WWIIOL or SW Galaxies

[Guest Thrawn]

This is a way of showing people what the horrors that our grandparents went through. Anything that gives people history and makes it fun is fine by me.

 

What kind of vid card do we need? And is a 56K modem going to cut it in terms of lag? Or even being able to play it?

 

------------------

"Noobies Suck"

ThRaWn90,RAL_Thrawn,SOB_Thrawn

Rogue 6

[Rebel Loyaltist]

I'll get them both.

 

------------------

My sigs never make sense and people never understand them. I really don't give a f*ck!

[Nute Gunray]

16 meg card

 

i hope 56k cuts it. i really dont' want to put the money for cable right now...

 

ps, most of the horrors of war have been taken out for the sake of processing speed and memory. and few people here had relatives fighting where this game takes place (since it's before the US got in)

[Admiral Zaarin]

I'm not saying WWII should be forgotten - quite the opposite. But I don't like the idea of making it into a game, which, like all other games, is supposed to be enjoyable.

[milkshake]

Then Zaarin, is it right that we make War Movies or books or even enjoy a conversation about a war.

[Commander 598]

To the original question I choose GCO(<a href=httP;//www.3000ad.com>Galactic Command Online</a>)

 

 

 

------------------

Official Forum Nuclear Terrorist & God of Insanity

[Air Juggernaut]

I want to make an aclaration: I´m a fan of the warfare, airplanes, tanks and ships. German warfare looks cool, but if I like it I don´t like many thinks of the german in WW2, one of this is the waffen ss. They was a piece of damnit **** for me, I´m not talking about all germans, I know that many german pilots, soldiers and citizens don´t like it too. As the same way, I don´t like the massive allied city bomber missions, that kill lot of people in Germany and Japan.

 

 

------------------

"All your base are belong to us", "Surrender for your own good"

- Kanon Siege Forces, 2001

Kanon´s Robotic Facility

[Guest Rogue 9]

what about the massive German Bombing campaigns against England, or the Japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor you approve of those, I agree we probably shouldn't have nailed Dresden but the other Axis cities had it coming.

 

[This message has been edited by Rogue 9 (edited May 26, 2001).]

[Air Juggernaut]

I know that things too, I´m not approving it!. I know about not only the bombing of London, I know about the V-1 and V-2 too.

I simply put an example of each side, I can put everything because I don´t want to pay a lot in the cybercafe.

 

------------------

"All your base are belong to us", "Surrender for your own good"

- Kanon Siege Forces, 2001

Kanon´s Robotic Facility

[Rebel Loyaltist]

Forget WWII Online Bliztenberg we're having WWII recreated right here!

 

------------------

My sigs never make sense and people never understand them. I really don't give a f*ck!

[Nute Gunray]

There are no civilians in war. Everything is a valid target. EVERYTHING.

Civilians work in factories, refineries, etc. They're just as much a part of the war as soldiers and pilots. Quickest way to end a war is to remove the method of replenishing the soldier's supplies. You accomplish that by bombing a city into nothing.

[Admiral Zaarin]

I think people are misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, just that I personally wouldn't play the game.

[Guest Rogue 9]

I didn't mis-understand you, I was just exploiting an opening for discussion

[Guest Jabba The Hunt]

ive just thought about this from reading the Star Wars galaxies page, they are not going to let you become a storm troopper or anything because 1 they would start shooting the people on their side just to see what happens, 2 they dont want to force people into not being able to shoot their own side so they just dont let them be storm troopers, personally i would prefere to be a strom trooper and not be able to shoot friends rather than not be able to be one at all, anyway my point is how do they stop people shooting frienlies in this WWII thingy?

 

------------------

Official Forum Newbian

 

For every wierdness there is an equal and opposite wierdness

 

For Chrisomatic web site handling email -

jabbathehunt@hotmail.com

[Nute Gunray]

why would you WANT to shoot your friends? if they're your friend, then chances are they're going to be on your side and no army has ever won a war by guys killing their squadmates...

 

the REAL reason you can't be stormie in galaxies is an episode II spoiler.

 

[This message has been edited by Nute Gunray (edited May 27, 2001).]

