Jump to content

Hellas

Members
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Hellas's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

10

Reputation

  1. Wow, free speech has come a long way. As a libertarian I can hardly express how disgusted I am from your unbelieveably unprofessional behaviour of a company, your ad hominem attacks on the lowest level and not the slightest exchange of arguments. That you threaten customers to be banned if they express their opinion, in fact that you demand that they must hide it, if it goes against your opinion, is unbelieveable. That's probably the worst kind of totalitarian behaviour I have ever experienced from a company. Btw: I just read Arnold Kramish's book about Paul Rosebud and even Kramish had referred to Irving as authority. Who calls Irvings books science fiction but avoids to discuss facts, but instead shuts up any discussion, has said more about himself, than is necessary! Now you little Hitler/Stalin, you can feel free to ban me. I would see it as honor!
  2. I didn't take it personally at all. No problem. I wanted to express if it's nothing new anyway then it probably will never be implemented.
  3. Here goes the hope... :mad: If a unit is selected, then endpoint pyramides between the segments do appear. When clicking ofcourse these elements should get the preference over selecting a different path. From the UI point of view I see no big problem, if paths were so bunched up, that the player first selects the unit directly to make the pyramid appear. It would stay the same as it is now with the difference, if the player does not click the pyramid, he probably would select another unit automatically. And I imagine that would be extremely handy especially when it comes to manage the paths of many units. Readjusting or finetuning the paths of half a dozen units moving over a bridge without any jumping back and forth and camera repositioning between each unit and the brige. That would be so :cool: !
  4. +1 Maybe a toggle-function (select/deselect last waypoint) instead of a switch would be even better? But my biggest wish for interface enhancement would be that clicking a movement path selects the corresponding unit.
  5. Hi antaress, lots of hardcore CM fans here that will defend even bugs as features. I am struggling with them,too sometimes. And I am not the most experienced player yet, but the more I dive into the game, the more impressive the spotting mechanism becomes to me. IMO the beauty is, that is delivers plausible results without becoming boring. But if you discover something that looks strange, it is of highest importance that you save it. The spotting mechanism is so beautifully complex, that, at least in my experience, it is simply not possible to make conclusions without the ability to reproduce it and recheck it. How often am I frustrated, when I lose a tank! Ofcourse it was not my fault! But when the anger vanishes and I look back at the scene, then almost always the result was in the probabilistic range that deems realistic. For scenarios I had done some spotting tests to find out how long it takes to spot ATGs and stationary tanks at certain distances in different terrain. Depending on how much is exposed by tanks, it can take up to 20 minutes and more, until they are spotted, if they are perfectly hull down. Sometimes they are never spotted, if they can kill fast enough. But what I really highly recommend is to approach a problem with the mindset, that the software and it's algorithms overall work really, really well and that the reason for the delivered result should be searched, investigated with a positive mindset. Otherwise one tends to make too quick conclusions that are not adequate.
  6. Wow. Now I understand better why you ignore the opening of the archives in 1989 and focus to defend the Soviet Nuremberg propaganda.
  7. Napoleon was defeated by the size of the country, the Russian winter and scorched earth. And the same happened to the Germans in '41. No that much had changed. For a defense depth is always positive. Do you agree? The more depth a defender has available, the better. Therefore Russia has always been defended in depth. The more room the defender can give up, the longer the lines of the attacker become, the better for the defender. Nobody defends a huge country like Russia only at the borders like Germany or France are almost forced to do it (compared to the depth available for Sovietrussia). The same authors that claim the Red Army in this huge Soviet Union was deployed defensively with an offensive deployment , a huge concentration at the borders think their readers are as dumb, that they do not question why have 3.5 million soldiers at the border at all? Where there are no barracks. Why the airfoce was being placed on provisional airfieds and not securely in depth where they really can protect the country? The same authors that repeat these Nurmeberg fairy tales on the other hand claim, that the comparatively small Germany should have been defended in depth and that there was no need for a preemptive strike at all! What are around 300 Soviet divisions being deployed at it's eastern borders, new demands from the Soviet Union to give up Rumania and several other signs of the historically always peaceful communist paradise of the workers. France had a line, which it believed was not penetrateable. If there is a castle, ofcourse the forces are also placed behind the walls. But if there is no castle but