Ramm-Jaeger and his views on the Console Mod development

  • 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/

SchutzeSepp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 23, 2006
1,540
8
0
36
Sure, the Soviets nailed the Germans on the eastern front... with extensive help via US supplies. The German backbone was BROKEN by the USA, British and their allies when Germany tried to push through Bastogne to the coast attempting to divide the Allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge.

Germany had brought its finest from the Eastern Front along with its meager resources of old men and young teens in a last ditch effort using their best armored divisions. The German High Command advised Hitler against such a move to no avail. That's the "when and where" Germany got its back broken... Patton and Monty hammered the Germans. When the Germans capitulated at The Bulge, they were all but done...

the bulge was the drip of water, that made the bucket (that the russians had filled) spill over.

the german army broke itself there. and the american victory in the west, was more of a political then a military victory. and thank god for that, because otherwise wed be speaking russian in belgium...
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
the bulge was the drip of water, that made the bucket (that the russians had filled) spill over.

the german army broke itself there. and the american victory in the west, was more of a political then a military victory. and thank god for that, because otherwise wed be speaking russian in belgium...

I appreciate your opinion, but its only that ..an opinion. Tell the thousands of troops, both Allied and Axis, who fought and died during the Battle of the Bulge that it was a "political operation". Had the weather not broken when it did, the Germans might very well have made it to their goal, Antwerp.

To be frank, Churchill had already surmised Joe Stalin's intentions of engulfing as much of Europe as possible. Thus, the push by Churchill for a second invasion into the "soft underbelly" of Europe. Winston Churchill was a great leader. (He foresaw the coming of the "Iron Curtain and named it such.) It was Patton's presence with the US Third Army "at Berlin's doorstep" that held the Russians back from any further westward movement. Please guys... take a good read, do the research about this time of the war.
 

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
Believe me, the market is not only ready - its begging for TWI's composition of the RO accuracy and gameplay for the ENTIRE EUROPEAN THEATER. I firmly believe TWI can walk away a huge winner. I've heard and read nothing but "where are the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Poles, Free French etc".. but especially one hears the cry for the Canadians, British and Americans done with the accuracy TWI is known for. TWI will undoubtedly be a big winner.
This is a great idea, probably/possibly ( Can't be certain as I'm not psychic). Something for everyone that might attract more players than focusing on just 1 or 2 countries alone. I admit I'm really not too informed about all the individual battles and countries involved in WW2 but I would definitely be interested in playing as other countries despite the fact I'm American. I'd be especially interested in Poland, France and others like Romania (I know Romanian mod is in progress).
 

WickedPenguin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
669
8
0
Miami, FL
ut2004.wickedpenguin.com
Mike_Nomad, once again, I am not ignoring the U.S. contribution to the war. I am simply stating that other people had stake as well.

With regards to the Battle of the Bulge, what end would the Germans have accomplished with the operation? It would only have delayed the inevitable a bit longer.

Tie Breakers - Spoilers?? I wouldn't dare to minimize the US participation in WW2 in such an off-handed manner. You need to re-read your history books... especially those from the UK and Germany... you'll learn some very interesting facts.
I'm thinking you have some kind of inferiority complex. "Off-handed" manner? Was WW2's European Theatre not ground to a halt on the Western Front from 1940-44? It was effectively a stalemate - neither the British nor the Germans could launch signifigant operations across the channel. When American men, material, and weapons entered the picture, that's when we were able to move on North Africa, blood our men, and then take on Fortress Europe.

Once AGAIN - and for the last time - the Americans did not do it alone. Major player, yes, but they fought alongside a great many brave, smaller players. That's all I have been saying for three posts already. Stop trying to make it sound like I'm belittling U.S. efforts. I am done with this.

Sure, the Soviets nailed the Germans on the eastern front... with extensive help via US supplies. The German backbone was BROKEN by the USA, British and their allies when Germany tried to push through Bastogne to the coast attempting to divide the Allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge.
However much you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the German war machine threw itself upon the rocks against the Russians. Over the course of three years, they wasted countless men and resources. When the Allies invaded Normandy, they were facing an enemy that, while not a pushover at all, was far weaker than it was in 1941. Even so, the Allies got their butts handed to them many times. I just got done reading Deathtraps, an account from a US armored maintenance officer in Normandy. He goes into explicit detail regarding just how poorly the US tanks fared against the superior German armor. In the end, it was a game of numbers. The Germans simply couldn't offer up replacement troops to stem the flood of Allied soldiers pouring in from the West.

