Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
Mikimoto: quote:
"fairy tale" is rude?... I don't think, others do, but not insulting. I loved this game from version 1.0 until v7. In this version, the most claimed "definitive" version, when only some upgrades in "two-player" campaings were to be implemented, and some bug cleaning a add-ons, I find new features that unbalances heavily the game. To the point to make East Front battles inplayabe...
History shows some tips on this topic. Lorrin's work on ballistics can be a marvellous, innovative thing, but is against ALL battle reports from the first two years of the "great patriotic war". I find ridicolous that some guys claim I must show data... All history joins my point.
Considering your quote above, I went back to the original post. There are two things that are sticking in people's minds: 1. You said 'fairy tale' 2. You laughed
Considering those facts, a number of people may have twisted how you said them, just as badly as you may have said them (well not all that bad, but I'm trying to hint that there's more to this than is easily discernable). I recall one poster putting your fairy tale comment along with the laughter, but that's not what you did. Perhaps the most important sentence of your post was asking what could either be regarded as taunting or serious (asking whether it simulation or fairy tale), but seems serious to me considering how you added the 'confused' smiley instead of one sticking it's tongue out.
As to the latter portion of your quote above, I've often wondered myself, as have many others, whether this game is trying to portray balance, tactical history, or strategic history. I'm as puzzled as you are about this. From my perspective, irrespective of what MAY be going on, I'm looking for tactical accuracy, and often enough people get that confused with one side or the other winning. In relatively even battles it's pretty clear often enough that heavy tanks are going to win, particularly when there's not a whole lot of comparable penalty for them, like it costing your steel industry greatly. The main question isn't whether the game is inaccurate because the PZIIIH can do better than it once did in the game, but whether this was true in real life. Unfortunately, if V.7 is incorrect on this change, and someone requires proof to change it, it almost invariably won't happen especially when our arguments are more vague such as the USSR saying it's the best tank (which of course you haven't said, but it does show that vaguer data makes things more difficult). It's not easy to deal with this from either side of the argument. Your comments about German commander reports or what not, falls basically in the category that some of mine have fallen before, such as the Panther/Tiger should be able to at least show a 3-to-1 ratio against Shermans, since many an American commander said that it was 5-to-1 (and understand the Tigers/Panthers should achieve 5-to-1 MINIMUM, because the US commanders often had greater superiority than what these battles allow (basically because, as I say, the game strives for answering the question: "If a few companies of one side, met a few companies of another side, what would happen?"). This game no doubt favors those who had less quantity but more quality, and that's why Germany is often so difficult to deal with. That does make for something of a fantasy environment, but it is a legitimate perspective, because surely there were a number of battles where the forces involved were relatively even, so that those with the better quality/tactics won out.
One last thing, be careful about your sources. I know you've been drubbed with some anti-American rhetoric so you might believe the ugliest of the Americans is more dominant than it may be (then or now), but when you say "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 almost as though it were a USSR panacea, you are stepping in my opinion into this stupid over-zealous "we are the greatest" nonsense that surely you must detest in some Americans and Germans. I read a book, only recently available Russia at War written by Russians which dispels a number of myths, and when people start using the phrase "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 instead of 43-45, it usually isn't indicative of someone who is being objective beyond the reach of the then party lines. The same goes for some of the English trying to make Dunkirk look like a great victory, when actually it was a demoralizing rout. You have to wonder about objectivity from sources like those, when they can't even admit that their worst battle was anythign but a victory (sure it could've been worse, but still).
Later
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
- 
![]("confused.gif")
![]("biggrin.gif")
- 
![]("smile.gif")
PS I never said the BAR was better than an MG-42 .. I said it was more controlable in full auto fire .. But please I didn't mean to interupt .. continue with your rant ![]("wink.gif")
- like you I was only trying to make a point. That point being that half of the posts in this thread are people saying drop it - if they had not done that it would probably be dead by now.
- 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread