07-09-2001 17:38									#31
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Rommel393 On the contrary Viking that would be almost impossible, unless the modern tank was caught completely offguard. In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger. When these were first implemented against the Germans on their operation Barbarosa there were some amazing victories by the Tiger tanks. During a Soviet retreat, 15 Tigers were providing cover fire for the retreating soldiers and other tanks. By the end of the day about 40 German Panzers lie burning. No lie. Now where I'm getting to is this: if a tank advanced during its time (ie, Tiger) can crush another tank of its time (ie, Panzer), then what about another tank with 60 years more technology and experience behind it? The Abrams uses potent, but nasty Uranium depleted shells (I could tell you how they work but it would take a while), has a much more powerful engine, uses chemical explosives instead of gunpowder, has much thinker composite armor, and a much long range (several miles compared to the Panzers couple thousand yards). A single Abrams tank could easily kill Panzers until it runs out of shells. Thats a lot of Panzers. The two tank units are entirely needed and are a great addition to the game. I suggest you spare yourself the embarrasment and not even compare modern tanks and "ancient" tanks.

to take tha analogy of the 5 wwii tanks not being able to defeat 1 modern tank, and the 50 spitfires failing against an F-16, I will bring up the point that probably 5 15th century musketmen WOULD Be able to defeat 1 19th century musketman, no matter what you say. The same is true for knights. Therfore, the new tanks and planes are more important.

	07-09-2001 18:30									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Late 19th century rifleman with Lee-Enfield rifle: not a chance. Also, in a group, even early nineteenth century infantry would crush a group of sixteenth century infantry of 5 times their size, since they can concentrate a volume and accuracy of fire which the larger group couldn't.

	07-09-2001 19:03									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It looks to me like Civ3 is going to be focussed on modern times. Too bad, because there are so many people out there who just couldnīt care less about all those different types of tanks, fighters and what have you (e.g. me). I prefer ancient and medieval times.

But then again, if the turn system remains similar to Civ2, most of the game will be played in modern times, which kind of justifies the abundant modern units.

If only Civ3 had options of ending a game in different eras, e.g. let the discovery of a "New World" be the final objective instead of AC, with the tech tree and units adjusted accordingly.

	07-09-2001 19:12									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

That's what we call a "scenario" or "modpack", Mercator.

	07-09-2001 19:16									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Of course, of course... But having Firaxis do it for us, providing graphics and having a special AI model to deal with the different kinds of games, probably beats most mods Iīve ever seen.

	07-09-2001 19:19									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Eh...

The only thing I'd like to see is one additional infantry unit between musketeers and riflemen. The rest of the game is fairly evenly distributed. Remember the ridiculously large number of mounted units in Civ 2? I'm glad they got rid of some of the dead weight.

	07-09-2001 19:24									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Oh, and I really donīt expect Firaxis to have a game completely unbiased towards modern times and western civilizations. They are still humans, with only a finite amount of time. I think Iīll be quite happy with Civ3 as it is.

Itīs just that Iīm rather a perfectionist. One of the many things that has kept me from creating lots of Civ2 scenarios is that I couldnīt find top-quality graphics. I just canīt help it!

	07-09-2001 21:11									#38
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Eh... The only thing I'd like to see is one additional infantry unit between musketeers and riflemen. The rest of the game is fairly evenly distributed. Remember the ridiculously large number of mounted units in Civ 2? I'm glad they got rid of some of the dead weight.

What unit would you suggest? Historically, the musketeer of the Napoleanic wars develops into the rifleman of the American civil war.

	07-09-2001 21:27									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by monkspider Someone here thought the Tiger was Soviet?? As for the bloody Brits, speaking as an American no less, I would agree that Monty was a far more brilliant tactician than Patton, considering the limited supplies and manpower he had behind him, Monty got a miraculous ammont accomplished for the Allies, primarily in the North African campaign.

