(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Fabio Prado -> (6/26/2001 8:54:00 PM)
I think it is the equipment. Nobody developed such cool "tools" as the Germans in WW2. There is also the troop quality factor, but I still think that the German equipment is what makes playing the German side so attractive. Fab.

Belisarius -> (6/26/2001 9:09:00 PM)
Heh, another posting out of subject: When it comes to the French debate and rating armies, an army is never better than its current performance. That it had an excellent army in the 18th (and 19th) century doesn't matter. The Swedish army employed far better battlefield tactics in the 17th century than most countries, and developed a superior artillery. But I wouldn't dare to judge the Swedish Army today based on that. :D

sven -> (6/26/2001 9:15:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Belisarius: Heh, another posting out of subject: When it comes to the French debate and rating armies, an army is never better than its current performance. That it had an excellent army in the 18th (and 19th) century doesn't matter. The Swedish army employed far better battlefield tactics in the 17th century than most countries, and developed a superior artillery. But I wouldn't dare to judge the Swedish Army today based on that. :D Good point Belisarius respect has a short half-life. Every army has to fight every day to maintain its foes respect.(and friends) The German's may have had 'the neatest' tanks but many feel that is what did them in. They should have stuck to at least a few designs and gone with them. They diversified their eqpt. way too much and suffered a logistical nightmare because of it, regards, sven

toundra -> (6/26/2001 9:30:00 PM)
Take a look at the French roster in 1940. same problem with airplanes.

JTGEN -> (6/26/2001 10:08:00 PM)
Belisarius: The Swedish army employed far better battlefield tactics in the 17th century than most countries, and developed a superior artillery. But I wouldn't dare to judge the Swedish Army today based on that. Well, you are also missing from the empire the part that provided half the army and the most feared cavalry of the time :D :D

AmmoSgt -> (6/26/2001 10:16:00 PM)
I like playing the Americans because so Much of their Equipment is Named After Real Generals that Had Long Track Records of Winning.. Not many Countries have Lots Of Winning Generals and Long History unbroken Wins In War ..German name stuff after cats ..I don't like cats Maybe if the named stuff after dogs like the US did I would play them..Go Greyhounds ....

DataKing -> (6/26/2001 10:58:00 PM)
I have been reading this forum for the past couple of weeks, and decided it was time to throw in my two cents worth. The biggest reason why I enjoy playing the Germans is the variety of opponents that they get to face. The Germans fought against Poland, Norway, The Low Countries, France, England, America, Russia, and the Balkan countries. No other option gives you such a wide array of opponents. I have only recently discovered SPWAW, thanks to a good friend of mine, and all I can say now is that I am hooked :D I have begun the WW2 Campaign as the Germans, but I fully intend to play through with all 6 possibilities eventually (if I live long enough) :) I love the detail level of this game, and just want to say thanks to the Matrix staff for all of their hard work.

RockinHarry -> (6/27/2001 12:23:00 AM)
As 35 years old guy from germany living in 2001 AND playing a game, I don´t have problems to play any nation against any nation. ;) Playing german stuff is always cool cause of the nice toys and also experience/morale advantage througout the war. A friend (SPWAW opponent) of mine who has less experience with SPWAW chooses most of the time the german stuff cause he thinks that´s the stuff to win with! :D ...Ok,.. I take the Russians then or US or Commonwealth stuff and teach him some lessons. It´s also fun for me toasting german paratroopers with Crocodiles as it is with battling hordes of T-34 on the Eastern front just with PZ-IIIh! :eek: Every nation in SPWAW has its advantages and disadvantages to deal with and just playing with one side is missing 90% of the game. _________ Harry

Belisarius -> (6/27/2001 12:37:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by JTGEN: Belisarius: The Swedish army employed far better battlefield tactics in the 17th century than most countries, and developed a superior artillery. But I wouldn't dare to judge the Swedish Army today based on that. --- Well, you are also missing from the empire the part that provided half the army and the most feared cavalry of the time :D :D So true JTGEN, I see your point :) Acknowledged; Finland provided more than it's fair share of troops to the Royal Army. (And almost all their horses..) And they performed admirably. Especially the Hakkapeliitas (sp?). Heh, seeing how Finnish sisu can displace mountains, I guess we're happy to be on the same side. :D

