Why do so many Flame the US WW2, love the GE. ?

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:16 pm

Flashfyre:

So...if I were to find an error, say, in the US Oob that did not allow a player to purchase an Airborne MMG Platoon by itself, would you agree with me that it should be fixed?

No, not necessarily. I do not speak against errors of which I have no knowledge. In such a case as the example I have no knowledge of two things: A) The designers intent. B) Any knowledge whatsoever of airborne forces (even Gerry ones). BTW, your example to the point that I read it and responded (see above) was done entirely without my having read the rest of it (I saw 'seperate airborne MMG' and responded). IOW I thought you meant ALL airborne, not just Gerry or US. Perhaps that demonstrates a bit of objectivity on my part. Now that I read the rest of it, my answer is the same. If someone is mistaken concerning Gerry OOBS or Gerry as a whole (or US as a whole), that is primarily where the majority of my corrections stem from concerning warfare.

AmmoSgt: No, you're quite wrong, I did go through bits of it, and whether I would find myself in agreement or not, I couldn't find anything about all the conditions that he came to that conclusion about, other than just the everyday description of how a soldier would set up those units in the same circumstances. How about during rapid advances, were the Gerries much better there (and so on)? If it's there, feel free to quote it for me.

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 10:26 pm

bits of it????? geeze

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 12:33 am

So I don't find such a large article about which I have little interest, compelling me enough to totally engross myself. If I want somebody to read something, I will link the whole article and put what perhaps amounts to the most pertinent portion in a quote. It's a service. If that method isn't to your liking and you've read it yourself, perhaps you can tell me off the cuff whether he addresses things concerning other than the one condition he cites?

(Later ammendment) Somehow you gave me the impression that the article was large, but upon further checking I do recall reading all of the US/Germany bits, as this was the most pertinent to the subject, and, no, he didn't expand his findings beyond the one situation described.

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

Fabio Prado · Post by **Fabio Prado** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:02 am

I think so many players prefer to play as the Germans because of the "tools". At least that is why I like to play as the Germans.
Yes, I am a "Tiger fan" - Tiger I is the one I like the most - and again is the "tool", not anything else. For more on the Tiger, I invite you to visit my website.

In a WW2 tactical land warfare wargame, what other nation provides you with such interesting "tools", like the all kinds of PzKpfw's I, II, III, IV - and their respective variations, Tiger I and II, the Panther - and their respective variations, Wespe, Hummel, and all kinds of SP arty variations, Rocket Arty - Nebelwerfers, Wurfrahmen, ad infinitum...

When you talk about America versus Germany, the reality was grim for the Germans. All Tigers and Panthers couldn't make any difference, because Germany couldn't produce them in sufficient numbers. They had a massive shortage of raw materials, and their armor plate and ammunition production suffered. They were short of fuel. They couldn't stop the Allies bombing of their plants and cities. A Tiger could make a big impression in a single engagement and build a reputation around it, but this couldn't change the reality that Germany was being overwhelmed by the Allied power, and that the main source of this power on the Western front was the US. And we should remember the US was fighting a two-front war, against Germany and Japan. What other nation in the world could have done this while at the same time supporting all the western Allies with weapons and ammo? It doesn't matter all Tigers, ME-262, Bismarcks, V-1, V-2, whatever. The potential to wage war of the US was so much bigger and the quality was too close (Yes - too close. German tanks might be superior on a one to one basis, but as you see the whole combined arms US doctrine working, it doesn't matter in the end.) for Germany to make their technological advantage (where they had it) a real decisive advantage.

Just my two cents...

Fab

Don · Post by **Don** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 3:55 am

Yes, I am a "Tiger fan" - Tiger I is the one I like the most

Naw - I never would have guessed!

While I have a definite bias towards the US, I like to play the different major powers, because it is a different experience with each countries troops and equipment. But with the Germans you get the most flexibility in theaters and opponents, and the "tools" as Fabio aptly puts it just make it that much more tempting.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:26 am

There is a reasonably good argument for chalking German blitzkrieg tactics up to a handful of talented, bold individuals. It is no doctrine, and never was. "Get a bunch of stuff that moves fast and go", is as organized a doctrine blitzkrieg ever got. The US, UK, GE, and Soviet armies eventually adopted 'real' combined arms tactics that forced the termination of 'classical' blitzkrieg(meaning white, blue, and barbarossa). People often dont realize that real operational warfare was really only done well by the Russians (Manstien's late 42 shit counts too, but he alone is not germany) They are the one's with the advance records of WW2, they are the one's with the fastest capture of the mostest land... Germany was able to do remarkable things, but a lot of that was due to the fact that they were ready for war, and no one else really was. They get the initiative card (and in a big way too), but supermen they are not. In fact they don't differ all that much in the end. I agree with Fabio tho, playing the Germans is fun because through them is the only way to experience everything in WW2 (except the Japanese).

