General OOC

I still don't understand why these historical figures wanted to invade Russia. General Winter is more dangerous than any army, and the whole place is too cold, too big, and not rich enough to get much loot.

Quote :

I still don't understand why these historical figures wanted to invade Russia. General Winter is more dangerous than any army, and the whole place is too cold, too big, and not rich enough to get much loot.

I guess they think let's first deal with russia, and then slowly but steady blockade Britain, since it generally have to much ships to get invaded. Luckily for britain both Napaleon and Hitler failed.. hard.

It was more overconfidence than anything.

Though for Hitler, Stalin was probably prepared to fight clear past the Ural mountains before he'd ever consider giving up.

Hitlers war in Russia was a very close thing, the Germans were handicapped by having Hitler, although to be fair the Russains were handicapped by having Stalin. if the germans had used all the russain industrial buildings they captured in the initial push they would have out produced the Russians, for whatever strange reason they didnt.

He better have been lol, the guy had signed a treaty saying that Russai would never stop fighting just like we did.

Hitler and Napoleon were like the same guy, big, scary and got wooped hard when the fucked with Russia and Britain.

As far as i am concerned outproduction didn't matter much, Hitler failed in calculations, and cold winter destroyed his chances.

Only half way.

It was pretty much a joint effort, if Hitler had beaten Britain into surrender his air force would of dominated you, no matter how many times the Russian air force went up it lost almosr every battle, the only reason it survived was sheer numbers.
The same as if Russia had surrendered the German Navy would of rammed a path through to Britain and we'd have ended up over run by sheer numbers, assuming we didn't sink them all first but thats highly unlikely.

It was just good luck that Russia stopped the army in it's tracks while we wooped the living hell out of the air force.

Then America joined in and started trying to claim all the credit.

Heh, well they did push them back... though only when the Russians and the British had crippled the lion's share of Wehrmacht's mobility. But I suppose that we should thank the Yankees for showing up before Russia could claim Europe. Imagine in what troubles we'd all be in, down here in Europe, after the SU fell. We'd all be like Estonia.

You seem to forget that the RAF was very close to going under during the Blitz until everyone's favorite dictator decided to go after the cities instead of the airfields.

As for trying to claim all the credit, I think that's a tad presumptuous. It's like saying the United States was the only one in the Pacific and Italian theatres when there were the Australians and kiwis fighting the Japanese and the British 8th army in Italy.

The presence of the US in the war was very critical, the only reason that the Soviet forces got so far so fast was due to the Western Front opening up, which I highly doubt the UK could have done on their own. Not impossible, but without a great deal of American hardware and manpower it might not have gotten off the beaches of Normandy.

This is all conjecture however, history happened as it did, nothing will change it and this entire debate is reaching the point of idiocy.

I know, though the RAF was not as close to going under as you'd think.

But he messed up because his pet spies told him we had hundreds less planes and pilots then we really did, so he thought he'd won just to find us come storming back.

Plus to be fair look at the numbers for the battle of Britain.


Strength
Britain
1,963 serviceable aircraft

German.
2,550 serviceable aircraft.




Casualties and losses


British.
544 aircrew killed
422 aircrew wounded
1,547 aircraft destroyed

German.
2,698 aircrew killed
967 captured
638 missing bodies identified by British authorities
1,887 aircraft destroyed



It was ugly but we were never close to really going down.
The germans lost more then 3300 men in total dead, almost 1000 more captured.
We had under 600 dead.#

It was messy true but in the end it was a catastrophic loss for the Germans which all but destroyed the German air forces ability to fight, from that point onwards it never played a significant role in the war again and every time the germans sent it back up we shot it back down again.

The Germans ruled the air for the first 2/3 of ww2 though we did still inflict huge losses considering how badly out numbered we were most of the time, but the day they began the attack on Britain was the day German air superiority was destroyed.

Though it may well have been the morale that was the biggest impact.

For the first time in ww2 the German air force failed, every country it had been deployed against had been physically unable to counter it until it attacked us, then it was driven back with catastrophic losses which was a massive morale boost for the Allies and an even bigger morale drop the Germans.
Then the Russians fought them to a stand still and routed, destroyed or captured some of Germanys most elite armored and infantry units.

Combine them both and the Germans were going down, America joining did speed things up but by that point they were already fighting a losing battle trying to hold the ground they had taken under a never ending series of gurilla attacks.
It was purely a matter of time until they buckled.

Mesor wrote:

He better have been lol, the guy had signed a treaty saying that Russai would never stop fighting just like we did.

Hitler and Napoleon were like the same guy, big, scary and got wooped hard when the fucked with Russia and Britain.

Except that Napoleon didn't cause anywhere near as many deaths, and most of those were war dead rather than massacred like the Holocaust (though the French Revolution had its share of butchery already). Also, Napoleon wasn't incompetent. But yes, they would have looked similar to the Englishmen of their respective times, and both needed to be stopped.

Enough is enough.

You want to discuss WW2 go find a different site, PoP is as far from it as you can get.

Alaric Reiner wrote:

This is all conjecture however, history happened as it did, nothing will change it and this entire debate is reaching the point of idiocy.

+1

On another note: Ser Varys will be joining with a landed knight for Kelredan and I've decided to not have any NPC knights there, so at Kelredan its his character and Sir Iobairt only.

Alaric Reiner wrote:

Enough is enough.

You want to discuss WW2 go find a different site, PoP is as far from it as you can get.

Good point, stopping now.

Good to hear we will have another Kelredan landed knight soon. Perhaps I can persuade him to join my forces...

Iskar wrote:

On another note: Ser Varys will be joining with a landed knight for Kelredan and I've decided to not have any NPC knights there, so at Kelredan its his character and Sir Iobairt only.

Awesome! Varys is great at what he does IC.

When will he be joining?

He's already there. He's always there. Beware

Good, because I've been knocking on his door for more than a realtime day. Not that I expect him to see that without having it pointed out - there's far too much already written to expect him to read it all.

So, for the record: In IC-Scene: Kelredan, I am knocking on Ser Varys' character's door.

Yea it's kinda boring, I can't do anything at all until he shows up.

I don't think I've ever actually seen his name in the little list of people online at the bottom either.

Er, on second reading my last post indicated much more impatience than I actually feel. My apologies.

Iskar wrote:

He's already there. He's always there. Beware

I'm slowly reading all of it, so don't worry, I'll try to catch up as quick as humanly possible.

Out of curiosity why does the knight only get a 40% chance of hitting?
Looking at the fight it makes me wonder.
We have a Knight, so he's trained since his mid teens to use his weapons, he's trained the same time to fight on horseback and he has superior quality plate armor and weapons.

Then you have 2 bandits, they have some combat training and they have scavenged equipment which is at best good quality.

Yet the Knight and the bandits in terms of rolls required and percentage chances are identical? That seems a bit off to me given the difference in fighting skill between a Knight and a Bandit.

Who is not to say that the bandits have not been bandits and fighting just as long as the knight?

The Knights also on an injured horse so its going to take more effort to control it.

And third, you're always trying to swing it so far in your favor that you'll always have a sure chance of winning. Just let Iskar do his thing, he tales everything into consideration and makes it fair for both participants.

Alaric Reiner wrote:

And third, you're always trying to swing it so far in your favor that you'll always have a sure chance of winning. Just let Iskar do his thing, he tales everything into consideration and makes it fair for both participants.

+1, so far Iskar hasn't ever really let things get unfair in terms of GMing. I think it's as close to fair as you can get with a human refereeing.

Regarding Heinrich's story, if you want to read it, it's in the 'IC-Materials Lords....and Assets' thead.'