RO Realism - Whats the story?
- Thread starter palma646
- Start date
Well it looks (as always) there are many people interested in Soviet and Allied realism gaming. What is lacking is a leader with some organizational skills, who has a vested interest in the game and is willing to get it off the ground and devote some of his time and money to the unit; not a newbie who decided to get a free forum with a fleeting ambition for a unit like so many of the other previous Allied units. Not only a leader is needed but some reliable competent subordinates who can help shoulder some of the burden and fill in with the CO is gone.
Units like 1.SS, 17.SS, and others have been around years for these reasons (the 17.SS has always been around just with different names for the mods).
Units like 1.SS, 17.SS, and others have been around years for these reasons (the 17.SS has always been around just with different names for the mods).
Seems like you hit the nail on the head there Stahl. The 181st was the backbone of allied realism community under the leadership of Viktor. However when he left a lack of sensible dedicated and competent subordinates caused the unit to collapse and die. Same sort of thing happened with the 193rd when there leader no longer had the time to commit to the unit for whatever reason the unit died as none of the subordinates had the inclination or the will to pick up the slack and the unit died.
So from this we can deduce that in order for a unit to survive and prosper in the long term two things are required a strong and competent leader but also equally competent and motivated subordinates so that the running and advancement of the unit can continue even if the leader for what ever reason must retire or no longer has sufficient time to commit to the running of the unit.
This is can be clearly seen in the 17.SS/72.Inf.Div(former 3.SS) when the leader became inactive there has always been somebody to step up and take the reins (myself) and there have always been dedicated people that have helped me in the running of the unit and I have full confidence that they could continue to run the unit just as effectivly if I was absent.
Regards
Ernst Hoffmann
So from this we can deduce that in order for a unit to survive and prosper in the long term two things are required a strong and competent leader but also equally competent and motivated subordinates so that the running and advancement of the unit can continue even if the leader for what ever reason must retire or no longer has sufficient time to commit to the running of the unit.
This is can be clearly seen in the 17.SS/72.Inf.Div(former 3.SS) when the leader became inactive there has always been somebody to step up and take the reins (myself) and there have always been dedicated people that have helped me in the running of the unit and I have full confidence that they could continue to run the unit just as effectivly if I was absent.
Regards
Ernst Hoffmann
Last edited:
No. I completely disagree with that. We agreed collectivly that RO realism was dying. We are still a community (Invasion X) and still play games as a group but just not competitivly.
We tried DH Realism but after one game decided to leave it alone.
Our leader (representative of collective decisions) continues to play RO Competitvely for another unit but is still the figure head of our community.
Last edited:
I am fully aware of the ‘status’ of the x-leader of the 193rd, and regardless of whether it was a collective decision or not the 193rd ceased to exist as an active realism unit. Things needn’t have been that way DH is a perfectly reasonable platform for a realism unit and even has a realism campaign. I realise that you are committed left wingers and the prospect of playing as ether the American or German forces would be far from compelling. But still you could have remained in RO like the 3.SA. But like in my original statement none of the members had to motivation to continue the unit on the RO platform.
Invasion X is a non-realism community that plays a variety of games non competitively therefore its existence is completely irrelevant in this argument. Anyway the point me and Herr Stahl have come to is that soviets are less enthused by the idea or realism and do not have the same passion for the immersive and realistic aspects that with a little bit of effort can de achieved in this game. I don’t mean any offense by that so don’t go and blow your stack I am just pointing out observations.
I would love more than anyone to see a new realistic soviet unit similar to the old 181st emerge because it would give me and my unit somebody to fight. Regards
Ernst Hoffmann
Last edited:
We realized at the creation of the unit, and like you realize now, that there was a need for Allied units. We fitted the role most needed, and I do not speak for everyone that was in the unit, but I am heavily interested in Axis history and tactics, and so were others. However, we felt that need was more important than want, and so we set in motion to the creation of a Soviet unit.
There were plenty of like minds interested in history, and realism, in the Soviet community, just as much as the Axis. I think the main problem was, instead of compromising on certain issues of play when we fought each other, we would rather discuss the nuances of what realism is in our opinion. While it is nice to discuss the philosophy of realism, and cement it's goal into our community, we must realize that we are all individuals, and not a hive mind, and therefore must compromise on certain issues regarding what realism is, and how far to implicate it.
Last edited:
Ahhh the death of every realism campaign. What is real and what isn't and how can you correctly do that in game. I for one would love to play a Russian front realism campaign. In fact, if I could get a list of German and Russian units together, I could run it right beside the DH campaign "Operation Market Garden" (which is almost over). Have 2 fronts going at the same time (every other weekend) for each (1 weekend a RO, the next weekend a DH match). We just got a new PW server so we could use that if I could get help loading/config maps.
With "Theatre of Conflict" I try to do historicly correct Operations with in game units fight under real army groups.
I will set it up if there's enough intrest in it.
With "Theatre of Conflict" I try to do historicly correct Operations with in game units fight under real army groups.
I will set it up if there's enough intrest in it.
I know full well you are interested in the axis portrayal, that comment was mainly directed at lyosha/Toma/Christie or what ever his name is this week.Seeing as he is our resident RevLeft member...
I think the unit list would be exactly the same. Mabye the 3SA & GD would be interested but I know the 3SA are involved in other campaigns and ladders and GD is strugling. But I think it would be a good Idea I would love to play more ost front maps.
Ernst Hoffmann
Last edited:
The ideal realism campaign nearly came to light in the form of Fields of Fire. The entire realism community minus perhaps 1 or 2 units, came together and figured out, in a surprisingly calm and civil manner, a form of play that both sides totally agreed with. Old grudges were left at the door and everyone was getting ready to duke it out on the ostfront once more. To bad the tournament never came to light, came damn close though.
Why not organise a mini campaign over Christmas?
There are still players and clans out there who might well enjoy something in a shortened format?
There are still players and clans out there who might well enjoy something in a shortened format?
I am willing to host it and could make one of the dedicated Russian units a Admin as well to help run it. We have 2 more matches left in the "Operation Market Garden" Campaign. Since we will be turning back the clock and starting over on D-Day, we can start both fronst with,
1. "Operation Overlord" - Invasion of Normandy (DH)
2. "Operation Barbarossa" - Invasion of Russia (RO)
I know the timelines are different, but they will continue until the end of the war. They can both start at the same time and rotate weekends for each match. These will start probably mid January.
What do you guys think?
1. "Operation Overlord" - Invasion of Normandy (DH)
2. "Operation Barbarossa" - Invasion of Russia (RO)
I know the timelines are different, but they will continue until the end of the war. They can both start at the same time and rotate weekends for each match. These will start probably mid January.
What do you guys think?
Cool, could I get about 5 more maps please that would be good for "Operation Barbarossa"? I want/need only early maps. They can include customs. Here are the few that I ahve atm,
Mannikkala
Bondaravo
Maslova
Minsk 43 (?)
Smolensk Stalemate
Odessa
Need about 5 more mixed maps. If it's a tank map, make sure it doesn't have any Panthers on it please.
Thank you,
Metal
Mannikkala
Bondaravo
Maslova
Minsk 43 (?)
Smolensk Stalemate
Odessa
Need about 5 more mixed maps. If it's a tank map, make sure it doesn't have any Panthers on it please.
Thank you,
Metal
You are partially correct. The iX community does play various games, but when it comes to RO, our preference is historical and tactical realism. The 193rd is the embodiment of that aspect of our community.
As for competitive play, I personally don't care about the competition aspect. I think some kind of campaign organization would be nice, but it is the thrill of the realism battle that I seek.