Yes he really showed that with Market Garden. The only reason Monty looked good at all in north africa was that was that the man he took over for was useless.
Monty only managed to beat Rommel in North Africa because Rommel (and a number of other generals) couldn't impress the importiance of the theater upon Hitler, who viewed it as a side-show. Montgomery was able to reinforce and build up an overwelming stockpile of fuel and materiel and the germans could not. Easy pickings.
Also good old Monty had a real bad habit of not following up opportunities.
Generals dont deal in tactics thats what the people under him do. Generals deal in getting the job done and thats where Monty was lacking.

	08-09-2001 00:46									#40
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I also feel premodern warfare to be more interesting. In many a game of civ2 i would simply cease playing civ 2 when tanks were developed. I can recall one deity game where i simply refused to reserach tem and wiped out another civ when it did.

Guess I feel the same way about modern weapons in civ2 as the knights did about crossbows. :-)

	08-09-2001 02:17									#41
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo I also feel premodern warfare to be more interesting. In many a game of civ2 i would simply cease playing civ 2 when tanks were developed. I can recall one deity game where i simply refused to reserach tem and wiped out another civ when it did. Guess I feel the same way about modern weapons in civ2 as the knights did about crossbows. :-)

I can imagine that feeling.
Somehow the end of Civ2 always ended up in some kind of tank rush. Of course one could decide to play a bit with the toys you got (bomb a bit, shoot a bit, poison a bit, etc.) but once you're really into it, it looks like nothing can stop it.

Nothing left to discover,
Nothing left to find,
With cities just spitting out armors,
One gets beaten any AI player blind.

	08-09-2001 03:57									#42
	Suffering from ads?

Sorry pressed Reply with Quote instead of Edit

	08-09-2001 04:00									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Col Bigspear Buy the game, People who like modern era things play the whole thing, People who like Pre-Modern things, make a mod/scenario and edit the tech tree to have only pre-modern units in, and then you will have a game without tanks!. It should be easy with the editor included. Shiva Quote. The only reason Monty looked good at all in north africa was that was that the man he took over for was useless. Monty only managed to beat Rommel in North Africa because Rommel (and a number of other generals) couldn't impress the importiance of the theater upon Hitler, who viewed it as a side-showdeitor that comes with it. Ahem, I think the RAF/RN sinking most of Rommel's reinforcements sort of changed Hitlers mind. Would you like to send 40 brand spanking new Panzers to the desert, when you new that maybe 1/4 would get through!. Would they not be better on the Russian Front? 10 panzers in the desert or 40 on the Russian Front. Rommel was by far the best Commander in the Desert, possibly of the whole Western area of operations, but Monty did have his moments. As for Op Market Garden It could have worked if not for the SS Panzer division stationed around Arnhem/Nijmagen sector (refiting for Patton's drive through Lorraine and across the Rhine.)That division took the British landing site, as a result no supplies got through to 1st Airborne or the Polish Airborne unit at Driel.(other side of Arnhem bridge). Saving Private Ryan Quote Ted Danson "How are things looking?" Tom Hanks "well were still pushing up the Coentine(?) peninsular towards Cherbourg, Only problem is Monty's taking his time moving on cean" Ted Danson "You gotta take cean to take St Lo" Ton Hanks "'n' you gotta take St Lo to take Cherbourg" WHAT.............. DOES THE 21st PANZER DIVISION STATIONED IN CEAN RING A BELL??????????? OR THE 12 SS PANZER DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN SWORD / GOLD BEACH AND JUNO BEACH ON THE FIRST DAY 2 PANZER divisions with might i add PANTHERS, TIGERS and Pz IV's. Shermans In the desert the germans called them tommy cookers and the Brits named then Silverstons or something like that, it was a name of a good cig lighter because it lit first time ah British Humor.

	08-09-2001 07:00									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Col Bigspear Ahem, I think the RAF/RN sinking most of Rommel's reinforcements sort of changed Hitlers mind. Would you like to send 40 brand spanking new Panzers to the desert, when you new that maybe 1/4 would get through!. Would they not be better on the Russian Front? 10 panzers in the desert or 40 on the Russian Front. Rommel was by far the best Commander in the Desert, possibly of the whole Western area of operations, but Monty did have his moments. As for Op Market Garden It could have worked if not for the SS Panzer division stationed around Arnhem/Nijmagen sector (refiting for Patton's drive through Lorraine and across the Rhine.)That division took the British landing site, as a result no supplies got through to 1st Airborne or the Polish Airborne unit at Driel.(other side of Arnhem bridge).

Well you can think that somehow the british sinking of transports had something to do with it but you would be wrong. As I said before Hitler looked on the fighting down there as a sideshow. Italy dropping the ball there and in greece, and that sucked Germany into wasting resources that were needed for the big stage (russia). He didnt care what was going on down there otherwise he would have followed Keitel's recommendation and attacked Malta not Crete in '41. In any event Italy managed to delay Barbarossa a month and managed to seal the fate of Germany in the end.

You might want to take a good look at what went on in the Med in '41 and '42. Convoys did get by while there was an air corps in Sicily pounding Malta. It was enough for Rommel to go on the offense, take Tobruk and then try his drive on the nile.

As for Rommel he shot himself in the foot by getting operation hercules stopped. Instead of Malta being taken in '42 after being pounded into ineffectiveness it rebuilt itself and once again started strangling Rommels shipping. By that time a good chunk of air power had been sent to the east since that was the big show. Rommel was never good at seeing the big picture when it came to logistics. If Hitler had thought that the Med and Africa was important then Malta would have been taken and the Royal Navy would have taken a worse beating then they took at Crete and finally would have had to have withdrawn from the Med. RAF/RN indeed


Market Garden could have worked but it didnt and the plan went ahead because of Monty's wispering in Churchills ear (something he did quit alot) to get his way. Nevermind that Eisenhower didnt agree with it. The plan was foolish from the start. One road for the ground troops to advance on. Troops who couldnt be dropped near thier targets. Not enough air transport to droop all at once. And dutch report along with recon photos of the German troops in the area being quite ignored. With these just being the tip of the iceburg against the plan it was lucky to get as far as it did which is far more a testament to what a sorry state the german army was in then to any so called skill of Monty's.

	08-09-2001 07:12									#45
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One more thing. The reason Britain carpet bombed at night was because of "Bomber" Harris and his idea that a nation would surrender just because air bombardment. Maybe he should have taken a good look at at how his country held up under it. Terror bombing never worked. Harris went after cities because he wanted to go after the cities not because of the lack of a bombsite (and that bombsite was wayyyyyyy overrated anyways).

	08-09-2001 08:29									#46
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Shiva One more thing. The reason Britain carpet bombed at night was because of "Bomber" Harris and his idea that a nation would surrender just because air bombardment. Maybe he should have taken a good look at at how his country held up under it. Terror bombing never worked. Harris went after cities because he wanted to go after the cities not because of the lack of a bombsite (and that bombsite was wayyyyyyy overrated anyways).

The reason they Brits went to night time bombing was because they got shot out of the sky during the day, as happened to the Americans. It was not until the development of long range escorts that day time bombing became effective.

	08-09-2001 08:35									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Re: yanks in normandy

That bit in Private Ryan pissed me off too. It's been 50 years and the Americans are still taking potshots at the British. Too many Americans like overlooking the fact that the Brits and Canadians were pitted against elite German units while the Americans were fight second-line units.

And the American breakout on the right flank was part of a larger strategy, the Canadians and the Brits were tying the Germans done in the centre and on the left while the Americans make a brilliant and quick enveloping move. Teamwork rather than individual nations doing more than the other.

	08-09-2001 08:49									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The reason they Brits went to night time bombing was because they got shot out of the sky during the day, as happened to the Americans. It was not until the development of long range escorts that day time bombing became effective.

Yes thats the reason for the night bombing not for the carpet bombing.

Also I have to take issue with "day time bombing became effective". Daytime bombing never was "effective" in anything other than destroying the german airforce in battle. Neither daylight or night time bombing crippled production (except the oilfield raids). Otherwise it was a bust on the grand level. On the tactical level it was a great victory since it allowed allied ground support to to fly almost unopposed.

	08-09-2001 08:54									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Mercator-

I am definitely in agreement about the pre-modern world. I don't enjoy teh game as much when there isn't anyhting to work towards. The middle of the game is always the most exciting for me since you're somewhat developed, but you haven't finished discovering everything yet.

