Some are just cheap, though, like the Superfortresses. Since fighters can't intecept SBR's, you can bomb at will with America, while being perfectly content to lose nothing.

You mean B1 or E1, not R1?

How do you do it with Russia?

I always attack West Russia, instead. My lines are more formidable that way.

Easy. Get ahead on tier 2 pieces, and just trade your way to victory.

Your discussion is futile.  Red Orchestra pwns all.

Actually, I liked CoD a whole lot, best single player WW2 by far.  I've not played the 2nd in multiplayer, but the first was very good, UO was good but sometimes not so fun...

I played a bunch of the original DoD, tried to get into the source version, but couldn't

As far as Steam games go, I've been against it for sometime, but RO and Dark Messiah (check it out, freaking sweet!) have changed my mind.  Team Fortress 2 should be nice as well.

Dark Messiah feels a lot like Half-Life 2 with the Dragon Crates.

About the motion sickness, I still get it from Half-Life 2 when you are in the buggy.

Glad to have you here.

Yes the key to do that would have been to invade the Soviet eastern territories before they were transfered. The reality of a japanese "northern" solution was often discounded due to the huge defeat they faced in the border clash with the Soviets in 1939. Its hard to go against experience. My feeling is Stalin could have  ignored or buffered this huge area with a few troops playing for time until a decisive outcome could have been obtained against Germany. The japanese didnt posess enough troops at any point to even push even 500 miles into Soviet Territory. They had to commit too many in China in a war that could not have been decided for even another 10 years. Remember they fought them since 1931 with no decisive result.
The key was to keep bagging Stalins armies using proven tactics. But with the strategic outlook of true mobile army having the ability to retreat and reform for counterattacks once the Soviet offensive lost steam. This elastic approach was what Manstein favored, while Hitler kept his old WW1 ideas intact. Hitler allowing his generals to fight the war would have brought victory. That along with the extra month of time.

Yeah, that was the other thing.

He acquired all of Europe through a mobile army, then hunkered down in the worst place in the world at the worst time.

Well it would have made the difference of taking Moscow or not taking Moscow. It would not have ended the war, but it would have led to the fall of Leningrad as well since the rail lines run north/south and the Germans could have easily isolated it from the bulk of Stalins remaining forces. But remember that he had some 560 divisions to be reckoned with. Hitler needed to keep Moscow and Leningrad and produce one last great encirclement battle like Kiev to have a good chance to finish off Stalin. I feel that was his plan with Moscow, but if he didn't bag enough troops the war would continue until 1942 anyway.

They could have survived the winter better in Moscow, though.

Of course, telling the Japanese to invade Siberia would have done it too, as Stalin had 1 million men guarding the border there. they made the difference in the battle for Moscow.

One month would have made all the difference.

Yes Jennifer thats correct.

So the winter took advantage of poor leadership.

Thats a strange way of putting it. The "leadership" was proven to quick campaigns of a specific purpose and design. When "winning on the cheap" proved a failure in Barbarossa, Hitler had no way to deal with an extended campaign. The winter was not a designed stage of his concept. But when it came Hitler made the best decision in spite of his Generals to "hold at all costs" this was correct in 1941 but disastrous in 1942. The difference was his flank was not exposed and his forces were not surrounded in 1941 and could roll with the punches, while at Stalingrad Stalin had trapped some 22 divisions and they were expected to fight on w/o adequate supplies... as if an army no longer marches on its stomach..

I know, but the Russians use it as a weapon, so I think it could be said that way.

I was talking about in the later battles, such as those when Russia was regaining lost territory.

So the winter took advantage of poor leadership.

Soviet air power won WWII for them. They destroyed more tanks with Il-2's and Il-10's than with tanks.

No, you can equally blame the teachers and the administration for not correcting children at a young age.  Raising moral and ethical children with the knowledge needed to be effective contributers to this world is not soley in the hands of teacher or parent, but in both.

Now, women libers (femi-nazis) have screwed up the home creating a situation where both parents have to work or plan to live impoverished thus removing the parent element from rearing of children and then over zealous lawyers have screwed up the schools so that teachers have no authority over kids anymore.

Add that to the "Oh Billy, you're so smart.  Yes, the Capital of France is London!  Here's a gold star and have fun in the 4th grade, Billy!" attitude of the social promotion system we find in school and you can imagine why children are flipping out and shooting each other.  It's not because they want too, it's because they've been driven mad by a system that seems - at least to them - to not care about them, and only want to warehouse them and shuffle them through each level before putting it's boot on their reer and kicking them out the door into the cold reality.



Let's face it.  We need teachers empowered to discipline kids.  We need to stop threatening teacher's pensions and tenure if they decide to teach morals and ethics instead of federally assigned curricula and we need to establish a 1 income family again so that parents can be home to raise their children.

Actually, the fact that most of the kids are loners who no one ever talks to or cares about drives them to shoot people. The school system is not at fault as much as the social standing. We were discussing this today, and we also decided that people didn't release their anger as easily because there are less fights in school, or wherever, so the anger because more critical, until boiling over.

Hitler came to power in an Aristocracy that happened to have democratic elements.  Not the same as a representative democracy.  Also, children going to school and shooting people is not a fault of democracy, it's a fault of bad programming done by the liberal elite.  When the situation was run by the local matriarch and taught values and facts we did not have this problem.

I find it hard to listen to you Jennifer, becaue you can't stop with the worthless attacks.

Funny, you can't start internallizing corrections to your malicious attacks.


Not my fault you attempted to equate Hitler to an elected official in a representative democracy when he was an appointed official in an aristocracy. (the Kaiser confirmed him after he was elected.  The Kaiser could have dismissed him, technically, though how literal the idea might be could be heavily debated on both sides.)

Then you go on to say it's democracy's fault for children shooting each other in schools when we can realistically look at history, with non-politically polarized goggles and see that it is more accurate to say it is a lack of morals being taught in schools that has resulted in the rise of crime.  After all, there were no documented school shootings between 1860 and 1900 when schools taught conservative values.  But since the 1960's, when schools stopped teaching morals and ethics and just touted the government mantras, we see a spike in violent crimes in schools.

Funny, when the facts come out, your statements don't seem to be very accurate at all.  And thus, you are reduced to your flame-thrower. 

I am so tired of this I didn't say anything about this at all. You put those words in my mouth. That is a retarded, wimpy tactic only used when you can't win otherwise.