HistoryLover

True they were brutal and fanatic. But tell me: which revolutionaries are not? How could have Hitler achieved his impossible mission without being a fanatic and accumulating other fanatics? How less brutal or fanatic are politicians that drop atomic bombs? Or wage wars "to defend" their values? How intolerant are politicians that do not accept that there are different forms of government in this world? Isn't fanaticism and brutality a prerequisite to even accept a suitcase with the codes for a nuclear war? What about the extintion of the Incas by the Christians or Spaniards? Or the native Americans? Or slavery? Not fanaticism and brutality? Are politicians not brutal and fanatic if they sponsor terrorists to destabilize and gain control over a country? And that, despite the fact, that the whole ideology of Nationalscialism is not about claiming to be pacifistic, or bring peace to the world, while most of the other ideologies do exactly that. As an ideology it very much reminds me of what Braveheart says, when his wife is threatened: I don't care about your right about primae noctis, I take my right as husband. IMO any discussion about moral values should have no place in a discussion about understanding history. In most cases the moral arguments are only used to cover rationale intentions. To me it seems, the more a rulership is built on lies, the more TPTB will use the moral "arguments" (often with the help of "black propaganda"), because the honest facts just do not support their political position. If someone wants to make me believe any government or politician was acting because of being simply evil, and I do NOT need to go back in time!, then I almost always find profound economic and pecuniary interests behind the story. When one thinks about it, it's very logical: people everywhere in the world do not support wars of their politicians for the enrichement of the rich or for usurpation of unjustified power. Therefore it is always important for these forces, to make people believe the intervention was for other noble moral reasons. People must be kept away from becoming interested at looking at the facts. And what works better than turning the other side into criminal and evil? Who is interested to be the laywer of a murderer or a sadist? I believe that's how it works.

Do you really want to "discuss" on that level?

I never had come across any German propaganda, where the power of the new Wehrmacht was not emphasized. Do you have any infos about your claim? One episode I remember was the parade after the liberation from French occupation of the Rheinland. Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to fly by several times and the Heer to march several times, to present the foreign countries a much stronger picture of the Wehrmacht than it really was. Sure. And besides me is standing the Fuhrer and dictating me what I should write. Btw, he was just shaking his head about the stupidity of ordinary humans. He says they are acting like sheeple fearing that the fence could be opened. He just admitted, he hasn't seen "The Matrix" yet.

This is true. Nevertheless people do not recognize that either the anti-German propaganda of a planned war and world domination is correct, or Germany was not at all prepared, but was, despite all mistakes Hitler made, more or less forced into war. An example how the lies make it impossible to understand the developments: the propaganda in the US was - very much like today - the most extreme and most stupid one I have ever seen, to turn the 90% Americans, that wanted to stay out of another war for Wall Street, into support of joining war, by fearmongering about a German navy conquering the US and South America... Do not laugh. This propaganda turned the opinion of the US people and the "free media" kept them in the dark how the US president was breaking almost all rules of neutrality and when the strangled Japanese hit at Pearl Harbor, the public was glad to wage war, to "defend the USA" far, far abroad... Probably nowehre in the world people had less knowledge about the fact that Great Britain was the undisputed ruler of the world's seas and not even if all ships the Germans had would have been military ships, they would have been able to invade America. Btw, I think it would make a very interesting topic of scientific research, how this system of so called "free press" and "free media" is steered and controlled in such a way, that not even dictatorships are able to reach such an efficiency of manipulation. Only in the last few years, I guess thanks to the (still) free internet the total control of the public's opinion in the West has been weakening. It always shocks me, if I imagine that the internet would not be available and what my level of knowledge would be, if I only had the mainstream "free media" as source. And that must have been the reality all the decades before for all people in the Western "democracies". :eek: One must understand that the German U-Boot-weaponry was a result of the fact, that Germany was vastly inferior to the British Navy (Hitlers German-British treaty of their navies even accepted the rulership of Britain). Studying the invasion of Norway shows that the conventional German Navy was no threat to the Western Alliies. They only could hide and then "run" and hide again. Only the new U-boat weapon gave them for some time some relief. But the propaganda picture of a mighty Germany and the weak Western Alliies is just crazy. But what strikes me most is, when people moan about Germany's war economy but do not compare it to the resources and industrial capabilities to the USA and Great Britain. At that time Britain was controlling more than 50% of all world's resources(!), and btw not by asking if the invaded countries wanted to deliver it to them, together they controlled around 75%, while Soviet Russia and France controlled big parts of the rest and then saying, how badly organized the Germans were is just - strange. Whoever takes alook at the German war machine, will see that it was one of improvisation. Well, those who claim the war against the Soviet Union was planned for years, obviously have never looked at the measures after the war against France by disbanding units, the resource management and the allocation to the civilian production and tiny pecentage to the military. Another example: People know the half sentence from Goebbels about "Do you want the total war?!" (Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?!), but they do not know what the speech was about. That's how people are manipulated and by turning things upside down, it makes it impossible to understand history and politics. Without understanding the big picture and how all sides really acted and that every regime hostile to Germany tried to rule the whole world (some have been following this plan until today and since the Soviet Union was disbanded are even openly admitting to a world government of their regime...), it's not possible to understand what the encirclement and tried strangulation of the German economy meant for the Germans with their country without resources. Not to have even enough resources to feed the population on their own is not a receipe for peace! This is also important to understand when Hitler, as opposition politician, wrote in his book about "Lebensraum" in the east: the other leading nations had colonies in Africa and everywhere in the world, robbed Germany's colonies, while the thinly settled land in the east for him was the most logical solution without coming into a conflict with Britain. This becomes much less outragous, if someone also knows a bit about history, that centuries ago the Russian emperors used German settlers to cultivate big parts of the country. And with hundreds of thousands of German children starved to death since 1918, the, in Western media hailed "treaties", the enslavement by the Dictates of Versailles and St. Germain by the Western Alliies, Hitler's and the German politics of that time can only be understood with an objective view of the international politics of ALL involved parties at that time and by learning history instead of propaganda. Instead to search for the logical and rationale cause of actions, trying to get an understanding of action and logical reaction as main principle in politics, people in the West usually prefer to believe the grotesque pictures of crazy dictators. Be it Khomeini, Hussein, Gaddafi or Kim. I travel a lot, but nowhere in the world people have such an infantile view of politics and history with singular evil persons as the cause of problems and therefore sadly making people incapable to understand what was going on - and much worse: understanding what is going on today - like in those countries, where people are made to believe they have something like "free media".

Very confusing. I always thought the indicator besides the Platoon HQ indicates two things, depending on which unit is selected: If the platoon HQ is selected it displays C2 platoon HQ to the company. But if a squad is selected, it displays the C2 from the squad to the platoon HQ. I think it would be less confusing, if there would be a dedicated additional field for C2 of squads/teams, additionally to the eye/shout/gesture indicator.

I hoped it was so. Great feature.

I'm wondering what are the rules that radio equipped platoons can lose C2 with their radio equipped company? (Temple to Mars) Could it be that the use of the radio is not possible if HQs are moving?

Given the awful state after a few battles of some of my almost blind, limping and out of ammo tanks in the incredible CMBN "Kampfgruppe Engel" campaign I could well imagine the penetrations will be remembered. Remembering the ricochets maybe would blow up the data per vehicle too much?

Bil, as a player who always tries to keep up C2 I'm wondering if the recon squads are forward units of the designated company to the area, or do they belong to the same platoon which is scattered across the map?

Cool tip. Didn't know that it was consistent. But now as I know it, it's logical.

I think that for this map the units on the German side are too few to build a defendable and stable MLR. Especially the woods would need lots of infantry and support weapons. While Bil probably has the advantage of more units (in the meanwhile I have read his thread and that is the case). Enough units for one side while the other side has too few units, IMO are a big plus, because he can force the initiative almost wherever he wants while he can keep all routes threatened. Therefore I thought that reducing the MLR to a minimum, while this minimum can receive the maximum amount of fire support. The problem with forward defending on this map IMO is, that a capable attacker seems to have good possibilities of a wide advanceing infantry "screen". Each spot could be threatened from two or more angles. The defender proabably would be pinned within seconds, before he can retreat. Yes. The terrain is not good for the weak forces anyway. The HMGs need open ground like the tanks. It's also possible to defend dense areas with not so many units. But the problem here is, that Bil get's the possibility to encircle the village and shoot it into pieces, while his infantry moves in slowly. I don't see a realistic possibility for a victory except the plan to avoid the heavy fighting until it takes place, where the tanks and HMGs can support it. That's not enough. One is lost easily and then the chances in tank duels are much much lower. Before I would buy only two Panthers, I would buy three Hetzers. The three Panthers would cost him roughly 1100 points IIRC. That's less than a third of the overall points. I think it's acceptable. Yes. But what realistic other chances does this map offer? This is all close range and Bil has much more infantry and more ammo and can approach everywhere.

I just read Bil's thread, so no more suggestions from me. Good luck, Elvis.

It probably depends very much on the personal playing style. Tanks that can penetrate my tank at the given distance, I almost never attack with one tank. And I seldom use my infantry before I have not cleared the tank threats. I'm quite patient (and at the end I usually get time problems) and have no problems to move ten minutes over the whole map if I get a "secure" shot. If the spotting behaviour has not changed completely, then no matter what Bil uses, if his tank is forced to button up first and three Panthers simultaneously attack, the chances are very high, that things will go well. Ofcourse this takes longer than the usual head to head duel, sometimes 75% of the time of a battle my infantry is only waiting, but with every strong enemy gun less, the Panthers gain overproportionally if the rest can no longer penetrate them or the oponent has so few strong guns left, that he can no longer protect all his weaker armor.

Me not, too. I'm thinking more of the two TRPs at the edge of the wood. Where he must move, if he wants to support any advance on the objective. Probably I should have explained the tank tactics better. It's meant attacking in such a manner, that only ONE enemy tank is attacked each time. That way it doesn't matter how many tanks the oponent has. It only takes a bit longer. And knock the strongest enemy tanks out first. And if Bil hides his good tanks, by knocking out ten normal T34 will force him to bring them to the front. Well, if the map is NOT open and offers good places to hide for tanks and jump from one cover to the next, then my plan would be very dangerous, if he manages to get behind the infantry and the Panther can get no LOS. But that's a prerequisite of the plan, that the map is open and allows long range support for the infantry. I thought the yellow area was open ground with good LOS. If this is not an open ground where no long range fire can be established, then my plan would be totally wrong.

That's dangerous since I'm obviously too stupid not to confuse North and South.