Apollo

Good stuff, ill get to testing right away. Apollo aka atillathegun

I was 10 when it happened, and i lived in a free country, but i remember it very clearly, the anticipation, then the people starting to ram on the wall.Our father let us stay up late that night, encouraged us to watch it.It was a big thing back then here in Belgium.My family is also ideologicly quite liberty oriented, and back then Soviet Russia was the Uber Evil menace that had a swarm of 10T Mushrooms pointing at us, and really for a country of our size 1 would be fine already.

Actually size shouldn't be a limit to the quality of equipment a country can use, in fact it isn't so neither in RL.Plenty of relativly small but advanced country's in this world do use modern equipment.Sure the Australians might have a only moderate army, but then again Australia is some isolated island In outwards Asia that has no enemies and few potential ones. Lets take for ex. Israel, a small country with plenty of top notch stuff, relativly atleast to their poppulation.Here money clearly is an factor to a good material quality to manpower rate, and an volatile region to provide a reason to mobilize more than normal % of poppulation in the army. Take for ex. Finland in WW2, a country with a relativly very low poppulation that neverthelless fielded a fairly large army with moderatly decent equipment, or a country that event today fields a fairly small though technologicly advanced army.Being next to Mother Russia helps in the prepperation field here, and international contacts in the aquisition of material partly.When Israel was only small (and poppulation wise extremely small) and new and attacked by all its neighbours in it's first war it was not much more than money and contacts that helped them achieve victory neither. The point is, if you have lots of money, strategic importance, and lots of friends, then you can get youre hands of quite some nifty material.Afcourse the VOLUME of the equipment that you will try to aquire will limit itself to the available manpower, but what it comes down to is then some understrenght brigades of some fine quality. Basicly it's quite simple.Put a giant oil field under nogova (theoreticly) and some derricks on top.There you have money, strategic importance and friends all combined.If all these factors are given then, why wouldn't Nogova opt for a high quality army that can maximize the use of the few manpower that the island has?If all else is given, Manpower becomes the one crucial resource that they might lack in the future, and from a strategic perspective it would then be top priority for it's military to try to protect it's manpower as much as possible.With the best equipment their money could afford.Heck even if they were fairly poor, millitia would always be the worst option available, as high losses could be expected from them.And there is reason to have a defense force, the island has been invaded before and it has threatening neighbours. Israels MBT, the Merkhava, is an ex. how a country that is righ and modern but lacks manpower can field something that is both of high quality and provides the best protection for its scarce manpower in the field.It more than logical if you consider that manpower is their greatest strategic consideration.Most army's in this world are buidl around factors and abundance and scarcity.And the fact is that manpower and quality here are usually opposite factors relavitvly to eachother.A country with hughe manpower like China less of a need for expensive high grade material, bang for the buck here is more effeciant, while country's with low manpower will usually buy the best they can buy, granted the limitations of funds and other resources.

I'm an old fan of the Paradox line of games to.Great games, more than worth their money.Great customer support, good modding community, also just very pleasent community.

Sorry i misspelled youre name. I argued so to ,but i think i argued to early and to uninformed like you on that matter.Atleast some people argue ,but i havn't seen sources that back up their claim ,that China would lack the capabilety's to transport a meaninfull amount of troops over that strait.I know it seems weird for such a country to only have a few obsolete transportation barks. But we can argue on the China matter for ages.Whats more important is effectiveness of bombing runs and it's potential capabilety's to knock out vast amounts of ground forces.As for the Kosovo case ,it shows thus that in that circumstance it didn't much effect ,however it was also due to the fact i guess that groundforces wern't commited.If Ground forces would have been present the Serbs would have been forced to move out their material and it probably would have been a different matter. Then again ,how much difference can air superiority make to odd's at the ground if sizeable forces are commited at each side.USA for ex. has about 7000 planes ,though granted a few thousand's are obsolete or of elder generation.Even Stealth's don't exactly come in big numbers. Thus the larger the amount of ground forces ,the fewer inpact the aircraft can have ,if litteraly millions of troops are commited on the ground ,how much difference can this air arsenal make? Another question i would ask ,how much of the effective of bombers is reduced if they have to fly a considerable distance to their target.In the kosovo war it was from a base in Italy ,not to far i guess but it might have had some inpact?

Thx Denoir ,this will be usefull.As to federation ,it's the only way ,surely Harvey has to come round someday. As to the original topic that was being discussed that lead me to ask this info ,it was about this article: "China will best US in war." - Tokyo Governor: Probably a political motivated speech ,otherwise said somebody wants japan to have more millitary probably.Asside for that it leads to an interresting discussion ,that is where exactly lies the limits for the USA in a conventional war with China.Some like me argue the USA might be able to have naval superiority up to some point (for ex around Taiwan) but wouldn't be able to effectivly invade the mainland ,atleast not by naval landing.Others argue that they would be able to do that given a limited campaign ,for ex. only taking Shangai and other important coastal city's ,something i doubt to. Parts of my argument were purely logistical ,i argued that the USA wouldn't be able to land enough men to effectivly capture territory on the mainland ,they would be way outnumbered ,while many American's argue that Air power alone would be able to reverse those odds. Though it's probably not a very smart idea to continue such a discussion in a thread with this title.Feel free anyone though to continue or make a new thread. This would be interresting to know to. In addition ,does anyone has a view of the intelligence gathering capabilety's of China? Would they be able to work comparably somewhat effeciant like the USA with means like sattelite's and Awac plane's to distribute targets?

I need some infor for a debate on an other message board. For one i need the count of plane's lost by NATO in the Kosovo war.I ask this here because i know denoir for one has ppretty good info on this but i didn't found his profile to PM him ,neither am i sure that he still posts here a lot.Possibly others here have heard the total count from him before or know a resource where i can find it. As to the spicific discussion ,is about possible air losses the USA could have if they would hold air superiority and bombing runs over Chinese mainland (say launched from Taiwan and korea) due to chinese ground based AA capabilety's. Basicly i got some American's who claim that the USA could easily take such city's as Beiing or Shangai in a limited campaign targetting the Chinese centers of commerce because their superiority in the air.I wanted to argue for one that ,due to a probably high amount of ground based AA present in china ,that the USA would incur serious losses with that.

Hi there. I'm no addon maker ,but i live in Ypres ,a city known for being on the front line of WW1 and being worn torn by it.There are plenty of WW1 museums out here ,and material to look at. Hence ,if you are ever in the need of information that i can aquire ,then just ask.

This is an idea about a different kind of CTI.One that differs from then normal variant in the sence that it's withought base building ,though it's still technicly a "capture the island" mission mainly for MP. The CTI would instead of having bases have a start point for both teams ,and both teams would have objective's and starting unit's.Both teams would get reinforcements instead of being able to build stuff ,however the number of reinforcements would depend on the situation and victory locations held.This reinforcements coud be a set amount of specific material ,or credits to buy unit's. (think panzergeneral for those who know it) The commander ,instead of base builder ,would fulfill the role of general and superior commander.He would assign players to command of various units ,assign waypoints and orders ,arrange reinforcements ,colect intelligence ,arrange supply's ,control artillery assets and/or air assets (should air assets be with AI ,like airstrikes) ,basicly the bigger picture of the mission. Other individual players would control teams and respawn like normal as "reinforcement" ,reinforcements in itself would be limited like only a x amount of infantry or tanks can be bought ,and possibly the availabilety of higher tech material would be scarcer in the long run compared to older material. Victory would depend on control of the victory locations and the objective's.For ex. one team could be set for defending ,and an other for invading ,having for ex and ofshore island (Like Nogova northern base) or an escorted aircraft carrier.Then the invading army would have to capture a set amount of Victory points in a certain timespan (like 2 hours) if one team controls it all it's decicive victory ,otherswhise marginal victory or defeat. However ,and even neater ,in order to easily fullfill the duty of general the playing commander could use an interface that is easy to use yet refined in options.For this the commander needs overview and an easy acces to various orders and commands.Various thoughts come to my mind but since im no modder i can not judge the realistic possibilety of an idea.But such thoughts would be: - To purely work from the map ,possibly with counters or unit symbols (though tank and heli icons are good as they are) ,possibly with a textured map so features can be seen.With the possibilety to give orders with a click of the mouse ,for ex if the commander sees an allied tank icon on map he could click it to see a list of orders and then click one of those orders with an assigning waypoint if needed ,or even be able to do it with right and left click button. - To work from a heightened camera viewpoint ,seeing allied units as they move and see only what they see to ,possibly with something resembling fog of war ,and with the possibilety to just click on uits like you can in games like command and conquer ,assigning orders like that or with something like a rol menu.For ex a a command menu where you can quicly switch trough unit's (possibly having a unit table on the bottom) ,clicking a certain order button in the menu ,and then a location on the map where the action should be done. Possibly ,one should also have a AI commander that can manage all assets and opperate independantly of humans and still be able to kick the strategic but of a human ,that would be really neat but not so simple. Possibly ,individual players ,of lower rank than the commander but still commanding a squad ,should also be able to control multiple squads with an easy interface ,though limited for performance ,like 2 or 3 squads max dependant of number of players ,though that idea is really optional. In essence ,it's just an other look on how CTI should be i think compared to the regular CTI we have now ,personally i find the base building and mhq management of it cumbersome ,well it's a fact most players rather wouldn't play commander even if they are good at it.I would rather like it if commanders would not only have strategical value ,but also that this strategical part is in the game for the effect it would have on it ,less messing around and more realistic war.Besides it adds elements from good strategical games. Though mind you ,it's only a set of idea's ,only the essence is important ,i think one would get the rough idea of reading all this.

Well we have nice WW2 addons as it is ,but bombers are also lacking in that timeframe ,just as they were in the modern time. (but recent work has filled that part) We got infantry WW2 ,tanks ,fighters ,artillery and even some ships from US ,Germany and Russia ,only the heavy bombers are somewhat laking there to for completion. Maybe do one for each side ,i think the Germans had the HE111 as bomber in WW ,i forgot the Russian heavy bomber but tat one is a hughe sucker. I know it's lots to ask ,and you probably have current projects , 'im not saying you have to do these ,i'm just saying this technoligy if we wish finaly makes this sort of addons possible in Ofp ,and now any addon maker can make one of these "not yet done" beauty's. HE111 I think there already are addons for the Brittish Lancaster and Halifax somewhere available.And those should have multiple Mg's on board to ,so maybe you can test a bit with those.. Oh ,and btw. Great work. Â

What about one of these! I know it's WW theme ,but it could be so nice.Afaik twin mg revolving turrets on top ,below and back.2 twin Mg's on side ,and one in the nose to.And then there is also the bombload. Actually specification sais 13 Mg's. http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html Would be cool to fight of a wing of those with fighters and interceptor's.

Looks nice ill try it out. One thing though i noticed the lack of Cl Klink's pt boats ,i think they could really add something maybe with some Pt boat missions.

nm wrong post place.

And a backpack full of car batteries. Is true though, probs be the size of an OICW x5 or something. lol Mount it on a car or tank ,no biggy... Even then ,there was a time that computers were the size of an appartment block to. Im no millitary expert though ,i guess there will be always plenty of people here that will know better...

looks great! Keep up the good work.