open land, the forces are stationed in depth. And that also was done in France according to it's size and where it believed Germany could attack and where not. The majority of French troops was not placed at the borders although it even had the Maginot line. Anyway, the German moves were deep enough, compared with the size of France, that a resistance any longer would have been suicide and devastated the country without any remaining chance. There was no reason because the Germans did not demand an unconditional surrender or other dishonourable gestures although France had begun the war without any reason. Interestingly even one third of France was not occupied by Hitler. France could also keep it's navy and was only asked if it would want to join the war on Germany's side. And although really needed by Germany against the British Navy, France could keep it's ships. But if France would have deployed it's forces similar to Sovietrussia, then they would have been stationed in a line along the border. They were not. Because France was not preparing to attack Germany, when Germany attacked. Defensive doctrine of the Soviet Union? For that statement you probably would have been shot. "The Red Army is an offensive army! The most offensive army in the world! Even retreat means attack!" How that? WORLD REVOLUTION, a WORLD REPUBLIC was the official political goal of the Soviet Union! And the Red Army was it's official tool for world revolution. How is it possible that a historian is irgnoring these facts of utmost historical importance? I find it fascinating how a globalist regime like the Soviet Union, that openly, formally and officially followed the goal to conquer the world and destroy the established cultures (striking similarities to today's globalists with their NWO, their fight against traditional values or the traditional family) is portrayed as peaceful, although it had attacked one country after the other since it's establishment, although it had not the international law on it's side, i.e. like being the protective power of a nation - like Germany was for the German minorities under Polish occupation. Do readers not think? I am wondering who of Glantz readers knows, that Hitler started the biggest repatriation campaign to move hundreds of thousands of Germans back into the Reich? The opposite of the Lebensraum-propaganda from Nuremberg. Everybody repeats the propaganda, although on one hand the nationalist German government did what nationalists prefer according to their ideology: it supported the solution of ethnic problems where Germans were the minority by moving them to Germany and create ethnic homogenous areas. The Red Army was the tool for Communist world revolution. In many European countries the Communist parties were preparing for it and were instructed, what to do in the case when the Red Army would begin to roll over Europe. Glantz only repeats the Nuremberg propaganda of the peaceful Soviet Union and the defensive, unprepared Red Army and so keeps his readers in complete darkness about the bigger picture. The pocket battles were fought closer to the borders and as I mentioned the Soviet airforce even could be reached on airfields, so close to the border, that they were provisional ones. In Germany or France. But in a Soviet Union? Or the USA? Or China? Never. Do you really believe Putin will place the whole Russian army at the borders of Ukraine when he expects an attack of the NATO?! Do you believe that? Do you recognize now what Glantz is trying to sell you? Did you ever hear about Nuremberg? Surely. There the Western Alliies dictated with the Soviet Union the history of WW2. David Irving has written an excellent book about the tribunal. People believe it was a normal trial. But I don't know what is the bigger scandal: this farce or that such a farce can be sold in our times as a model for justice. The Western Alliies in Nuremberg rejected the German claims, that it was a preemtive strike. They forbid them to refute the allegations. Then they killed German soldiers for planning an attack war. Since when did the Western Alliies distance themselfes from Nuremberg?! In my opinion things were much more complex: in the US army were forces - just like in the whole USA - that did NOT support these lies against Germany. The most prominent is probably general Patton. But also the average US soldier had personal experiences that differed from what the newsreels claimed. Additionally the US wanted the German experience for their confrontation with Stalin, just like they started operation Paperclip to get the German engineers. So while the lies from Nuremberg were established, they tried to attract Germans before the Soviets would - or before they simply would kidnap them. But the tactic to attract collaborators has nothing to do with the Western propagand view of WW2. Show me the West-german or US newsreels that discuss facts that support that Germany led a preemptive war against the soviet Union. Show me the schoolbooks. Ofcourse the German soldiers ofcourse always knew about it. They fought it! But this view has not been accepted and is contrary to the Nuremberg propaganda, which is the "official" story the USA follows since. Glantz claims he was doing his job in Soviet archives. But how is it possible that he didn't discover anything of importance? That for example he didn't notice the complete lack of maps of Soviet territory for the Soviet artillery units in '41?! How is it possible that the Soviet artillery had hundreds of thousands of maps of Germany and no maps of the own country, when it would have been deployed in a defensive role?
