Emp_Palpatine

Aren't those versions things language-only issues? I downloaded the international version, and among english it asked me, upon installation, the language I want. (I was afraid of having suddenly a french-speaking game on radio chatters, but they keep speaking english. Great for immersion! )

Save your pic into a non-too big format like PNG or JPEG. Host it on image shack and then copy here the given link between two things.

Things will really start in the next update. What have been posted is the first "mobilization" phase and then the "order" phase, where I do my moves. It's simultaneous move in this game: I set orders, the adversary does the same; then movement are resolved. I might very well collide with Germans in the Ardennes. I might be there first, they might be first too...

Unsurprisingly, the first actions of the war take place on sea. Belligerent fleet quickly made contact one with another. The Royal Navy prevails in these early battles. The Entente, with these early August engagments makes her controll of sealanes quite sure. The subsequent decision of Italy not to join the war might have be related to these battles. Stating that the war had been started by Central Powers whereas its Alliance with them is defensive, Italy declares its neutrality. Reaching Paris, the news relieved the french from worries about the Alp frontier. Italy might be drawn into the war later, but not for the moment. Eager to start its "Plan XVII" offensives, the French Staff find an interesting for those aeroplane contraptions. Some are sent between Metz and the Vosges, in order to scout German positions there. According to pilots, German forces do not exceed two corps, with a strength of somewhat 100 000 men. [one point equal somewhat 2000 men; units are corps of 2-3 divisions]. Offensive is definitively possible, but some howitzer barrage are orderd by a cautious staff before any move. Wasting men in an ill-organized offensive while news of German attack on Belgium are coming would be a bad idea. On the said belgian front, General Dubail forces are ordered to enter Belgium territory in order to assist belgian little army. A German victory here would open the way too Paris, without much natural defense line... Dubail is to join with main belgian forces in the Ardennes and along the Meuse near Liege Forts. These forts are the keys of further advance in Belgium. They must not fall. Further south, Lanzerac will march into the Ardennes, meeting any German advance there, and into the Luxemburg. Neutral but so tiny and defenseless, the little Great Duchy had been invaded by some Germans scout. Hopefully, Lanzerac will be able to outspeed any German push there, and stop them using terrain. In the East, as planned, Russian troops are crossing the border and heading toward Konigsberg, the capital city of old Prussia. On the Galician border, a little attack is ordered to Czernowitz. More a feint than a planned offensive, its main goal is to scout Austrian forces there and make them a little busy. And what about Serbia, for who all Europe is now at war? Serbian Army, bold and with some intelligence, surprisingly do not stay on its defensive line, but tries an advance toward Austrian held Sarajevo. Believing his scouts and spies reports, General Misic is sure that the bosnian city is not defended. The armies are now on the move... on both side. They will soon collide.

Might be wrong, but navy planes do bears the roundel on both wings, not on one in the US style. http://cocardes.monde.online.fr/v2html/fr/...mar1_supet.html A two tone like this super etendart looks good for a front line plane.

Looking great! I would like to see more... as this girl: And F-18 too. A shame we did not ordered it in the 80's, would have been great for our fleet.