JTGEN -> (6/27/2001 12:56:00 AM)
Eeyp, the hakkapeliitat. Name comes from hakka päälle, a battle shout which is now mostly in use at Sweden vs Finland sports events, the closest thing to war around here for some time :D ;)

MarkFroio -> (6/27/2001 1:31:00 AM)
..German name stuff after cats ..I don't like cats Maybe if the named stuff after dogs like the US did I would play them..Go Greyhounds ....[/QB][/QUOTE] I like cats, but I was wondering why there was no "Lion" tank? The lion is the king of beasts, after all.

Belisarius -> (6/27/2001 2:02:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Max VonLoben: I like cats, but I was wondering why there was no "Lion" tank? The lion is the king of beasts, after all. Funny you should ask... Panzer VII Löwe King of beasts, alright :D And JTGEN, doesn't "hakka päälle" literally mean "whack head" ??

Igor -> (6/27/2001 9:01:00 AM)
Brief thread retread: Regarding the poor French; the 20th Century wasn't their high water mark. Still, the only war they screwed up on purpose was WW I. Back in the late 1800s/early 1900s the French general staff had a political problem. They had been shown to be without honor by the Dreyfuss affair, and the civilian government was using popular revulsion against the army as a lever to remake said army (and deal the generals out of any political or social power). The politico's aim was to turn the army into little more than a school for reservists, relying on an armee en masse again for national defence. In this scheme, the role of (and need for) a standing army and it's officer corps was slight; all they had to do was buy a week or two for the real army to mobilise in case France was somehow surprised; until that time they were nothing but teachers. The Generals, not surprisingly, didn't like this idea. The only way to counter it, though, was to push a national strategy that reservists weren't suited for. The only option that fit the bill was immediate, all out offense at the outbreak of war, and a steady campaign of lies and (self)deception regarding the quality and capabilities of the German reservists. Not too surprisingly, any honest officer who commented on this styled it lunacy (just before they were cashiered). Equally unsurprisingly, it didn't work. It was the oft reviled reservists who had to save France while the regular army was busy immolating itself to the south. WW II was an honest mistake, at least. The key problem was that there could be no Battle of the Marne; the pace of battle was now too quick. Mechanized troops were at the gates of Paris long before another army could be thrown together to stop them. Better luck next war. Ahem. Why the Germans, you ask? For the challenge of keeping your command more or less intact through 6 years of war. If you can reach April 1945 with your companies still more or less company sized, you've obviously got something on the ball.

Atila_Boss -> (6/27/2001 2:33:00 PM)
I do not understand why almost everyone who talks about Germans came with Tiger. I think that the best German tank is Stug-III since they've got long 75s. This assault gun has no match in oposite forces, it is so cheap, with moderate armour protection, great gun and so small, that it is a really good stuff. I always hate them when playing against. My favourite nation after Germany is U.S. Yeah, they have pathetic tanks, but their artillery is something special. Especially in long battles is enemy infantry something which can be forgotten. One guy before me likes French legionaires. I remember one battle, it was a landing from sea against French in North Africa. I think that French had some legionaires, because my personal Oracle (not DB) told me that legionaires are retreating (lots of them), but I had seen no one. It must be my personal Oracle who told me that, because who else can know about retreating French after artillery barage ? It is strange because I never heard about Oracles been equipped for US officers in WWII, but it is really satisfactory to see messages about lots of enemy soldiers retreating, especially if you don't even seen them. :)