  8. The more it is repeated doesn't make it any more true, although propaganda works that way. Glantz could not only not refute Suvorov, but after he could no longer ignore it, he even had to support Suvorov's findings! For decades Glantz was spreading the official Western propaganda and then the Soviet archives are opened, people like Suvorov or Falin appear, and the whole story that has been tought for decades, comes crashing down! But the spirit was out of the bottle and so Glantz does the old disinfo trick: what you can't deny, turn upside down in your conclusions. 1+1 is 3, not 2. It is understandabe that Authors like Glantz, who for their whole life have been supporting the official propaganda and working for the establishment and who suddenly look like amateurs, to say the least, begin to attack the messengers. They begin to write books aimed against them as if attacking the messenger makes the facts disappear. It's noteworthy to mention that there were also some historians in the Western establishment, who had the character to admit, after the Soviet archives were opened and they studied some of the the new papers, that they had tought a made up history and had been fooled for their whole life as academics. But as soon as they did it, suddenly they were no longer "well respected". Old retired men can be dangerous. They have no career and family to lose anymore. Several aspects are turned upside down by Glantz. And it can easily be prooved by his own argumentation. I had named already the hard numbers that are proove the Red Army was not (at least not in this world) defensively deployed in the huge soviet Union, but that doesn't matter, because the author claims something that even is in contradiction to his own data: He claims that the losses of the Red Army in '41 were the best proove the Red Army was not prepared. But following this argumentation, the Red Army was also not prepared for the attack on Finland because of it's losses, too. Anyone who disputes that the Red Army attacked Finland? Did the Red Army not sent whole waves of infantry into tactical attacks without weapons on the field, because they should take their weapons from the fallen ones in front? Was the Red Army not prepared in that cases, too? Were in Operation Bagration, the Red Army's losses not almost as double as high as the German losses and therefore the Red Army not prepared? In Stalingrad - a desaster for the Wehrmacht, but several times more losses for the Red Army? Not prepared. Wherever someone looks at the Red Army in WWII, even outnumbering the Germans 10:1, the Red Army shows significantly higher losses. Even in encirclement pockets, where the Germans ran out of absolutely everything and fought to the last bullet. Not prepared! An author, that uses such an embarassing logical strawman to defend the status quo? And contrary to Glantz Suvorov not only presented courageously the world long withheld data and documents, but his conclusions are - contrary to Glantz - in accordance with political and military logic. Suvorovs findings are not comfortable. And sadly most people prefer a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth.
  9. I had noticed this myself recently. Good question. Any answers to his question?
  10. The Vulture, YankeeDog I'd suggest three things: 1. Study how Russia defeated Napoleon. You will recognize that defense in depth is nothing really new. Especially not for big countries. That brings me to: 2. Look at a map and try to find Sovietrussia and then France. Maybe you will discover a few differences of strategic importance? 3. Look at the deployment of the French army. You could even take the Maginot-line into your considerations and what effect this defense had.
  11. Only two numbers that proove without any shadow of a doubt, that the German attack was a preemptive strike: 2000 destroyed soviet aircraft in the first 24(!) hours. 3.5 MILLION (M.I.L.L.I.O.N.!!!) Soviet POWs in the first six(!) WEEKS. Anyone with a rudimentary military understanding knows, that such a tremendous concentration of military forces at borders and not in depth makes absolutely no sense as a defensive deployment.
  12. Yes good ideas. Although the AI will probably never be as good as a human player, there is a huge advantage the scenario designer has over the player: he knows everything about the player's forces. And that compensates quite a bit for lack of situational awareness of a predetermined plan. What about triggers that hold thresholds for their activation (trigger touch threshold: i.e. 3 tanks, 7 vehicles, 109 infantry)? Or triggers that have the condition of friendly units as threshold (casualties [%] of AI-group, destroyed [%] of AI-group)? AI design for scenarios could become tactically interesting in itself. But with the current interface in the scenario editor, which already is using all available space I see a problem to expand the current system at all. Maybe a scripting language and a compiler would be the easier solution? For the easier plans, the GUI can be used. If a more complex plan is wanted, the scenario designer can write a script in a textfile which is imported and compiled.
  13. Sure. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=116577
  14. Very interesting behaviour. Gang members trying to cover up their incompetence?
×
×
  • Create New...