On 28th June, 1914, the Habsburg's Empire heir was shot in the town of Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist. Vienna did not take much time to link the tragedy with some shadowed support of the little Serbian kingdom, whose pan-yougoslav propaganda had been spreading in the slavic holdings of the old Danubian Empire. The ultimatum therefore sent was unacceptable for Belgrade: face reprisals or accept to be subdued to Austrian authorities for the inquiry. Actually, a denial of Serbian independence, a vassalisation. War was inevitable, given the "blank check" given to Austria by her German ally. What could have been a limited crisis was to grow to a full European war, and even worse. Indeed, Serbia closest ally was the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary arch-ennemy. And for Russia, failing Serbia was unacceptable. If Austria was to attack Serbia, war will broke out between the two eastern Empire. In such a war, Germany, in an alliance with Vienna since the 1880's, just could not stay outside and had to support her ally by declaring war on Russia, a choice that will bring France into the browl, as France was in a defensive alliance with Russia... Germany's war plan schedulded an attack on France through Belgium, in order to avoid the harsh terrain of eastern France and it's fortification. Britain did guarantee Belgium's neutrality. As things moved on, UK had no other choice but to join in. First days are strangely calm. The long-planned warplan are put into motion, reservist are being called and mobilisation decreted across Europe. British small army is presently stucked in Britain, and it will be a month before they can cross the channel. In France, the army is set to face a possible German advance in the east, or to follow the planned "Plan 17" whose main goal is an offensive into German holded Alsace-Lorraine (annexed to Germany following the defeat of 1870) in order to reconquer these provinces. French staff was aware of possible German offensive through Belgium but did believe that it was possible to outflank them with an attack there. Two corps are ready to jump to Belgium's help. Just in case... On the Alps, only a thin line of troops is set. Hopefully, Italy won't join the war, and if she does, these troops will hopefully gain some time or even more, deter any will of offensive (as the ennemy won't see what sort of troops are there) from Italian. In the Balkan, the small Serbian Army is set on a defensive line, ready to face Austrian Empire attack. They won't last much alone if the Habsburg Empire commit its full strength on this front. All hope there are on Russian shoulders. What's going on in Russian Empire? In the Caucasus, a small army is ready to deter any Turkish attack. But the Ottoman Empire is neutral, for the moment. In the Western part of the Russian Empire, a great offensive into German eastern Prussia is schedulded. With so much forces committed there, only small amounts of troops are defending the rest of the Empire's western borders. Hopefully, it will be enough to hold the Central Power at bay before Russia has fully mobilised. In all belligerent powers, the fleets are sailing too. French one in Meditterranean, Royal Navy in the Atlantic and North Sea. Controll of sea lanes are crucial for Britain economic survival and for the BEF to cross the Chanel. A last glitch of peace time: In the first couple of days of August 1914, mobilisation is over, and dark times lie ahead. Will the boys be home before the leaves fall? I don't think so...

Happened to me too! Was hit by AAA above Goose green in Sea Harrier, made it, with much difficulty, back to the flattop, only to learn that I've been dead all the way! Hell, I've never seen a dead fly his plane back during 20 minutes...

Well... I'm using a laptob which dates back to last year. I've no particular frame-rate issues or any lag, or wwhatever, all on max. But indeed, the machin gets very hot (just like with heavily crowded thirdwire campaigns). I've now turned down shadows (well no time to watch them) and a few other things in order not to spoil ressources on eye candy I will never pay attention to (shadows are the best example) and we'll see how it do.

Can't even take off correctly! What have been said about realism is quite true, all the more with those propeller things so complicated to fly. I'll have some time to get used to controlls, find how to be the same pilot in campaign (whose strategical aspect don't bother me too much as I'm also a wargame player) and a few other things before being able to fully enjoy it. But my overall impression is indeed very good.

Eerr... something missing! (nothing in the log too, and I did not remember!) but brought back to Puerto Argentino (Port Stanley) all the same!

Not at the time, but you're right: red planes only engaged above North Korea (and even not above the North Korean territorial waters) because some were strangely blonde and blue-eyed for asian people. And strange accent from Moscow too...

Hi there! Apart from sim, I'm also a Wargamer. Well, after asking some moderators permission, I want to share here with you an After Action Report on Matrix's Guns of August. It's a somewhat classical PC wargame which dates back to 2007, but is quite outdated. But hardcore wargamers don't care! This game is set on WW1 and does simulate it very well... Please forget any language, grammatical or style clumsiness: it will be actually my first in AAR in english, as I want to test me. Be sure I'll do my best, and I hope it will help me improve my overall writing skills. Feel free to correct any recurrent mistakes or whatever. Let's start! As you can see, It will be a game with Entente. I've set an advantage for the computer and checked the option allowing Italy to enter German side. Never tried this, we will see what it does... The show is about to start!

What's sure is that Syrian got totaly owned in this campaign. By the way, even if the article's claims are doubtfull, the "lots of kills to none" may not be totally truthful too. No lucky shot? No lucky MiG? It's quite possible. It's also possible that some losses had been presented as SAM kills for some propaganda issue. But the fact is indeed that Israel shall be more easily believed than Syria, for obvious reasons.

Got a surprise in my mailbox this morning! Time to test!

No I-phone here, because of the national day. All will be closed, so in order to avoid a catastrophic launch, they decided to report it to next week. By the way, I'm quite conservative with phone, still using a good old black and white screen nokia who can only be used... as a phone! I do prefer a phone-only thing, but hey! I'm in the rear-guard!