Tom Terror -> (6/27/2001 3:41:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by AmmoSgt: I like playing the Americans because so Much of their Equipment is Named After Real Generals that Had Long Track Records of Winning.. Not many Countries have Lots Of Winning Generals and Long History unbroken Wins In War ..German name stuff after cats ..I don't like cats Maybe if the named stuff after dogs like the US did I would play them..Go Greyhounds .... I´m no historian but if I remember correctly the "long history" (looking at not even 200 years it is nearly ridiculous to use that term) of "unbroken wins" in US wars wasn´t that unbroken. But that´s maybe just the non-hollywood-no-cool-european-point-of-view. I apologize for probably offending someone but it´s just that I feel that the US-american view on history comes often with an holier-than-thou-attitude. This is just a reply on a post. No general accusation. I really appreciate the work of the Matrix-team and the struggle for more and more realistic display of history of warfare regardles of nationalities and without propagandistic glossing over the facts. Thanks Tom

panda124c -> (6/27/2001 4:08:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Tom Terror: I´m no historian but if I remember correctly the "long history" (looking at not even 200 years it is nearly ridiculous to use that term) of "unbroken wins" in US wars wasn´t that unbroken. But that´s maybe just the non-hollywood-no-cool-european-point-of-view. I apologize for probably offending someone but it´s just that I feel that the US-american view on history comes often with an holier-than-thou-attitude. This is just a reply on a post. No general accusation. I really appreciate the work of the Matrix-team and the struggle for more and more realistic display of history of warfare regardles of nationalities and without propagandistic glossing over the facts. Thanks Tom How dare you cloud the issue with facts. :rolleyes: Oh yea half the US tanks were named after Southeren Generals, who never lost a battle but lost the war. :D Give me a Wolverine any day. I like them dogs too. :rolleyes: :D

Tom Terror -> (6/27/2001 4:23:00 PM)
Said nothing against dogs! I go for the pack most of the time myself. :D Tom

JTGEN -> (6/27/2001 7:46:00 PM)
My own Finnish seems to suck too and I forgot aletter. It is Hakkaa päälle and the translation would be(other finns correct me if neede) of this old Finnish. Hakkaa is like command to whack or beat something and päälle is on top or maybe as it is so old it means just heads so whack the heads or whack on top. Oh those glory days when Finnish(Swedish) military units were occuping parts of suothern Germany(or what now is Germany) :D :D :D And the cats are great, they are real predators unlike so many dogs like puudels. But greyhounds are my favorite US vehickle ;)

Tom Terror -> (6/27/2001 9:19:00 PM)
So finally I post something related to the topic. I play germans ´cause I am one. And contrary to the general opinion not every german soldier was a Nazi. (just think of the officers that tried to kill Hitler by bomb) However, I also like to play US. Especially their infantry is really something. The Russians never really got my interest, though they have impressive tools I don´t like to send my men to the slaughter in human waves. I don´t care that much about cats and dogs anyway. ;) BTW I think Churchill quoted once from Mark Twain: "It´s not the size of the dog in a fight, it´s the size of the fight in the dog" So much for the cats... :D Tom

Larry Holt -> (6/28/2001 12:43:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by RickJ: It's the equipment! And the tactics. The Germans perfected the basis for modern combined arms tactics. While the Brits had Liddle-Hart, the French DeGaulle and the Americans Patton, these were voices crying in the wilderness while the Germans embraced combined arms whole heartedly.

Russbrad -> (6/28/2001 2:31:00 AM)
The truth be known:the largest lion is no match for largest tiger.

achappelle -> (6/28/2001 3:10:00 AM)
quote: Winning Generals and Long History unbroken Wins In War .. Got one string of numbers for ya..... 1812 ;) Go 'Nucks