Wish that there was more variety in the premodern units as well. Don't know what the pre rifleman unit would be though...

	08-09-2001 09:07									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok, i was horribly wrong. The story I told was true, but why did I think the Tiger was Soviet? I do know a lot about WW2, even though what I typed about the Tiger was really screwed up..... its especially bad because of my name. I should know this stuff. Sorry. Thanks, executor (i think it was you im to lazy to look), for giving me proof that I was wrong.

	09-09-2001 00:29									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Rommel393 Ok, i was horribly wrong. The story I told was true, but why did I think the Tiger was Soviet? I do know a lot about WW2, even though what I typed about the Tiger was really screwed up..... its especially bad because of my name. I should know this stuff. Sorry. Thanks, executor (i think it was you im to lazy to look), for giving me proof that I was wrong.

Well Mr. Rommel I will not let you go down in flames.
The US Tanks dept. had a guy name Mr. Christie, who love to design tanks.
Mr. Christie design the BT-5 and the BT-7 and since the US did not want them, 2 Chassis were bought by the Russian. If I could show you the picture that I'm looking at you could see were the T-34 may have come from. And that is what I believed the Russian did. They took these 2 chassis and said to themself let's change this, add something here, make this bigger or smaller and now we have the T-34.
Another note. Yes the Tiger was German. They had two, Tiger I (PzKw VI) and Tiger II (Know as King Tiger PzKw VII).
The Panter (PzKw V) was design after the German capture a T-34.
I also think that maybe the German started to build the E-100 and Maus after captureing the KV-II.

	09-09-2001 01:35									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai What unit would you suggest? Historically, the musketeer of the Napoleanic wars develops into the rifleman of the American civil war.

Two types of musketeer. Better weapons, better tactics create a much more effective force in Napoleonic (or Wellingtonian )infantry than even the Roundheads...

	09-09-2001 16:03									#53
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 Well Mr. Rommel I will not let you go down in flames. The US Tanks dept. had a guy name Mr. Christie, who love to design tanks. Mr. Christie design the BT-5 and the BT-7 and since the US did not want them, 2 Chassis were bought by the Russian. If I could show you the picture that I'm looking at you could see were the T-34 may have come from. And that is what I believed the Russian did. They took these 2 chassis and said to themself let's change this, add something here, make this bigger or smaller and now we have the T-34. Another note. Yes the Tiger was German. They had two, Tiger I (PzKw VI) and Tiger II (Know as King Tiger PzKw VII). The Panter (PzKw V) was design after the German capture a T-34. I also think that maybe the German started to build the E-100 and Maus after captureing the KV-II.

That's interesting. I was under the mistaken belief that Christie was a Brit. I didn't realize he was American. The fact that he was makes it even more mind-boggling that the Americans failed to use his designs, and as a result, ended up with inferior AFVs while the Russians, Brits and Germans all created tanks based on his suspension system.

Interesting to note that the Russians were able to create the best tank of the war using the initial Christie design as a distant starting point while the Brits, starting from a similar point, failed to create a great tank.

	09-09-2001 18:08									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 Well Mr. Rommel I will not let you go down in flames. The US Tanks dept. had a guy name Mr. Christie, who love to design tanks. Mr. Christie design the BT-5 and the BT-7 and since the US did not want them, 2 Chassis were bought by the Russian. If I could show you the picture that I'm looking at you could see were the T-34 may have come from. And that is what I believed the Russian did. They took these 2 chassis and said to themself let's change this, add something here, make this bigger or smaller and now we have the T-34. Another note. Yes the Tiger was German. They had two, Tiger I (PzKw VI) and Tiger II (Know as King Tiger PzKw VII). The Panter (PzKw V) was design after the German capture a T-34. I also think that maybe the German started to build the E-100 and Maus after captureing the KV-II.

Argh!!!!!

still not getting the Tigers' names right.