Also, don't overestimate the value of Allied resources. While they were certainly a help, many times the Russian equipment was far superior. An example would be the T-34 vs. the Sherman tank, or the PPSh vs the Tommy gun. Russian gear was simple, rugged, and it simply worked.

Because they do not recognize the depth of involvement and the contributions those countries made... makes it right?? Sorry, there are some serious misconceptions there. Sure, 1939 and the Blitz were before the Americans were FORMALLY in the war, but truthfully speaking, were Americans not already dying right alongside the Brits, Poles, French, etc..?? Not to mention the American lives lost by the US Navy Gun Crews aboard the ships and US Merchant Marine running the ships before the US formally entered WW2. US Navy Destroyers escorting and guarding the convoys headed for Great Britain that were sunk cost many American lives.
How is it...right? And reread my post - I said "noticeable amount of American blood". Sorry if that diminishes the contributions of the Navy, Merchant Marine, Flying Tigers in China, etc. What I'm saying is that there was quite a lot of bloodshed before the USA's full-scale involvement once war was officially declared by Congress in 1941. It had been 2.5 years since Germany stormed through Poland.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
Mike_Nomad, once again, I am not ignoring the U.S. contribution to the war. I am simply stating that other people had stake as well.

I never once insinuated or directly stated that other peoples and countries did not have a deep involvement in WW2.

With regards to the Battle of the Bulge, what end would the Germans have accomplished with the operation? It would only have delayed the inevitable a bit longer.

And your point is?? Germany needed the time to effect a surrender to only the Brits and USA as they deeply feared horrible retribution at the hands of the Russians.

I'm thinking you have some kind of inferiority complex. "Off-handed" manner?

Stop with the personal attacks, its not your style.

Was WW2's European Theatre not ground to a halt on the Western Front from 1940-44?

As for "ground to a halt" Consider; The Battle for Monte Cassino January 1944... Now then what month and year was the invasion of Sicily? July, 1943 and then there was Operation Avalanche - the Invasion of Salerno. And the prelude, the defeat of the Afrika Corps.

It was effectively a stalemate - neither the British nor the Germans could launch signifigant operations across the channel.

There was no stalemate.. that is an untrue representation of the time between the victories in Africa, Italy and the invasion of France. Plenty was going on as far as joint Allied operations were concerned during this time. The British. Poles, Free French, Canadians and US Troops were quite busy defeating Rommel and then invading Italy more than once and moving up the Italian Peninsular driving Axis forces out of first Rome then Italy altogether.

When American men, material, and weapons entered the picture, that's when we were able to move on North Africa, blood our men, and then take on Fortress Europe.

American Supplies, material and weapons were flowing into Great Britian LONG before any American troops were there. Your timelines are somewhat in error. Monty and the British Eight Army nailed Rommel at El Alamein, the second battle, during October - November 1942 thus ending all German hopes of occupying Egypt and gaining control of the Suez Canal and middle Eastern Oil.

Once AGAIN - and for the last time - the Americans did not do it alone. Major player, yes, but they fought alongside a great many brave, smaller players. That's all I have been saying for three posts already. Stop trying to make it sound like I'm belittling U.S. efforts. I am done with this.

Once again WHAT? Show me... where I ever said the Americans did ANYTHING alone.. If you read into what I said as insinuating you belittled US efforts.. you are 100% correct as you did in the manner is which you said things. (Tie Breakers - Spoilers??) You may not have meant it that way but it sure read that way. I am glad you are done with this.

However much you'd like to convince yourself otherwise, the German war machine threw itself upon the rocks against the Russians. Over the course of three years, they wasted countless men and resources. When the Allies invaded Normandy, they were facing an enemy that, while not a pushover at all, was far weaker than it was in 1941. Even so, the Allies got their butts handed to them many times.

I am not engaged in telling myself tall tales, I rely upon historical accounts. Not novels or movies. Agreed, there was nothing easy about the Normandy invasions. You seem to forget that German war production was at an all time high at the time of the Normandy Invasion - much, much higher than in 1941.

I just got done reading Deathtraps, an account from a US armored maintenance officer in Normandy. He goes into explicit detail regarding just how poorly the US tanks fared against the superior German armor. In the end, it was a game of numbers. The Germans simply couldn't offer up replacement troops to stem the flood of Allied soldiers pouring in from the West.

That's a good read and true, the Allied armor enjoyed the knickname of "The Ronsons" after the lighter that lights up every time. This is a well known fact and the battle of attrition that finally won the war ... although the numbers of wounded and dead on both the Axis the Allied parts were horrific.

Also, don't overestimate the value of Allied resources. While they were certainly a help, many times the Russian equipment was far superior. An example would be the T-34 vs. the Sherman tank, or the PPSh vs the Tommy gun. Russian gear was simple, rugged, and it simply worked.

And you point is? Was it not Goering who said when he saw the Mustangs flying over Germany; "We've lost the war"? All sides had magnificent weaponry to brag about.

How is it...right? And reread my post - I said "noticeable amount of American blood". Sorry if that diminishes the contributions of the Navy, Merchant Marine, Flying Tigers in China, etc. What I'm saying is that there was quite a lot of bloodshed before the USA's full-scale involvement once war was officially declared by Congress in 1941. It had been 2.5 years since Germany stormed through Poland.

Two and half years for what?? US involvement?? WRONG.... Volunteers, Munitions, foodstuffs and supplies were flowing into Britian long before GERMANY DECLARED WAR on the USA. You also left out the Eagle Squadron (all US Flyers) that fought along side the RAF from before 1939. Did you know that the Eagle Squadron was part of the foundation for the US Army Air Corps? Further, most of the American/Canadian lives lost were volunteers by the thousands that went "over there" to fight. I never mentioned Chenault's Flying Tigers but since you did.. you neglected to point out that they fought against the Japanese only.

Thanks for the debate, it was invigorating. :)
 
Last edited:

SchutzeSepp

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 23, 2006
1,540
8
0
36
I appreciate your opinion, but its only that ..an opinion. Tell the thousands of troops, both Allied and Axis, who fought and died during the Battle of the Bulge that it was a "political operation". Had the weather not broken when it did, the Germans might very well have made it to their goal, Antwerp...

you like to use strong words, but they can be turned against you, like:
Tell the thousands of troops, both Allied and Axis, who fought and died during the Battle of the Bulge that it was a "political operation".
tell the !millions! of russians who died fighting the germans in the east for over 3 years that its not them, but the americans who broke the germans back :rolleyes:

and also there is no way that the germans could have carried out their ardennes offensief succesfully, no fuel, no ammo, no food, no tanks. what happened in the bulge was actually quite an achievement for the germans, regarding the resources they had they did more than well.
it is hitler himself who defeated the german army, that why the allies cancelled all their assasination plans on him, just because he was a poor strategist and would bring the german army down by his mistakes.
 

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
13,333
4,054
113
I think you two found the wrong forum section to argue this in :) Take it to the history section.
 

Jhaxavier

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 9, 2006
467
0
0
Oh Snap.

Nice one Jaeger :D

I actually agree...the PC mod scene is in trouble...remember DA2 for the RO engine?

It grabbed about 20 players in the first week then dwindled off and died.

Some new HL1 mods (e.g. Ragnarok Arena) were also revolutionary, but were quickly snuffed out, and I bet countless other mods go the same path...:(

Can't wait till the new game by you guys n.n!
 

Gnasher

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 24, 2006
39
0
0
Sussex UK
and the american victory in the west

Allied victory old boy, Allied victory! You do a huge disservice to the Poles, Canadians, Brasilians, Indians, Nigerians, South Africans, English, Dutch, Norwegian, French, Czech, Aussie & Kiwi men and women that provided a massive & probably equal contribution to winning of the war. US material contribution was repaid in spades with IP from the other Allied powers, remember that.

If you value freedom, thank a veteran!
 

{FUX}busterhyman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 10, 2006
175
0
0
Allied victory old boy, Allied victory! You do a huge disservice to the Poles, Canadians, Brasilians, Indians, Nigerians, South Africans, English, Dutch, Norwegian, French, Czech, Aussie & Kiwi men and women that provided a massive & probably equal contribution to winning of the war. US material contribution was repaid in spades with IP from the other Allied powers, remember that.

If you value freedom, thank a veteran!
well said...an allied victory...not a usa victory

i guess all i am saying is that i dont really want to play another video game that is centered around glorifying the usa. its just old and been done way to many times:p
i am also saying that i think it is time for the kiddies who play these games to perhaps be forced to grow mentaly while playing the game. leave it up to some paranoid floridian to hold his hat to his heart and blither on and on about how great he and his country are. i think i will rest my case and say common...this is exactly what turns me off about appeasing to the american market instead of a global one. yes TW will make more money if they sell a game marketed towards the american masses, but at a cost of losing a good portion of the core folks who just are sick of seeing another "american g.i. in battle" game...i think i can speak for the rest of the world when i say "hey we are here too". whats wrong with wanting to play something other than a game that revolves around the usa? why cant there be a ww2 game that doesnt have americans in it? sorry for wanting to experience something else. dont let my opinons ruffle yer proud feathers:p