[Guest Hamblin]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray:

 

There are no civilians in war. Everything is a valid target. EVERYTHING.

Civilians work in factories, refineries, etc. They're just as much a part of the war as soldiers and pilots. Quickest way to end a war is to remove the method of replenishing the soldier's supplies. You accomplish that by bombing a city into nothing.

 

Aside from the moral implications of what you're saying there (Of which I will not begin to try to explain, seeing as how you would most likely ignore or not understand them), I will simply apply myself to arguing the strategic folly of your statement.

 

Nute Gunray, have you ever read Sun Tzu's The Art of War?

 

Just in case you've never heard of it, it is the oldest military treatise in the world, and much of it is still applicable today as it was then.

 

Allow me to quote to you from it. Anything italicised is additional notation from other sources in my copy of the Art of War, in order to clarify anything that could be misunderstood.

 

[13:7]Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes:

 

(1) Local spies;

(2) inward spies;

(3) converted spies;

(4) doomed spies;

(5) surviving spies.

 

[13:8]When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty.

 

[13:9]Having LOCAL SPIES means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

 

In the enemy's country, win people over by kind treatment, and use them as spies.

 

[13:14]Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies.

 

None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved.

 

 

Allow me to explain further, in case you fail to understand.

 

War is not simply mindless butchering of anything you call the "enemy". And it's never so simple as:

 

Military = Fights the enemy (you)

Civillians = Produces supplies to help the military fight you

 

In some cases, war can be waged for the very purpose of liberating those very same civillians from whomever it is you are waging war against.

 

But furthermore, moving back to the strategic folly of your philosophy (As I suspect you don't have the mental capacity or integrity to understand a moral argument) mindlessly butchering civillians can serve to only be a hinderence to any plan of conquest. If you kill them, they'll simply be more determined to work against you, and they will feel like that much more of a conquered people. They will form resistance movements, they will kill your soldiers through terrorism, they will supply intelligence to your enemy, they will work behind the lines to disrupt your flow of supplies, to weaken your war effort, and to generally make it too much effort for you to be there.

 

Again, Sun Tzu supports this notion.

 

[3:1]Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

 

[3:2]Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

 

[3:6]Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

 

[3:7]With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete.

 

This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

 

In short, your policy is foolhardy, shortsighted, and ultimately self defeating. You fail to consider all of the possible situations, you simply assume that war is as straightforward as "You kill all of them, or they kill all you"

 

Lastly, I tried to avoid preaching to you about the moral repugnance of your statement, because obviously you see war in that glorified sense I see all too often nowadays - as just a way to meaninglessly "blow things up", to satiate your desire to, well, see things blow up. But let me just say that war is nothing like that. There aren't words to adequately describe the horror of war, so I won't try to. Instead I'll leave you with this saying a friend of mine once told me.

 

"Only those who haven't experienced war, admire it."

[milkshake]

It seems that this man knows what he's talking about.

[ME_Jeldren]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray:

Quickest way to end a war is to remove the method of replenishing the soldier's supplies. You accomplish that by bombing a city into nothing.

 

Didn't work in WW2. Massive bombings actually prolonged the war. Revenge is quite a

good motivation for the soldiers in the field.

[Nute Gunray]

Can't fight back without guns. If you destroy their means to make guns, then they have to face your tanks with sticks. Can't win that one (if you're the poor sap with the stick).

 

I think Sun Tzu was a moron. Sun Pin or that guy that wrote Achtung! Panzer! were both much smarter.

[Guest Rogue 9]

If not for Cilvilian Bombing the Americans would have left the War, the Bombings of england are what convinced many Americans to helping fight the Germans, had attrocities not been commited by the Germans and Italians TRhe U.S. might never have supported a side in the war. we would never have embargoed Japan, Pearl Harbor never would have happened. Military supplies might have ceased traversing the Atlantic in favor of fortifing out borders and England would have floundered in it battle to defend itself. Russia too.

