Italian Modification

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice
Status
Not open for further replies.

Meadow

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 17, 2006
44
0
0
Right, I've got a cold at the moment so I'll have to wait a few days to record these - can you hang on for me? I'd love to do some voice acting.
 

Meadow

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 17, 2006
44
0
0
I think someone's played CoD2 ;)

If it's ok, I might record slightly different taunts, but if you guys don't want to use 'em but like my voice anyway, I'll do the old ones.
 

Meadow

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 17, 2006
44
0
0
Is it possible to have two different voices? I can probably pull off a middle class officer's voice if you need one.
 

Rameusb5

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
871
1
0
Just wanted to say I'm looking forward to this. Good luck!

(Wish I knew how to do something useful to help)
 

Boogerhead

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 16, 2006
509
2
0
A general suggestion, if I may, if you guys are talking about resource sharing:

You may be able to beg some models and the like, if only as a starting point, from an existing free mod that, at least in playable form, is open-source. The developers may also have some of the background materials they used (say, photos of weapons) to help.

There's a Quake II mod called D-Day: Normandy, at http://ddc.planetquake.gamespy.com. An Italian team was developed earlier this year but never fully tested and released, which, I need to say, up front, is partially my fault.

Released teams include:
-- U.S. Army
-- German (doesn't help much, yes)
-- Russian (doesn't help much, yes)
-- British (also a starting point for Canadian)
-- U.S. Marine Corps
-- Japanese
-- Polish
 

Moz

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,773
1
0
at the very least they could be art placeholders.

Placeholders are as critical as the real thing in terms of developement
 

wulfhund

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 21, 2006
1
0
0
I am new to this forum, and was kind of surprised at some of the ignorance displayed toward the Italians in WWII, considering I figured there would be lots of Grognards here. I applaud WickedPenguin in actually coming up with some kind of factual statement quoted from someone who was actually there. Operationally, the Italians sucked, their equipment and leadership was third rate (although some of their aircraft were pretty advanced), but many of the men (especially the colonials, blackshirt and special troops) were highly motivated and fought alongside the axis right until the end of the war.

Although many of the troops of the RSI were draftees, they fielded an army of 800,000 in the last year of the war, where as the allies could only scrape together about 28,000. Now some may say that they were not trusted by the Germans and were used mostly in rear area operations, the same could also be said for the Allies. Despite this many small units of the RSI were attached directly to Wermacht units and fought alongside of them.

If you need a quote from an allied source about the quality of some of the Italian troops, I give you General Hughes of the British 44th infantry division:

"I wish to say that in all my life I have never encountered soldiers like those of the Folgore."

Here are some links if you would like to read more about what prompted him to say this:

http://bearcatspage.50megs.com/catalog.html

http://xoomer.alice.it/miarmel/Folgore.htm

http://members.tripod.com/nembo/nembopage.html
 

Psycho_Sam

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 6, 2006
1,242
16
0
33
Birmingham, UK
www.rawgames.co.uk
First of all Wulfhund welcome to the RO forums.

Secondly, yes I agree that many view the Italians as cowards such as the French army. However these are sterotypes just like French men dont have strings of onions round thier knecks and British men dont all wear Bowler hats and drink tea.

I would not let statements like this aggrevate you. With any luck the mod will ignite some interest in this theatre of war and people will go and do some casual resarch and learn that not everything you are told is true.


Sam :)
 

paulus1975

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 7, 2006
34
0
0
Rome, Italy
Whirlwind said:
First of all Wulfhund welcome to the RO forums.

Secondly, yes I agree that many view the Italians as cowards such as the French army. However these are sterotypes just like French men dont have strings of onions round thier knecks and British men dont all wear Bowler hats and drink tea.

I would not let statements like this aggrevate you. With any luck the mod will ignite some interest in this theatre of war and people will go and do some casual resarch and learn that not everything you are told is true.


Sam :)

And of course nobody here has mentioned the Italians fighting the Germans on Cephalonia (after the Italian king surrendered - a nod to the loyalty of the soldiers). Had the Italians been cowards (as they are stereotypically portrayed to be) they would have surrendered en masse (perhaps like the 80,000 British in Singapore?) but instead they held a referendum and decided to fight against the Germans reinforcing Cephalonia, eventually surrendering (knowing full well the Germans considered them traitors) when they ran out of ammunition and were hopelessly surrounded. 6,000 were murdered by the Germans in cold blood. I don't know how you can call that cowardice.

On a brighter note, I am married to an Italian woman and considering the immense beauty of Italy, its food, its weather and of course its women, I am inclined to understand why an Italian wouldn't want to throw away his life when the peninsula had been overrun for centuries by foreign invaders...yet the Italians always managed to survive and prosper.

In no case can their conduct in WW2 (either the fanatical Fascist divisions or the impoverished southern conscripts fighting for some northern journalist named Mussolini or the 250,000+ partisans fighting the Germans from late '43 to '45) be considered representative of the Italian people as a whole. Their leadership has almost always been reprehensible throughout history, and regional and class differences make it virtually impossible to reach a consensus on their character, especially in times of war. The Romans struggled to unify the Italian peoples (Socii) and modern day Italy is very similar to what it was 2,500 years ago. If anything unifies Italians - however briefly - it is football and not warfare.
 

paulus1975

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 7, 2006
34
0
0
Rome, Italy
King Ragnar said:
Yeh but we owned more of the world then anyone else so :p
I think it's "than anyone else"...but I suppose it depends on one's pronunciation. :D

One can't sit in the capital cities of conquered colonies and call that "ownership" (as the Italians found out in Abyssinia), especially when 95%+ of the governed populace is rural.

