Profile of AvNY

I was under the impression the soviets had the best arty.

Soviets had the most arty. And they used it en-masse. But I think the quality and tactical use of US artillery was far superior. (see this description: http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html on artillery practices.)

There was a quote I read once from a German soldier about what it was like to face the different allies.

He said the Russians had too low a regard for life and wasted too many troops and that the Commonwealth were well trained and professional soldiers. When asked about the US troops his reaction was "I don't know. I don't remember seeing US troops. All I saw were explosions."

I say this proudly as an American. They fought well. But if I am an infantryman I would prefer to throw a corps' worth of 205, 155 and 105mm shells at the enemy before having to look through the sights of an M-1 Garand.

I agree that they were highly motivated but the notion that they were given the best weapons and even armor is ridiculous. Casualties in penal battalions were 3-6 times higher than in regular units, why would you give the best weapons to soldiers who had a life expectancy of 1-2 months at most?

There is a fail in your logic. It depends what their tasks were. Casualty rates might have no correlation to the kind of equipment a unit receives though it is most likely they are positively correlated (the units who are exposed to combat, particularly high risk combat, receive good equipment). There are very many examples of this:

- U-boats were constantly being updated redesigned. Yet there is no single service in WWII that suffered a greater attrition rate (90%).

- US bomber never expected to finish their 25 mission tour of duty despite flying the most advanced combat systems of their time.

- Casualty rates of Airborne units was expected to be 50% or greater in practically EVERY drop.

Invariably history seems to want to tarnish the commanders as being inhumane when this was rarely the case. The legends of WWI were that the officers dined while the troops died. In fact the officers tried many different tactics, many different technologies, and much training to break the deadlocks. The British officer corps suffered greater casualties than the troops did.

The most inhumane acts inflicted on troops was sending poorly trained troops to the lines. Both sides were guilty. The US sent non-armor trained troops to fight in Shermans (which is the real reason for high Sherman losses, not the equipment) and filled ranks depleted by casualties while units were on the front instead of replacing frontline units to re-train and integrate replacements. The Nazis sent up pilots with only 10 hours of flight time to man high performance fighters.

well ,if 4800 players means dead, then what to your understanding is coh 1, that only has say 2800 players at peak times?
What , non existent?

Coh 2 is still one of the more played games on steam. If the 42th most played game on steam is dead, then i don't know what the rest are.

It isn't dead, and the 4800 # for peak players is for players at any given time which implies a much greater number of regular players and occasional players. But it isn't stellar.

COH1 is a bad comparison. It had player #'s in the tens of thousands during it's heyday and was at 7-10,000 prior to THQ losing the servers and moving to Steam. They further lost players because there was a lot of functionality lost and bugs introduced in switching to Steam. That was a good move as it saved the older game but it certainly cost the community many players as they move on.

Those who remain (probably still in the 10,000's) are there despite playing an 8 year old game that already has to it a sequel. So COH1 at 2800 is probably doing much better than it should under the circumstances.

I agree with Burt. The numbers will rise substantially when the Western Front factions are introduced. They will get the kind of press expansion packs get, interest from people to the new factions,l particularly the US, and they will probably have promotions going at that time. By that point hopefull the balance in the current patch is worked out. All of which will help.

Avarage FPS around 1

Good lord! You wish you got 1 out of soemthing like that.

You youngun's. Our first PC was an actual IBM PC with 256k ram, two floppy drives since no one could afford a hard drive back then, a 200 x 320 amber screen (that means ONE color and black). I think we later upgraded the ram to 640k, and got a 10 meg (reads MEGbyte) hard drive for $800. It filled the space of a 5.25" bay (meaning it was about 3-4 times taller than current drive bays).

And we thought that running MS Flight Simulator at 2-3 FPS was SO COOL! (It sometimes got laggy at 1-2 FPS if there was a wire frame of a building or two on the screen).

This is what it looked like, but you have to imagine it without all the fancy colors:

http://i.imgur.com/znfDW.gif