MalleusDei -> (6/28/2001 3:13:00 AM)
>The US just has so short history and so many wars less it is like making >final arguments of their history based on Vietnam war only. Remember that we won every single battle of battalion size or larger in Vietnam. People act like Vietnam was an American military defeat; in rerality, we consistently kicked Viet Cong and NVA ass. After Tet, the Viet Cong essentially no longer existed as a fighting force - and yet the Leftist media still portrayed Tet as an American loss and the Democrats in Washington forced us to abandon the Vietnamese to the Communists. >Americans wouldn't have a country if Franch hadn't sent their fleet to Yorktown >during the Revolutionary War. Sure we would have, it just would have taken a bit longer. And we paid the French back for that just by coming in with them against the English in 1812, and we overpaid when we saved France from the Germans in 1918. We can even leave out us taking France away from the Germans in 1944 and giving it back to the French. >btw you are from Baton Rouge! >it mean "red staff" in french, >watch out it must be a French invasion We call it "Red Stick" or just "The Stick." And we HAVE been invaded by the French, my friends have names like Guidry, Melancon, Guillory, DeVille, Fontenot, Broussard, and Bourgeois. As to the stick itself, excerpted from the HISTORY OF BATON ROUGE http://www.ci.baton-rouge.la.us/History/historyBR.htm): "In early 1699, a French expedition headed by Pierre le Moyne, whose title was Sieur d'Iberville, first saw the site on which the City of Baton Rouge is now located...the party first saw the bluffs of Baton Rouge on March 17, 1699...D'Iberville and his men reached a small stream at the right of the [Mississippi] river..its banks were separated by a reddened, 30-foot-high maypole with several heads of fish and bear attached in sacrifice and dripping with blood that the natives had sunk there to mark the land line between the two [Indian] nations...the red stick the French saw was probably used both as a boundary marker and for ceremonial purposes. D'Iberville called this area Baton Rouge (French for red stick), and hence the region's name was born."

General Mayhem -> (6/28/2001 7:19:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by MalleusDei: >The US just has so short history and so many wars less it is like making >final arguments of their history based on Vietnam war only. Remember that we won every single battle of battalion size or larger in Vietnam. People act like Vietnam was an American military defeat; in rerality, we consistently kicked Viet Cong and NVA ass. After Tet, the Viet Cong essentially no longer existed as a fighting force - and yet the Leftist media still portrayed Tet as an American loss and the Democrats in Washington forced us to abandon the Vietnamese to the Communists. " It is question of opinion, but I think winning a conflict is lot more than killing huge numbers of enemy. Problem with US involvement in Vietnam to me it seems is that whole policy was build around idea that U.S. troops were there to support South Vietnamese, and South Vietnamese would both support and defend themselves against North Vietnam. Especially after U.S. forces would be gone. Far as I've understood, South Vietnamese were less than anxious to fight and they even didn't helped lot of US forces. Nor did US forces enjoy unquestionable support among local population. Thus while U.S. forces had big number of enemy's killed, it all went to drain because half of reason being there was just to support South Vietnam to it's own feets. Which never materialized. So while US won the battles, it lost the conflict because military victories achieved didn't compensate the problems elsewhere in overall strategy.

KG Erwin -> (6/28/2001 9:33:00 AM)
I just want to add that in the posts I've seen regarding the SPWaW long campaigns, most players (myself included), take on the role of a German kampfgruppe commander, starting in Poland in Sept 1939 and fighting to the bitter end. Politics aside, most of us probably agree that given proper leadership and their marvelous toys, the Germans should have won. I fully agree with Kurt's earlier post in that the desire to rewrite history is one of the biggest parts of wargaming's appeal, so this shouldn't be any great surprise. Don't forget that the main selling points of all of the old Avalon Hill board games was that very thing--"can YOU do better than your historical counterparts and rewrite history as either (Montgomery or Rommel, Napoleon or Wellington, Meade or Lee, Alexander or Darius, etc.)" [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ] [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]

sven -> (6/28/2001 10:04:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by KG Erwin: I just want to add that in the posts I've seen regarding the SPWaW long campaigns, most players (myself included), take on the role of a German kampfgruppe commander, starting in Poland in Sept 1939 and fighting to the bitter end. Politics aside, most of us probably agree that given proper leadership and their marvelous toys, the Germans should have won. I fully agree with Kurt's earlier post in that the desire to rewrite history is one of the biggest parts of wargaming's appeal, so this shouldn't be any great surprise. Don't forget that the main selling points of all of the old Avalon Hill board games was that very thing--"can YOU do better than your historical counterparts and rewrite history as either (Montgomery or Rommel, Napoleon or Wellington, Meade or Lee, Alexander or Darius, etc.)" [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ] [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ] K.G. you are ignoring the fact that Darth Shicklegruber's country was outproduced and outnumbered(a bad combo)by vast proportions. It is okay to fantasize about saving the Reich(I guess??:rolleyes),but to say they 'should have won'is engaging in fantasy. They had no hope after getting on the wrong side of us AND IVAN, but if you want to pretend they had a prayer have at it. regards, sven ;) [ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

