Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Decent realism through a set of wargaming rules rather than a physics based damage model allows for this game to achieve a remarkable scope and scale. I know Eugen doesn't get everything perfect and there are gameplay decisions made, however the balance they strike is their unique brand. Warfare isn't about balance. Its about maximizing asymmetry against your foe.
There are dozens of red vs blue tactical games on the market. I'd prefer Eugen to stay true to their pattern of products.
A brutal, insular dictatorship using 20 year old second-hand military equipment -with crippling military leadership deficiencies - against a coalition force of *35 NATO and non-NATO nations* is absolutely nothing like what a shooting war between the two dominant superpowers of the 1980s would have been.
Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Where the US trained and equipped Republic of Vietnam forces were getting demolished by Soviet-equipped militia and had to withdraw. Now just imagine if the Viet Cong had access to the T-72, Su-25, Su-27, Konkurs, Shturm, BM-24M, Tor, Shilka etc.
russia is full of "intruders from inside", I think that is general enough; and the advice can lead you for serious lookup=)
its similar to the fact, that germany has not been "reunited" into its old status, with a kaiser, and respecting the old treatments of law, but nato has "overtaken the whole" "nation" of germany, instead of retreating alike as russia did;
and because of the traces that are created by "united-untidyness in history", alone the amount of traces, will dominate the history more than official "told" history.
and nation is a french invention, germany was not organised as "states" before, and was only convinced lately before. if you think its a nation, then its a young one, so Im not sure, if germany is governable with the term nation.
nation, meaning "birth", so its a different thing than a "state"/status lat., and a "state" can also be a person; its not land. thats a big difference. because its only the fiction or "model" to refer about land (so why do you need the word nation if you could just govern land?) but all of that is required to be invested still.
also, the 100 years before 1989 have been not resolved before, so featuring information from that time involve all consequnces of the treatments of germany, and the issues concerning european treatments that are always an issue.
this is quite the reason, why we have paralel-worlds now, and was also in the past the reason why para-dies (next to "here") was caused by the reaction of earth forces.
and now, we have
a) the truth
b) the reality
c) science fiction
d) para-scenarios that would "ALMOST" have happened
e) the commands of different people who did give contracts to still fulfil the world with certain gifts. some refer to truth, other are completely outside of truth, so in order for those to exists, the "original" history they build upon, must counterplay their also gifts (context if a lie)
f) and eugen system is placing another model of the timeframe glorious frenchmen you are the heros all are faux mais vous are exclusively modeling the new his-story how it "really" was. not by stating that, but from what the people will derive only will raise up enough of storm;
frederick the great tells: many people have written history, but few did tell the truth.
very few.
but be aware: the history is the lesson about LONG time periods, that shall not repeat, or SHALL repeat.
the english term "his story" is also refering to tell-(me a)-tale character, while the german word "geschichte", is refering to the "layers" that have collapsed to a big piece of story.
its the story, that you can find here and there, and that only has been given by anchestors. its a neutrum word, while "his story" is refering to somebody who tells it, and is not distincting fictive stories and true stores, world stories, and stories on earth.
---
concerning wargame: the story is what the people want to hear, but its not deep or sophisticatingly border with interesting details that might have happened.
Wargame: Warning orders is too casino and not at this point and not at a later point ripe to carry Fulda into the next century.
also the time itself: can only go on passing by, if the developement is made. but if it fails and is unsuccesful, the time goes backwards, and this is very nested with strategy that leads it to become developing, or rot.
--
there are countries, that are easy to conquer, but difficult to hold, and there are countries that are lacking infrastructure to establish a state even.
but germany is very old. it has already grown ahead of the things its still carrying.
it will teach you still by life circumstances about truth, if the people are not supposed to.
because they are warining outside people because of reasons, they did not surpass.
(e.g. their devil). so how could besetting nations be capable to live in germany, when even the germans were not?
I think the truth will rot back and thats the story about 1989. Its only about energy, but not about leadership anymore even;
//its my statement; you can learn from it or delete it you are the ones in need not me
In practice a the difference between all Soviet tank variants whether they were a T-72M in Iraq up to a T-80UD in the Soviet Union would be irrelevant against NATO since they all share the same traits. They would get blown up by standard issue NATO anti tank weapons of the era. They wouldn't be able to spot the enemy before they got destroyed and they wouldn't be able to destroy an Abrams or Leopard while the Abrams or Leopard would easily destroy them.
