Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TheRomanRuler

Ensign
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheRomanRuler

  1. Well, these games are quite cheap when compared to others. And when compared to crowd funded games like Star Citizen where people are willing to pay thousands (literally) of euros to get bigger/different ship... This is nothing. (just note, Star Citizen is not pay 2 win even if it sounds like it, 30€ is enough and you can get everything in-game)
  2. 2v2 3v3 4v4 Multi-player (coop would get my friend to play this game) Option to Dig In, Build Barracades Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column Detach Regiments from Brigade Modding Brigades target more than just one enemy within their firing arc Adjustable speed variable (Slow, Normal, Fast) Sandbox Mode, Scenario Generator I don`t know about order/importance, but i can`t reduce my choices any further, these are what i really want.
  3. WW1 if just possible. Pike and shot is interesting, would be my second pick
  4. Grand strategy sounds epic, this game still is my surprise of the year, best 10€ (or what ever the cost) i have ever used
  5. Since this seems to lead nowhere, i just take 5 seconds to answer: In 1945, Germany reached it`s peak in size of her army, many allied divisions were at 50% strengh, and even Soviet Union could not mobilise any more men, just look at what happened after the war as result, starvation. Had Germans done what Hitler told them, AKA hold to the last man, they would have lasted longer than allies. This is horribly more complicated than just "holding", but that is a fact. Marshal Petain also opposed his politicians and made peace, Marshal Zhukov opposed his leaders and so did 900 other good leaders. Generals in WW2 were too conservative, they basically fought WW1.5. Opposing them is what good generals/leaders did. And Hitler did not personally lead divisions becouse he lacked experience in that, strategic warfare is completly different than tactical, just look at Lundendorff, tactical genius, but knew nothing about strategy which made Germany`s last offensive in WW1 fail, it could have achieved victory. When you say you are not stupid, you mean that you know what popular opinion is, not that you have done any research yourself, checked sources and stories. Here is 1 good thing for you to check: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/six-million-myth-7.jpg New York Times 1921, saying 6 million jews are facing extermination in Russia. Do some more research and you find out "6 million jews" is common thing outside WW2 holocaust. And here is well documented door for Auswhitz gas chambers: http://www.historiography-project.com/images/doorb.gif According to Jewish eye-witnesses, it was strong enough to hold against 2 000 Jews trying to break trough it. That can`t hold either gas or humans, modern football rioteers who are not in threat of being killed have broken solid concrete wall. Also one last thing, without revisionists, ancient people would still be naked and Napoleon evil devil, like he once was seen by historians, exactly like Hitler. I understand most people are not capable of thinking that far outside the box, but it is foolish to claim "this happened" if you have never done research, and have merely "heard it", perhaps from school, where some books still have same information as they did 100 years ago, even tough that information became obsolete 90 years ago. Well known fact by any proper teachers.
  6. You should check internet more often, it is 50% Hitler and 50% Porn.
  7. Yes. Like i said, bad leader of his people, but he knew how to lead his armies. However he did not have full control of military matters until late war, when he already was badly sick, and later even mad. It was his generals who drew plans for operation barbarossa, differently from what Hitler wanted. But it was Hitler who selected location for last German offensive (battle of bulge), which came very close to outflanking entire allied army, but Germans run out of fuel and heroic allied resistance took care of the rest. Unlike you might think, allied peoples no longer wanted to carry on fighting, so their manpower definetly was not even higher than Germany`s, in fact many divisions were at 50% strengh. Successive offensive on the west would have caused a lot of allied forces to surrender, perhaps even make peace. People don`t understand how little people in USA for example wanted to fight Germany now that we have heard 70 years after the war propaganda (propaganda can also be true, it just means making your enemy look bad and yourself good) about WW2. Please don`t be stupid enough to think we know everything, or even most, of what happened in WW2. Like i said, Prussian infantry was better, but rest of the army was not. Without support good infantry turns into bad one, causing such losses. French army was good in anything, Prussians only had good infantry, nothing more. And of course, Napoleon was genius, and has defeated many as good armies as his.
  8. They had R.E. Lee, Europeans had Helmuth von Moltke. Moltke was one of greatest generals of all times, Lee was "only" great. And later Europe had Ludendorff, Erwin Rommel, Hitler (bad leader of nation, but he was good military leader), Erich von Manstein, Konstantin Rokosovsky and. Georgy Zhukov (+ hundreds of others, i only listed best, it is impossible to list all great German commanders of WW2, just way too many of them). America had Geoge Patton. And before we had Napoleon while you had George Washington. So Europe clearly wins. +All officer schools which America did not have Bismarck must also be mentioned, but he was more politician than soldier and not genius like others
  9. This can be solved by actions having bigger consugences, for example if you crush Confederates at first day, they might bring much more troops next day than originally supposed to. And if you are too weak, they see it and send in reserves to kill you. Hard to make well i think, but in theory that works well.