Someone was making a one on one comment about Germany before... In the end, a one on one fight with Russia would have left Russia as the victor. In the end, a one on one fight with the US would have left the US as the victor. Russia vs. US would have been the real mother of all wars(and in some ways if you calculate monetary cost was), and would have resulted in some major nastiness... Germany was just the squeaky wheel that set the modern era into motion.

Tomo

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 7:37 am

Ok, Charles...one more try.

If I told you that there is a German Mech Mortar Platoon in the German Oob, but you can't buy it because of an error in assigning a purchase screen for it, would you agree with me that it needs to be fixed?

No corporate double-speak, no hemmin' n' hawin' about it, no wishy-washy reasons......

I'm asking you a straightforward question.....Yes or No?

Lynx · Post by **Lynx** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:35 pm

OK a one on one fight Germany with Russia, only change, no purges of civilians, Russia looses badly when Ukraine revolts against the monster Stalin responsible for starving 20 million of their civillians to death before the war, and join the Germans.
Russia looses.

One on one with US, where are they gonna land their fleets of bombers? No bombers, no win.
US looses.

just another opinion =)
Lynx

sven · Post by **sven** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 3:28 pm

Originally posted by Lynx:
OK a one on one fight Germany with Russia, only change, no purges of civilians, Russia looses badly when Ukraine revolts against the monster Stalin responsible for starving 20 million of their civillians to death before the war, and join the Germans.
Russia looses.

One on one with US, where are they gonna land their fleets of bombers? No bombers, no win.
US looses.

just another opinion =)
Lynx

The B36 would have landed... in New York City. I also did not notice the German(never the 'n' word)Carrier fleet. Decent hypothesis but flawed in my opinion.

regards,
sven

Paul Goodman · Post by **Paul Goodman** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:03 pm

Charles_22: to get it out of the class of "opinion", Germany produced 1,354 Tigers during the entire war (I'm not sure if this includes the Kings). This represents roughly one month's production of T-34's. It also doesn't make any difference which model T-34 we are talking about. Production was about the same. For the last year of the war, production was almost exclusively T-34/85 and remained around 15,000 per year. They actually produced about 2,000 chassis per month, but many went to SU types.

It is difficult to strike a real comparison between these various tanks. The PzIV was about 26 tons, the T-34 about 30 tons (nearly 32 for the 85), the Panther around 40 tons, the IS-II about 48 tons. Additionally, you have to throw out 1942 because about the only thing the Germans were building was confusion. Meanwhile, the Russians were in nearly full swing in the Urals. After Speer and Guderian got things going, 3 to 1 is a good rough ratio for each type (disregarding the Tiger).

Paul

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 6:48 pm

Forum moderators!

Create a new forum named 'spam' and move this thread there along with number of other threads...you know what threads I mean.

Please?

Voriax

11Bravo · Post by **11Bravo** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 7:05 pm

Why do so many americans like spam? And why do the Finns prefer pannukakku and nissu?

Don't shoot please, I am only kidding!!!

I agree with Voriax. No more posting by me in these kinds of threads. We have the Art of War for that I think. Bye. :p

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: 11Bravo ]

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 8:42 pm

Paul Goodman: You've obviously put a little thought into this. Actually I do have specific T34/85 production figures, and I never would've thought they made so many, as I thought they continued to make them alongsided the 76s. Roughly, the T34/85s were about 15X the Tiger, but when the KTiger is figured in that changes a bit (closer to 10X). But then again, that is expected when comparing a heavy to a medium. One could expect to see the same difference between light tank production by the USSR as compared to a heavier class from Gerry in the PZIV. One can often see the same thing within the same army itself. People just naturally tend to make more lighter stuff than heavier stuff.

OTOH in tank/SG numbers, I would tend more to think USSR numerically 4/1 in production, but a lot of things skew that somewhat, particularly since much of the great amount of Soviet stuff produced was captured early on, so that the germans were rarely facing the ridiculous numbers people seem to believe. Perhaps you hadn't seen it before, but some time ago I quoted Russia at War which has a Russian author, he made stats for the great thrust towards Berlin available in ratios. NONE of the categories, be it air, AFV, soldiers, or guns exceeded an 8:1 ratio. I seem to recall the largest edge was to the air with 7.1:1. It seems tanks were 4 or 5 to 1 (My memory is a bit imprecise).

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 8:50 pm

Flashfyre:

If I told you that there is a German Mech Mortar Platoon in the German Oob, but you can't buy it because of an error in assigning a purchase screen for it, would you agree with me that it needs to be fixed?

Now Flashfyre, that's far too easy. You already know the answer, in fact you also realize that changing the nationality in the question doesn't matter to me. You're asking a barbed question. I only have to assume that the conclusion you come up with as to why it isn't happening, is in dispute with someone else's analysis, which, is precisely why I don't jump on board; I don't think I'm getting the entire story. If that's the entire story, then why ask what noone would object to? Now, have I averted stepping on your mine well enough?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:49 pm

I'm pretty sure that US bombers didn't effect the outcome of the war as muc as most people believe. I think that it would have been difficult to get across the atlantic if we weren't allowed to use British soil, but lets say Britain lets us use their island as a launch point but doesn't do any fighting or supplying... and as far as Ukraine revolting? I'm not all that certain it would have made a big difference either. I think that it would have made it a little harder on the Russians, but the manufacturing of weapons and the source of man-power wouldn't have been too significantly reduced if all of the Ukraine would have switched sides... (not that they totally didn't, there were like 100,000 ukrainian soldiers fighting for the Wehrmacht at some point or somehting like that)

Tomo

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 12:10 am

The US had a battle tested compleatly cabable Navy the routinely mounted Invasions on hostile shores under compleat Air Dominance ..They have no problem doing this in the pacfic with distances considerably larger against opposition that had a significantly more capabile navy and a heck of a lot more dedicated airforce that was far more willing to die for their emporer than Gerry was for his fuhrer... Hello, you guys ever read? think? past Europe ? ever? and Duh ,like well we would have Liberated England first, OH DUH... If Germany had not had the Racist Genocidal Policies that mandited thier disgusting treatment of human beings in Europe ..they probably would never have attacked anybody .. not all the Germans were Genocidal madmen most were just too morally bankrupt to know right from wrong...Ya'll can "what if" all you want .. when you do it, it has to be "what if germany decided to manifacture something they never had , or "what if "they never acted like animals, like they did, and "what if" this fantasy happened , that never happened , "what'if" they won battles they lost, "what if" they hadden't surrendered in droves you usually have to "what if" about three things at a time .. when you "what if" the American forces, all ya got to "what if" is ..where they sent actual forces in existance, battle proven and Victorious .. you don't have to "what if" a Navy with 100 Aircraft carriers , we had them ..you don't have to "what if" the Americans won this battle ot that, You don't have to "what if" the troops , you don't have to "what if" the amphibious capability . You don't have to "what if" anything but deployment decesions ... would it have been harder with England Knocked out? yeah..But my "what if " only needs "what if" we sold 20% more bonds ...geeze

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

sven · Post by **sven** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:25 am

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Flashfyre:

Now Flashfyre, that's far too easy. You already know the answer, in fact you also realize that changing the nationality in the question doesn't matter to me. You're asking a barbed question. I only have to assume that the conclusion you come up with as to why it isn't happening, is in dispute with someone else's analysis, which, is precisely why I don't jump on board; I don't think I'm getting the entire story. If that's the entire story, then why ask what noone would object to? Now, have I averted stepping on your mine well enough?

Chuck you must get whiplash from the Verbal gymnastics you perform. Semantic Games are the refuge of the defeated(Right Billy Jeff?), and are proof that one has been cornered. This is a forum, and not a courtroom, but I expect no more from you Chuck.

Regards,
sven

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:43 am

Actually, Charles_22, you missed the dummy mine but stepped on the real one....

The point of the questions was to see if you would give a definite answer to a problem, and stick with it. You failed. And proved to me that you, sir, are unable to take a stand on something that wasn't your idea in the first place. Thus the continual 'backstabbing' of honest, hardworking folks who want to improve the game for everyone. Those who volunteered to correct problems that, in some cases, have existed since the earliest reworking of this game.

Both examples I asked are, indeed, errors that are being fixed. They, and many more like them, have rendered a number of units unplayable in the game. And have been, for a long time. Yet, you choose to verbally dance around the issue, making denigrating comments, and spewing out anecdotal evidence of what should be. But you didn't volunteer to help on this project; I did. And I intend to do my best to see that the Oobs get cleaned up and made playable, as their designers intended.

I want to see the game enjoyable for all....do you?

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 6:08 pm

Flashfyre: As things are with all verbal gymnastics, your trap would spring regardless of my answer or non-answer. My, what a flawless test that was! If I had the time and inclination, I don't know why I would join when the reasoning is so lame (don't I get to make the best 2 out of 3, when I already knew what the obvious answer was? :rolleyes: Surely y'all must do better than that?). The only input y'all want is from members of the Tiger Team, apparently.
In your own words I was supposed to answer the question correctly and then stick by it. Hmmm. I already answered that I knew the answer (could it be 'yes'? Gee that was tough!) but how that proves I won't stick to it is another matter. I've come under hellfire and brimstone from the lot of you, and I've stuck by the points I've made, have I not? But, no, then the claim would be that I would have to adapt and couldn't always have things my way, for the sake of the game. I know how it works FF. You shoot me if I do or shoot me if I don't.