In the air the difference between a MiG-29 and a Su-27 is that the Su-27 has longer range. But the MiG-29 wasn't hampered by its inferior range since the US was flying all over Iraq it had plenty of time to engage them in combat. It was just outclassed by the American fighters and pilots. Again it should be noted these are combat veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet pilots would not be.
As for your Vietnam analogy the North Vietnamese got completely obliterated militarily during the Tet offensive. They were also better trained and equipped than the Soviet Armed forces and PLA at the time due to it being a proxy war. For instance the NVA was primarily issuing the AK47 in the 1960s while the SKS was still the standard service rifle in the Western Soviet Army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2018_Pew_poll_on_public_opinion_of_the_U.S._by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
The political conflict of the Vietnam War resolved favorably for the US since the communist bloc dropped a massive amount of resources into Vietnam and ended up putting a hostile pro-American government on their borders that they can't dislodge.
Americans are more successful than totalitarian governments because they are able to act to achieve a goal where these other governments have to act in binary and wage a genocidal war whenever they want to do something.
That was hilarious to read and made no sense in terms of what point you're trying to make. Good to see you're a proud... Nato memeber, but please...
That's the most ridiculous round up I've read in ages. It's neither historically accurate, nor does it make sense.
Read my last sentence.
It as much a claim as yours is.
The Su-27 never flew in the Gulf War. Also, you're really glossing over the fact that, on Strategic Operations level, the Iraqi army was light-years behind the coalition forces; most of the Iraqi air force was destroyed in their hangers or while they were taking off from airfields, since Coaltion AWACS was so much more developed. Also, the Iraqi air force was massively outnumbered; Saddam's troops had around 770 combat-capable aircraft, up against nearly 1,300 US combat aircraft alone *plus* an additional 500 combat aircraft from 9 other air forces.
Ok, so the NVA lost a battle. They won the war, though.
You wot. What "hostile pro-American government that they can't dislodge" exists on Vietnam's borders, pray tell?
Even with improved armor or whatever they're not going to be able to match modern NATO tanks like the L2A4 or M1A1. NATO tanks are going to be able to shoot them before they even realize they're under attack like during the Gulf War.
There is a reason why the Polish who had domestically designed a T-90 equivalent with the PT-91 later decided to replace those Soviet tanks using 1990s era Pact technology with the Leopard 2A4 from the 1980s.
And before you say that Grozny was the result of bad tactics rather than technology that just proves that the Russians were poorly coordinated enough to use such poor tactics, they're clearly no better than the Iraqis in terms of how they conduct themselves in battle.
The Soviet Air Force was no better off than the Iraqi Air Force, compared to a western power they are a joke and they have fewer and inferior planes similar to the Iraqis. The Su-27 is not a force multiplier it was designed to function as an air superiority fighter with a greater combat radius than the MiG-29 to cover the larger soviet airspaces so it wouldn't prove significant in any air campaign. The Pact simply lacked the computer technology to match NATO in air combat.
Something that you have to ignore is the fact that the Coalition was out of its element in Saudi Arabia. They had to build up their infrastructure and form a plan for a war on the fly over a period of a few weeks and go on the offensive. Wheras in WWIII they had been prepared for a defensive war since the 1940s with infrastructure and technology optimized for the theater. The Iraqis combined with their combat experience against Iran had a number of force multipliers the Soviet Union lacked. In effect the Iraqis performed better than the Pact would have.
Also the Iraqis were equipped to the same standard as the Pact allies to the Soviet Union using "Monkey Models". Since we have to rely on an alternate history scenario where those nations would work with the Soviet Union to attack NATO instead of using the vulnerability of the Soviets to wage war on them for their independence then a large portion of the Pact forces would be equipped to an Iraqi standard. Except they would have no combat experience.
Finally your argument about the Vietnam War is equivalent to saying that you won a fight because you attacked someone, they pummeled you viciously while you hardly injured them and then they left after they finished beating you.
Also you apparently don't know how to read because Vietnam is a pro-american government. The US has higher approval ratings in Vietnam than they have in their own country.
Yes, the Vietnamese people are open, inviting and friendly to westerners (I visited the country in 2014). That doesn't change the fact that the US lost the Vietnam War, both on a military and political level.