to the men who served for the Allies in WW2, I personally had two grand fathers who served and 8 or 9 great Uncles who served, four of whom were killed. I'm proud as can be of those guys, however, the allies did not defeat Germany we accelerated the process but without the air campaign, without lend lease, Germany would have lost anyways.
I would argue the single largest contribution the allies made to defeating Germany was the strategic air campaign which actually shifted its primary focus of disrupting German production to an ancillary goal, with the primary goal being to attrition German pilots which is was quite successful at.
Finally, don't take me as a Western Front hater. I'm not and I enjoy the theater as much as the next guy. I just dislike the avoidance of the Eastern Front that tends to plague mainstream media. wanting moar Russia doesn't mean I hate the West ;p
-
Russians making the east front...sounds good to me...
Scottie...how can you say the east front was boring??? The biggest, bloodiest battles of WW2...has everything you could want with two of the protagnists at their peak....
Apparently games with the Americans in sell more....tis a shame....I find the West Front of WW2 rather dull one sided in comparison...the War was over really by the time we got stuck in...Fighting a German Army whose best had already fallen on the Russian steps....an army fielded with teenage fanatics or VG divisions...the Germans had one last push left in them...and then died...
However I do prefer the West Front over Africa....
Now the Western Front in WW1 I find fasinating...
Gotta agree with you on the Soviet Front.
The war pertaining to winners and losers was long decided by the time June 6 '44 rolled around. It was more a matter of determining WHEN Germany would fall and where the Western allies would meet the Soviets.
When we talk about mass appeal, I think the reason why people get fixated on the Western Front versus the Eastern front is because they know almost nothing about WW2. They believe the typical Stephen E. Ambrose point of view that the United States and her little buddies saved the world from the Nazi's and the stuff that went on in the East wasn't very important.
This is the typical history of WW2 you get in the west in your high school years. Now, I am sure there are people whom are well aware of what happened in WW2 and simply prefer the Western Front, but we're talking about the masses who don't really know anything.
In my experience when people are exposed to the idea that maybe us Westerners didn't save the day and that maybe the most important fighting happened in the East, they tend to become more interested, they want to know more because this contradicts everything they've been taught and have believed.
So, I say, bring on the Russians to bring us some Eastern Front action ASAP!
-
Best bet is not to think of them as ideological Nazis -- at least not the average low-ranking Wehrmacht trigger-puller. Just think of them as generally apolitical young boys trying to survive, doing their duty, and following orders, just like the Americans. A little more motivated because now they're defending European soil, and mad because their parents and girlfriends are getting bombed back home. They're confident that they're the superior soldiers and have better weapons. But they've seen the Allied resources and firepower, they're starting to doubt the official propaganda now, and it's started to dawn on them that they could actually lose the war. The NCOs can be cynical but tactically smart and battle-hardened veterans of the Eastern front. And then maybe a Nazi or two in the officer corps, especially if it's a replacement one who comes fresh from training or a rear HQ and hasn't had time to appreciate the facts on the ground.
If you reference Beerfest for your German inspired dialogue it can only succeed!
-
I'm running a quad core 2500k clocked @ 4.5 ghz
12 Gigs of ram @1600
Nvidia GTX 570
I use a 128 gig Crucial SSD.
If I wasn't having issues with higher resolutions crashing me in game (I'm forced to use the 3 low resolutions offered in the options) I am sure the game would be flying along like everything else screams along!
-
Since I couldn't remember my old login details I had to make a new one!
I noticed Grog Dorosh has been banned. I can only guess due to shock force?
Point/Objective Algorithm...The logic behind it..
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Just make objectives smaller if possible and make a few more of them.
That way it becomes easier to secure an objective completely even if the enemy while largely broken is still in the vicinity.
Some of the objectives in QB's are like 25% of the map which makes an objective victory pretty much impossible even if 90% of your force is in the area and 10% of his is.