Tom Terror -> (6/28/2001 4:51:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by MalleusDei: Remember that we won every single battle of battalion size or larger in Vietnam. People act like Vietnam was an American military defeat; in rerality, we consistently kicked Viet Cong and NVA ass. After Tet, the Viet Cong essentially no longer existed as a fighting force ... Right. But this is no valid point. According to your theory one could come to the conclusion that it doesn´t matter if you´re finally defeated if you only win enough battles during the whole conflict. But i must agree from a pure military point of view you could win battle after battle without being actually defeated but loosing the war or conflict due to economical or political reasons. Of course this is strongly simplified. Tom

General Mayhem -> (6/28/2001 5:25:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Tom Terror: Right. But this is no valid point. According to your theory one could come to the conclusion that it doesn´t matter if you´re finally defeated if you only win enough battles during the whole conflict. But i must agree from a pure military point of view you could win battle after battle without being actually defeated but loosing the war or conflict due to economical or political reasons. Of course this is strongly simplified. Tom I think entering a battle is not meaning of war. Every conflict has a goal. Battles are really only important in relation what they achieve concerning overall goal. Like Sun Tzu has said, purpose of warfare is not to destroy enemy, but to make his plan(whatever they are) futile so that one can implement own plans. Killing lot of enemy troops doesn't help if the plan why you're doing the battles doesn't work, but enemys plan does work despite heavy casualties.

JTGEN -> (6/28/2001 6:19:00 PM)
Good example of winning a battle -loosing a war comes from when Russia conquered Finland from the Swedes. Swedish troops kept retreting in front of superior enemy force. They retreated for a long time, and when they finally fought, they won. But by that time the Russians had most of Finland in control. That is what you get when you put a logistics general in charge of army. (if I remember correctly)

MalleusDei -> (6/29/2001 4:39:00 AM)
The job of the military is to win battles in the field. We did that, and did it very successfully. The politicians' job was to turn those military victories into something politically benficial, and in that they failed utterly and miserably. As to South Vietnamese fighting ability/determination, it varied widely - from the likes of one ARVN senior officer who never, ever left his safe underground bunker to one ARVN junior officer who took on NVA tanks with small arms and grenades virtually by himself and died doing it. Part of the problem was that the U.S., due to its relationship with France, was also viewed by many Vietnamese as a colonial power - even thought we were not one - and locals/natives who work with a colonial power are often viewed as collaborator scum by the locals/natives who don't. Add to that the fact that most of the Vietnamese that we dealt with (as officers, government officials, etc.) were from the Gallicized (Francized?) Catholic Vietnamese upper class elite, who were very unpopular with the large mass of Vietnamese Buddhist peasants, and you have a situation where the people who were running the South Vietnamese government and army didn't have a lot of support from the people. We didn't understand this very well at the time, and trying to tell Marvin the ARVN (ARVN = Army of the Republic of Viet Nam = "the South Vietnamese Army") that he should stand and fight with us because this was his land and it was being invaded by Communists usually just puzzled poor Buddhist peasant Marvin, who was wondering just what the heck he was doing with a gun in the field in a conscript unit run by a Catholic French-educated ARVN CO (with American colonial advisers) fighting his own cousins who were wokrking with the NVA to restore Vietnam to the Vietnamese anyway. Marvin, by and large (and there were notable exceptions), had no interest in fighting his cousins whasoever and just wanted to stay alive and get home. When it came to non-military issues we really - sadly - didn't know what we were dealing with or what we were doing.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125