  10. There is other kind of experience besides fighting battles, Europe had fought 2 000 years, they knew how to get soldiers into army, how to feed them and equip them, they had traditions, how to mobilise them cuickly. They had officer schools where they learned from generals like Napoleon I more than elsewhere perhaps. Etc. Their countries had shaped during thousands of years of fighting, while for example USA was just formed almost from scratch, copied from Europeans (English to be precise). One good example of this is Prussian infantry in Napoleonic wars, they were obsolete, trained after model of Frederic the Great, yet they could easily match and beat French infantry sent against them. Rest of the army however, was also shaped after Frederic the great, resulting in huge losses. But like i said, their infantry was still formidable foe, not to be taken lightly. Unless you want to use word "lightly" literally, becouse French light infantry played great role in defeating them. If you look at famous formations, you notice that 11th Airbone division was good division during WW2, and it still is today, desbite being jsut regular unit, it is still slightly better than average unit. Why? Becouse teachers have learned what they teach from their teachers, who learned from their teachers... etc....who learned from Julius Caesar.(same applies to kids learning from parents) French were aggressive already during Napoleonic wars, and today their infantry still has that aggressive Elan. But again, Americans started almost from scratch, they had to build their army and entire nation in period of few hundred years as opposed to thousands of years, foreign advicors can do just that, advice, but nothing more, becouse each nation is different. It is same troughout history, Byzantine Empire`s greatest weapon in medieval era was their cavalry, yet, they relied on infantry, like their ancient Roman ancestors 2 000 years ago. And Swiss have always been ultra-loyal mercenaries, as long as they got paid. Etc, which is btw one my most used words so i don`t have to write history book from year 1 000BC to 2014. It is fascinating how humans don`t change even when everything else changes.
  11. European armies were better due to being more experienced in all ways, and having little never equipment. (during ACW many European armies already used breechloaders, but due to lack of weapons Americans had to take what they could, excellent example being Confederacy. No European army had that little/bad equipment. But as you said, and many many many times shown, it is leaders who won the battles, not the armies. Hell even Volkstrum would be useful if used properly.
  12. Yes good point, often when center or flank was broken entire army routed/retreated. Also, i am not sure, but i think column formation Napoleon used was like this The other column below, and what you used, was only used for moving from A to C. Also, columns in lower picture should have had more depth- but oh well, it is paint picture and i think you understand it.
  13. I have not played any beta RTS game, but i think it takes a lot of hard work... It might just be placebo effect tough, my battles very often end in that deadlock bug and few other bugs might make it seem like there are more bugs than there really is. But game really is awesome and DEFINETLY worth the price! Best price/quality ratio i have seen for a long while, of course excluding f2p games.
  14. I don`t think he did it to impress his wife, i don`t remember ATM what real reason was tough. And ironically they had completely wrong doctorines, instead of high quality artillery like Napoleon I, they had high quality infantry and older artillery, Prussians had worse infantry rifle, but much better artillery, which is what mattered at the time.
  15. Yes, unless you count European armies like Prussian/German, French, and altough too small, British.
  16. Ugly? What? And if some important gameplay feature gets turned off becouse it looks bad, why not make it look good?
  17. Interesting, this just improved value of bayonet a lot, and makes sense why commanders so often ordered bayonet charges. And another reason why cartidges are so superior, altough even without this issue they would be superior.
  18. Perhaps Darth then just means that if there are friendlies units don`t shoot there? It would be great.
  19. If someone wants to know what really happened in WW2, i advice just waiting, 50 million people died in it, and just look at how differently is written about Soviet Union after it collapsed, eventually WW2 will also be re-written, how much is only debate we should have atm. Expect, not on these forums. I can assure you that there is something yet to be said about WW2, when documentary about Frederic the Great, man who lived long before such nation as Germany existed, starts by talking about Hitler and what he did, something is wrong. That is an example, there are many many others.
  20. Either that went over my head or you did not get that i was just being ironic, Rome 2 is horrible compared to Rome 1, and only wins in smoothness thanks to 2013 technology. So just in case:
×
×
  • Create New...