danfrodo

Nik Mond -- all our wars have nationalist mythology springing out of them. I hadn't thought about civil war when I said that. In what way do you see the textbook history subjective? I know there's a whole world of mythology trying to say the war was not about slavery, which doesn't even pass the laugh test (not that it's funny that such propaganda still lives). Everyone at the time, including some of the state constitutions, clearly state that it was all about slavery. Later some clever marketing types rebranded it as some ridiculous "war of northern aggression" and that it was about "states' rights". Yes, states' rights to do what? Make coffee? have state fairs? No, state rights to enslave human beings and treat them as property, with rights equal to farm animals (meaning none). The nearly 100 years of oppression & Jim Crow to follow rather put the lie to the whole thing rather emphatically I would think.

Oh my, now mention of MacArthur. I dislike him more than almost any american I can think of. Wouldn't have N Korea mess at all if he hadn't thrown away a perfectly wonderful victory.

Whoa, Sorry, My Dear Sublime, didn't mean to start a firestorm with that. When I wrote it I was merely thinking of some of the misbegotten beliefs that many in my beloved USA hold about some of our past wars. Nothing to do w Trump or anything current. I was thinking more of so many americans thinking US nearly alone won WW2, which you mention above. So many americans that still don't understand that Vietnam was a 'bright, shining lie' even after all we now know about Gulf of Tonkin, pentagon papers, etc. So much history colored by nationalism, which is bad because it leads to making mistakes in the future.

Very interesting. Thank goodness that here in the US we would never allow such self-serving nationalist propaganda to flourish. Oh, wait.....

Ooops, meant to type MORD not MORT. And SBURKE, no, fireplace never did work come to think of it

And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all, as per Mort's list above. Last night my family & various folks were talking about best Christmas memories. I said when I was 7 or 8 and I woke up to the fireplace filled with WW2 german & american soldiers, with halftracks, an 88, etc. Then today I realized I am STILL playing with army men thanks to the fine folks at Battlefront. I've got two weeks off work and am plowing through lots of lovely campaigns (having finally reached the point where I can have some success in campaigns). Currently I am that nasty Pieper fellow, plowing my way through the otherwise lovely town of Stavelot. SO THANK YOU BATTLEFRONT for bringing back proper Christmas joy to me! Looking forward to new stuff in 2019.

and of course it's not really turn based. It's real time with the pauses for orders fixed at 1 minute intervals. The replay is great, as mentioned above.

CanuckGamer, I am also wanting the earlier years and N Africa. but RT is really, really fun. The russians have good gear and are very good at making war by 1944. I am doing my first campaign as russians and it's great. The germans have MG42s, but russians have more men. So suppress supress supress & assault! As the germans, it's a case of great gear but not enough of anything. then end of the war should have hungarian winter campaigns, which were large, very intense combined arms operations with both sides both on offense & defense. Looking forward to that.

Hi Michael, The book is from 2014. And from a reputable scholar (Andrew Roberts) who did lots of research into surviving letters etc. On the arsenic claim, he points out that Boney had an arsenic level of '10' or some such. But hair from other notables from the time typically shows that level or higher. So the arsenic theory seems based on lying by omission, where the fact is damning -- until compared to all the other facts. An autopsy performed (albeit by Brits) showed a nearly destroyed stomach and the author points out that many members of Boney's family died of the same cause at a similar point in life. So there's little need for conspiracy when there's a much simpler reason for his death. I am still wondering why they wouldn't have poisoned him given how much blood and treasure was spent trying to remove him in the first place. Reminds me of the theory someone had that Napoleon lost in Russia because he had the wrong kind of horseshoes, not suited for winter. Except that by the time winter came nearly all his horses were already dead.

Book mentioned that he may have been ill, and was at least exhausted. He was overweight by this point. The stomach cancer that would later kill him may have already started for all we know. Many members of his family died of this same stomach cancer (author debunks all the poison theories pretty well). I am wondering same thing about what if he had won. he had already promised to be constitutional monarch, but Britain was never going to stop trying to bring him down. Black Sea looks amazing, but I am sure it'll take me some time to get used to the modern level of lethality.

I just finished a 34 hour audio book about Napoleon and his battles, quite good. I agree completely, Waterloo was not indicative of the genius of Napoleon as he broke many of his own maxims in the battle and was uncharacteristically sluggish in some ways. Previously he had typically moved more decisively and rapidly. Even then, if the corps he sent off the east to screen the prussians would've done it's job properly, Wellington would've lost. I want to try Scourge of War for sure, but still have sooooo much Combat Mission I haven't done yet. And I haven't even started on Black Sea.

Happy Thanksgiving to you & the whole team! All I need to know is when it's time to give y'all more money for your fine efforts. 'til then I still have lots of battles yet unfought. I am celebrating today by trying to oust the enemy from a village in Hammer's Flank, episode 3.

Heck yes! where do I send my money!? N Africa, east front 41-43, Korea 1950, I'd pay for those up front and wait a year. And of course excited about the planned ww2 releases already promised.

JohnLondon125, just jump into 1944. There's a lot of work to be done! Fighting as the Russians is really fun, though most folks in the west would not think this. And the Germans have some great gear, panthers & tigers -- though these are vulnerable by 1944 to T34-85s. and by the time you are finished with that there will probably be more new content, and you also have Normandy & Italy to fight your way through. It'll keep you busy for a long time. Every time I get impatient for new stuff I remind myself that I haven't even finished the content I already have. I just need to win the lottery so I can retire and have time to do all this.

Reminds of the 60 minutes show from 20 some years ago where they made a big scandal out of Bradley's not being able to take tank fire. Considering they weren't designed to take tank fire. Also, SimpleSimon, have you been watching me play? That sounds like one of my infantry attacks exactly.

As Bud Backer said, this can be easily won with the forces at hand. And it can be won many different ways. It's not like those games where there's just on magical answer sewn into the scenario. For experienced 'commanders' this is an easy clearing of a roadblock. The german troops can be seen from far away. We have mortars (there's mortars, right?). That's a tricky one for new users, getting arty called in and on target, but it becomes 2nd nature after a while. Most Normandy scenarios there's too much foliage, hedgerows, etc, to see far enough ahead. The germans here can be seen. So they can be killed. If the AT gun can be surpressed w machine gun/mortar fire, a tank can more into position to blast that area into oblivion. but be careful, there might be more than one AT gun, so try to get the tank peeking through somewhere that only gives an angle for that one area. Oh, and remember that Shermans can fire smoke. They can mask movement of men or tanks into position such that when the smoke clears you have clear shots at AT gun. He might get one of you, but he won't get two.

All well said about the 1000km front, etc. I would add that at some places there were lots of PAKs, tanks, etc. Those are the places we play in the game. The parts of the front that were poorly defended were of course more numerous, but aren't much fun to play, and were generally not the important places, usually due to being poor areas for transportation/movement. AT guns would be concentrated at strategic/tactically important areas, just as would be more troops, tanks, etc. There were certainly very wide stretches of terrain w no AT guns at all, probably just covered by patrols if at all. But the important roads, etc, those would be have some nasty defenses set up. This is how the Soviets were always able to make bridgeheads across rivers.-- the germans couldn't defend the whole river line in strength. Happened all the time.

and to this excellent list I might add OBSERVATION. look for unit w binoculars (split the squad if part of a bigger squad). Put the minimum men w binoculars at places where you can look toward your objectives and hopefully you can start spotting the bad guys. Recon makes a big difference. Send smallest possible forces forward first. Just don't send me out on point Sir, I don't want to die

Lots of good advice here. One thing you will notice is that most experienced users will play turn-based, not real time. I thought I wanted real time, but turn based is actually way more fun because you can replay from anywhere. That will also help you with time management. And remember that if there's a nice, easy path to you objective then the enemy knows that too and is waiting for you. That's a big part of these scenarios -- the enemy is set up in pretty clever ways, striking you suddenly as you move into some restricted field of fire they've set up.

I played MOW:AS2 for a long time, was really glad when I switched to this game. It can be very difficult because it's very realistic. Fortunately you very easily modify a scenario, which I did a lot as a beginner. I would add extra tanks & men so that I could be more successful despite being a novice. Stick with it, you will get better. And if a scenario is too hard, just add some more stuff and try it again. Also, you can do quick battles, choosing meeting engagements and giving yourself more stuff (there's a setting for that). The human can win those more easily because you can move faster, get into position and blast away while the enemy is moving up. Kinda fun sometimes, really

ranges in this game are much more realistic. MOW:AS2 had very unrealistic ranges, so one could maneuver quite easily. Here, if AT gun/tank can see you, it can take shots at you. Remember that most tank combat takes place at around 400m or more. 200m is basically point blank range for guns.

I am guessing that this year Canada, Britain, and France are considered the greatest enemies of the USA?

anyone read the two short volumes of "DDAY through German Eyes"? Two of the interviewed soldiers had the same experience -- they were captured and brought to the beach and asked "where are all the horses?". One asked US soldiers this and they all started laughing.

Hear, Hear DougPhresh. Well said. Yes, Tigers are great fun. But they are expensive, unreliable, slow, guzzle insane amounts of precious fuel, and bog easily. They can't cross most bridges (why does the T34 85 have relatively light armor? -- because at ~30 tons it could cross most bridges, not bog, etc). Otto Carius' book has him spending half his time trying to unbog his precious tiger. In a CM battle, the Tigers are already there, have fuel and ammo, and are running. Which is quite nice when I am the German side, I must say.

I just read Tomb of the PanzerWaffe, about German offensives in Jan-March1945 in Hungary. Russians had a lot of AT guns, and lots were destroyed in every battle. And defenses were in great depth whenever there was time to prepare. Clearly by 1945 the Russians had learned quite a few things. AT guns are very vulnerable in CM. AT guns are very vulnerable in real life.