jambai
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jambai
-
-
Good points. I'm playing against the ai and I didn't think of what a human brain might react to these things :<
-
Isn't the slg33 a bit too cheap? 113 pts for a single gun. That's 3x cheaper than a sfH18 (2x for 600+ pts).
They have limited use on a few maps (heavy urban) but usually it has no issues hitting the intended target and works pretty much like a howitzer. A 150mm howie that is! They do terrific damage and for 113 points I feel it's a bit too cheap.
-
I think Regulars act regular enough under most situations. If they are in C2 of a non-minus leader and have better than Low Motivation, they are effective. Conscripts are there so designers can make your lives a living hell on Earth. (mwuhahaha)
Now these are just my personal preferences, and are subject to modification as circumstances require...
Leadership means never having a moron in the chain of command. Minus leadership numbers are for scenarios(make 'em squeal). Zero or +1 is fine for me.
Regular/High Motivation is about as low I like to go when I have a choice in the matter. Usually initial presentation units like scout teams and the like. Nothing will save them, so why waste points?
Vet/High for offensive combat troopen, 'schreks/zooks, and first wave armor. FOs Vet/Norm.
Reg/Extreme or Vet/Extreme make dandy defensive units. If V/Es stay in C2, they will usually stay in place to the bitter end.
Crack/High or Crack/Extreme for towed guns or if a single tank is all that can be purchased in the vehicle category.
Elite Experience and Fanatic Motivation are what I call "quarter-dropper" options. Arcade settings.
They have their place in certain scenarios in single units.Hmm I'll try some of this in QB. Makes sense sort of
I just randomly spend my points
-
hehe yeah I know it differs from country to country and I can understand why americans can consider NSDAP leftist
LoL! just joking. -
Both Fascism and Communism posit the state as the ultimate power, whereas Capatalism posits the market as the ultimate power, with the state being demoted to a subservient role, both approaches to governance create the same thing, the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of an elite, which in my opinion leads to corruption and criminality on a grand scale.
But that's not the same as fascism is left-wing or? As your right of course but I'm not arguing against that but the notion that either fascism or nazism is left-wing. If that's the case, communism is right-wing and the whole system collapse
Both extremist sides have many things in common but we don't define them in the whole "right-wing left wing" scale based on that, (we simply call them authoritarian/undemocratic etc etc. We tend to lump them together on their differences, which I admit can be hard to define but it's there, and it's also based on their own stances. Ie, the two extremes didn't like each other, despite being somewhat similar, like the "original" nazists being lumped together with other right-wing extremists (
) because they cooperated against the communists. -
Uh, everything? They and the Italian fascists defined the extreme right - and they had also roots from the left - and you ain't going to tell me fascism is left-wing, or?
-
Yeah whatever, right-wing or not. People call it right-wing because the party's acts, agenda and beliefs has much more in common with right-wing extremists than left-wing. Surely their origins are leftists and as far as domestic economic politics is concerned. This however doesn't qualify to call the Nazi party for "left-wing".
-
How does the saying go, nature abhors a vacumn? The last democratically elected government in Germany collapsed in 1930. Perhaps if there had been no great depression things might have gone differently, but a world economic crisis combined with a Communist state to provide support, logisitics and intelligence meant Europe was already a battleground in the 1930s. Hitler rose because the political situation had the industrial leaders looking for someone who could make sure they maintained a grip on power. They would have found another right wing extremist if Hitler hadn't been there. There just wasn't a moderate alternative that could deal with the crisis in society.
I understand what you're saying but a german right-wing party rising up in the aftermath of the global recession doesn't necessarily equate a party similar to the Nazi party. The Nazis surely took advantage of the economic crisis but they rose up in 1919, not to any economic matter but a political.
I found it unlikely that a "non-nazi" german right wing party would be so staunchly anti-semitic, cultivating an extremely aggressive nationalism and fabricating claims left and right internally and externally to completely demolish any hope of democracy? Even of such a party existed, the german nation in 1930 was not entirely the same as 1919; would they allow nazi-esque acts like anti-antisemitism/democrat-ism in such a scale? I don't know but I found it unlikely as it assumes all of the events and circumstances in the 20's happen just like it did in real-life. Yes I know, Weimar republic were doomed to fail but the stab legend, communists, economic crisis (outside influence), opposing parties all of that weren't predermined but likely to happen.
Now what do you think
-
If you're assuming the nazi existing, yeah Hitler or no Hitler wouldn't matter (starting a war that is not winning it
). But the scale and all the minor circumstances would probably different. If no nazis, I'm not sure there would be any war - at that time. Obviously the leftists lost in beginning of 20's but I don't think there would be another national extremist party like the nazis. And I definately think only an extreme regime would dare to go to war. Yes Poland/France/Czechoslovakia/Rhineland territories etc etc but the german people weren't all that desperate. Democracy still had a chance
-
Yeah why german paratroopers left out? They fought against the Americans...
-
Yeah nerf bocage
so annoying. Though I can imagine the RL commanders didn't like it that much either -
I ragequitted from this campaign after mission #2. Lost like 150 men or so
Wasn't a pleasant site seeing my forces in mission 3
-
Could win anytime before Barbarossa - assuming a random 8-year old girl was the supreme commander instead of Hitler. In other words 100x better tactical and operational decisions
Germany could still win after barbarossa if they weren't so anxious and better prepared for the winter and actually thinking long term. Example, establishing a frontline and dig in behind Moscow, Leningrad and the Volga, to dry the out the soviet manpower (the only things the commies had going for themselves at that point).
...because even if they had captured Moscow/Leningrad etc. they'd still lose because their manpower reserve depletes faster than the soviets, relatively speaking (because again, they actually hoped for a quick war and grossly underestimated the soviet manpower).
But then with Pear Harbor and Hitler's amazingly clever decision to DoW US, every 'what-if' is killed. There is no way Germany could trump the Yankees. Of course Hitler didn't think so, as he thought americans were "a faulty mixed race" that cannot focus it's industrial power
-
I'm new to the series and I only stop playing it for food & sleep
Too bad summer won't last forever...
-
Only three?!
From what I've seen so far at least half of them are meant to be difficult
-
Thanks for this video! Now I'll think twice before "storming that bush" with shermans
They have their place in certain scenarios in single units.
LoL! just joking.
). But the scale and all the minor circumstances would probably different. 
Tiny battle QBs
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Happens in medium-sized battles as well. All tanks+artillery or all TD or all infantry with no tanks. Think I even saw the Ai having no artillery once.
Also the maps sometimes are totally different from what you picked. Like a heavy mass-bocage in a huge map when I chose OPEN