This is by no means a personal attack or a flaming of Britain, but it's worth stating that the British very soon came face to face with this issue of "ownership," most importantly in Egypt and India, both of whose various nationalist movements (while supplying troops for the British cause) were galvanised by Britain's inability to defend her far-flung empire in the face of such predictable aggression from the Axis, especially in Asia. The Japanese are also said to have sat up and taken notice at South Africa's success in shaking off British colonial rule and saw how, especially after WW1, Britain would have problems mustering the manpower to meet insurgent threats or invasions. Britain's technological advantage in sea and firepower was negated in an increasingly rapid fashion in the 20th century, and that would only leave manpower as a lever by which to control the colonies. Sadly WW1 saw the near-wholesale destruction of "the flower of British male youth" and WW2 only ensured that Britain would have even fewer men capable of manning an empire, leaving the way open to the US to complete is supplanting of Britain as the world's great western power. Surrendering 80,000 of those men to the Japanese without so much as a fight was a grave indication of Britain's loss of supremacy in the world, and it is no coincidence that this, its greatest military disaster, occurred at the height of its territorial overextension and precariousness.

I would therefore strongly question the notion of "ownership" of most of Britain's 20th century empire. "Varying degrees of administration" may be a more correct term to describe a situation which has been likened to a chef attempting to keep the lids on 20 different pots all boiling over, while his arm is in a sling with "The Great War" written on it. :p
 

King Ragnar

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 7, 2005
1,026
0
0
Newcastle, UK
paulus1975 said:
I think it's "than anyone else"...but I suppose it depends on one's pronunciation. :D

One can't sit in the capital cities of conquered colonies and call that "ownership" (as the Italians found out in Abyssinia), especially when 95%+ of the governed populace is rural.

This is by no means a personal attack or a flaming of Britain, but it's worth stating that the British very soon came face to face with this issue of "ownership," most importantly in Egypt and India, both of whose various nationalist movements (while supplying troops for the British cause) were galvanised by Britain's inability to defend her far-flung empire in the face of such predictable aggression from the Axis, especially in Asia. The Japanese are also said to have sat up and taken notice at South Africa's success in shaking off British colonial rule and saw how, especially after WW1, Britain would have problems mustering the manpower to meet insurgent threats or invasions. Britain's technological advantage in sea and firepower was negated in an increasingly rapid fashion in the 20th century, and that would only leave manpower as a lever by which to control the colonies. Sadly WW1 saw the near-wholesale destruction of "the flower of British male youth" and WW2 only ensured that Britain would have even fewer men capable of manning an empire, leaving the way open to the US to complete is supplanting of Britain as the world's great western power. Surrendering 80,000 of those men to the Japanese without so much as a fight was a grave indication of Britain's loss of supremacy in the world, and it is no coincidence that this, its greatest military disaster, occurred at the height of its territorial overextension and precariousness.

I would therefore strongly question the notion of "ownership" of most of Britain's 20th century empire. "Varying degrees of administration" may be a more correct term to describe a situation which has been likened to a chef attempting to keep the lids on 20 different pots all boiling over, while his arm is in a sling with "The Great War" written on it. :p

lol you didnt need to write all that, you could have just said that ww 1 & 2 destroyed the empire we all know that anyhoo way off topic, goo Italian Mod:D
 

Jono

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 26, 2005
890
24
0
paulus1975 said:
I think it's "than anyone else"...but I suppose it depends on one's pronunciation. :D

One can't sit in the capital cities of conquered colonies and call that "ownership" (as the Italians found out in Abyssinia), especially when 95%+ of the governed populace is rural.

This is by no means a personal attack or a flaming of Britain, but it's worth stating that the British very soon came face to face with this issue of "ownership," most importantly in Egypt and India, both of whose various nationalist movements (while supplying troops for the British cause) were galvanised by Britain's inability to defend her far-flung empire in the face of such predictable aggression from the Axis, especially in Asia. The Japanese are also said to have sat up and taken notice at South Africa's success in shaking off British colonial rule and saw how, especially after WW1, Britain would have problems mustering the manpower to meet insurgent threats or invasions. Britain's technological advantage in sea and firepower was negated in an increasingly rapid fashion in the 20th century, and that would only leave manpower as a lever by which to control the colonies. Sadly WW1 saw the near-wholesale destruction of "the flower of British male youth" and WW2 only ensured that Britain would have even fewer men capable of manning an empire, leaving the way open to the US to complete is supplanting of Britain as the world's great western power. Surrendering 80,000 of those men to the Japanese without so much as a fight was a grave indication of Britain's loss of supremacy in the world, and it is no coincidence that this, its greatest military disaster, occurred at the height of its territorial overextension and precariousness.

I would therefore strongly question the notion of "ownership" of most of Britain's 20th century empire. "Varying degrees of administration" may be a more correct term to describe a situation which has been likened to a chef attempting to keep the lids on 20 different pots all boiling over, while his arm is in a sling with "The Great War" written on it. :p
Yep but at least we didn't keep on changing to the winning side during the second world war. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.