King Tiger was PzKw VIb
Tiger was PzKw VIe

Jon Miller

	10-09-2001 00:36									#55
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

i think its crazy how much some of you know (and in some cases, pretend to know) about wwii. its insane... are you all, like professors of modern warfare or something? or is this place just a hotbed of extreme history/war buffs

	10-09-2001 01:28									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well i'm 16 now and I have been reading about WW2 and post/pre WW2 wars for about 10 years now, ever since my British Grandfather told me that the war started when Nazi Germany invaded POLAND. POLAND that was the clincher (My fathers side of the family being Polish. My Grandfather on my fathers side served in Poland and Italy (I still have his medals including his Monte Cassino medal. Though in his picture he has 6 and I have 4, I remember my cousin asking for one, but i'm not sure and I don't want to accuse him of stealing it or the other one. ) with the Polish 2nd Corps. After that I just kept reading and playing games about it. My friends call me a War Buff but it interests me all the same.It only really helped for about 3 months in History classes .
BTW History is a load of arse in high school, 1 month WW1 and causes, 4 months Weimar Republic/ Hitlers rise to power/Nazi Germany, 4 America in the 1920's-1930's?????? (Ok wall street crash leads to Hyperinflation around the world=the Grt depression (sounds like what I had when learning about it ).But 4 months come on! and less than a month on WW2 and the Cold War!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!
There needs to be a revision on what is taught in schools these days.
One of the History teachers once came into our room once ( I was in the top set, Band 1, Set1 ) and asked our teacher the History head if he should teach his class about Korea, because it was on the sylabus(?, never was any good at spelling) and Im there thinking YES im probably the only one in here that Knows anything about it. But no he says, "Its never on the test" How can you leave out one of the largest Post-WW2 wars invloving the newly formed NATO and the Soviet forces, it very nearly was WW3. Pfhh Schools.

	10-09-2001 01:36									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Col Bigspear BTW History is a load of arse in high school ...

There is more to history then blowing people up with Artillery. I think it is good that they don't focus so much on wars. Besides, if they where to go into depth about every war, you'd die of old age before the course is over.

	10-09-2001 01:40									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by dainbramaged13 i think its crazy how much some of you know (and in some cases, pretend to know) about wwii. its insane... are you all, like professors of modern warfare or something? or is this place just a hotbed of extreme history/war buffs

I bet they watched Saving Private Ryan, what better qualification's could you possibly need?

	10-09-2001 02:20									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller Argh!!!!! still not getting the Tigers' names right. King Tiger was PzKw VIb Tiger was PzKw VIe Jon Miller

Ok I forgot for a while.
The King Tiger was/is the PzKpfw VI Ausf B w/Henschel turret. 500 being built. 50 of these Tiger II were fitted with the Porsche Turret.
This tank used the 8.8cm L/71 (3.46in) Gun. It could penetrate 215 mm (8.46in) of armour at 1000m (1096.3 yd) and 80mm (3.14in) at 4000m (4374.45 yds (2.48mi)).

	10-09-2001 02:24									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I didn't mean it like that, I just meant that due to the scale of WW2, we did very little work on it. I don't just want to learn about Wars, I was very interested in the Roman Empire, the rise of Hitler, England in the 1600's, King Henry VIII, The Industrial Revolution and the Victorian era. But in what centuary has there not been a war?
After the Roman empire Europe was in flames, barbarians and what not, Feudal times (1066-1200's) 1066 Norman Invasion of England, Feudal government installed, local lords were responsible for their piece of land.Later on a whole lot of trouble between France and England (They win a war, we start a war and win, they start a war and win etc.)
The Crusades (1100's-1300's) Two centuaries of war against the Arabs.
Columbus (1490's (?)) Discovers the American Continent, Spain stars a war with natives, England, France and Holland follow and do the same.
Napoleonic wars (1790's-1815) 15 years + of war
Colonial times (1800's-1900's) Various wars, American War of Independence during or before the Napoleonic wars. America drives the natives out. England fights in the Zulu wars and other colonial conflicts.
American civil war (1870's-1880's)
WW1 (1914-1918) The war to end all wars.
Polish-Soviet war (1920) The new soviet army tries to take land from Poland, Poland take alot from Russia.
WW2 (1939-1945) Russia takes land back from Poland, nearly every country in Europe at war.
Korean war (1950-1955) First superpower war after WW2
Vietnam war (1963(?)-1975) Yanks trying to stop "Commies"

Etc..