 

thats jumbled because its a string of thought, decipher it if you can

 

------------------

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

[Nute Gunray]

Actually, US strategic bombing of Germany cut the war FAR shorter than it could have been. It didn't 'lengthen' it by any stretch. If the US hadn't been bombing factories, then the Luftwaffe could have produced more and more fighters and the Wehrmacht MIGHT have had enough panzers to actually have won in the Ardennes. Germany was already beaten by the time the Allies made their landing. They just had to liberate a few countries and take out the German ground forces.

It's a simple fact that US strategic bombing won that war.

[Guest Rogue 9]

lets give the brits there due, they bombed the heck out of them at night, Americans Had the B-17 and B-24 Bombers which when heavily armed and carried out daytime strikes

[ME_Jeldren]

Originally posted by Nute Gunray:

Can't fight back without guns. If you destroy their means to make guns, then they have to face your tanks with sticks. Can't win that one (if you're the poor sap with the stick).

 

Morale is the most important factor in a war. Lack of skill and manpower crippeled germany

later in the war. Add some moral problems and germany might give up in 1944. Germany

on the other hand might be victorious without terrorizing the local population. Germany

could take north africa instead of attacking britain in 1940. I doublt that the britsh could

refuse a german peace offer after a german victory in north africa. The germany were also

greeted as liberators by the russian population. This lasted until the bad guy came.

 

 

 

[Guest Hamblin]

Can't fight back without guns. If you destroy their means to make guns, then they have to face your tanks with sticks. Can't win that one (if you're the poor sap with the stick).

 

That's a gross over-simplification, but I suppose from someone of your obviously lowered intelligence and sub-par debating skills, it should be expected. To simply claim "You can't fight without guns" is like saying "Guns are the only weapons an Army needs". There are many ways of fighting without being direct. Terrorism is a perfect example of this. What's to stop the surviving civillians from the ones you've butchered, from becoming terrorists (Freedom fighters, it'd be to them)?

 

And then what will you do? Terrorists are infinitely harder to put down than a standing army, because their goal is to maintain a low level conflict indefinitely, until eventually, you've lost so much equipment, so many lives, and used up so much time and effort in trying to stop them, that they become more trouble than they're worth.

 

Of course, all you're interested in is finding any excuse to murder civillians.

 

If you're simply using guns as a metaphor for every type of military weapon, then again, I say you're a complete moron, since guns are notoriously simple, easy and cheap to produce. Mines are notoriously simple, easy and cheap to produce, and they can have a huge effect on an approaching army. In World War 2, Aircraft were very easy to produce, they weren't nearly as complex as they are today, and could be produced at a fraction of today's cost. Furthermore, German industry was very mobile, which meant the bombings had a negligable effect, and were more a means of killing German civillians.

 

Air Chief Marshall Harris (I think that was his name), in charge of Royal Air Force Bomber Command, had ordered around the clock bombings of Germany and German industry, in conjunction with the United States Army Air Force, in order to try to weaken Germany's war effort that way.

 

In many of these bombings, Incendiary bombs were used, and the bombing of Dresden is one of the most famous of these "firebombings". Dresden being a major centre of German industry.

 

Now, when these Incendiary bombs were dropped on Dresden, the massive fires all drew in huge amounts of oxygen. With all this oxygen and air being drawn in so fast, it created a firestorm, which only helped spread the fires further. The entire city was completely obliterated, with massive loss of life.

 

And in the end, it was for nothing. The German Arms industry was based on ball bearings, as these were used as mechanisms within German rifles. But because it was based on ball bearings, it was very mobile and very easy to set up elsewhere. It made no appreciable effect on German industry, at the cost of an entire city, and thousands of lives.

 

Nute Gunray, obviously you know next to nothing about the effect Allied strategic bombing had on the German War effort. Maybe you should actually read history before making statements like "US Strategic bombing won the war".

 

Yes, it really won the war in North Africa, didn't it?

 

It really won the war on the Eastern front, didn't it?

 

It really won the war against Italy, didn't it?

 

It really won the war in Greece, didn't it?

 

It really won the war in the Pacific, didn't it (Hiroshima caused them to surrender, but in and of itself, it didn't "win the war", it was a trigger of their surrender after they'd already been defeated. The war was already won, Hiroshima just pushed them to surrender).

[milkshake]

Dude, don't insult Nute, it's not a pretty sight.