Very interesting, indeed! This man stress an important point: where does truth lies? What's sure is that we won't know the very truth about some air campaigns for a long time. Nowadays, among french air historian, the kill ration and number of kills of the Armée de l'Air in 1940 is still debated, with figures ranges from 600 to more than 1200. Events by far more recent and by far still very political are not quite prone to truth too. I'm quite sure surprises await historians in the study of 1982 war or of the Falkland campaign (I'm just reading a 100pages + special issue of a french air history mag on the Falkland war, and it seems that some argentine claims and strange brit losses should be studied). Let's remind the kosovo war: Serbian forces were supposed to have been destroyed, according to governments and military spokesmen. When the campaign was over, they were not able to hide the images of hundreds of Serbian tanks rolling back to Belgrade. Nowaday, it's quite common in specialized publications to have reports and studies lessening the effectiviness of NATO strikes. As for this MiG 23 issue. I've heard before, and in divergent sources, of the victories in South Africa and the Soviet ones against Pakistan's F-16. I'm quite sure they are true. For 1982 onward, due to the heavily propaganda loaded atmosphere surrounding these conflicts, I don't know. Can we trust Israelis reports, who have an interest in keeping the uber-army reputation? Or baathist Syria who is not the last to use propaganda? Wait and see, and as did officers in the last wars, just divide the claimed kills by four!

All, right, all right. You won. I'm checking on e-bay and Priceminister. Good Job...

Are you speaking about saber aces? It was not a so great game IMHO actually...

France did not leave the military alliance, the Atlantic pact. What France government did at that time was to leave the integrated command structures, in order to have french commanded by french (especially the nukes). But as De Gaulle said several time (and his successors too): in case of any invasion of western Europe, France would have stood with its allies. In an even more precise way: it is doubtfull that french 1st army (the one in FRG) would have stood still with soviet shells and bombs falling, tanks rolling, etc... France could have been neutral were the occupations forces withdrawn from FRG, but staying in the military alliance and staying in Germany indicated to the soviet what to expect from France: resistance alongside Nato, plus France independance to use its own armies and nukes if necessary (read in case of too heavy bombardement or french territory invasion). For me: definitively in. Sweden was and still is neutral. Swedish had to answer here: it's conceivable that some operations would have been conducted against Norway by the Soviet. Would and could Sweden have been dragged into the conflict despite of neutrality?

Indeed. And don't mind my answer too! Disagree and debate is not lack of respect and estime! :yes: Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want. Please understand me correctly: being opposed to the EU does not mean "hey, let's frak up Spain, UK, or Germany! Let's make war in Europe!" That's a common legend used in pro-EU propaganda: that EEC/EU did bring peace. That's an utter nonsense. What bring peace between Europeans was MAD, US/Nato and the soviet threat: we had better to do than pissing each other off, that is protecting ourselves from Soviets. No problem at all with reconciliation, alliance and friendship. But it's not because I'm no at ease with my former ennemy that I had to marry him. More or less. France was never a federal state, so it's pointless here. (BTW, provinces were ways more free before the revolution [which should be understood as an error that prevented us from following a british-like evolution, more stable and peacefull] ) Germans had nazism that destroyed the 2nd Reich (States, from what I know, were quite free in it, Bavaria even had its own diplomatic network), the new federalism is way more intrusive. Have you ever voted for Baroso? You are indeed using an interesting example, that of Soviet Union. Just like soviet Union, we have recurrent election for a mock parliament who can only give some advices. Like in Soviet Union, what count is what the politburo (ie Commission) wants. See Ireland case (or France, Netherlands, Denmark...): they did reject the treaty? All right, let's make vote again. And again. And again! Until the right answer comes. You say the EU is still defining itself. I do agree. But I do think too that it's defining itself in a way I do not like. As I said before: if the EU were an almost non-interventionnist Confederation (let's say money, free trade), I wouldn't have much to say against it. It's not the case. It is a technocratic structure, dominated by liberal (in the US sense) ideological crusaders who think they have the duty to do what they want for the realization of their European dream. If the people disagree, let's change the people! If the Union is to grow, ho my, I'm afraid! It is nowaday so disrespectful of States rights and people choices that I can't just imagine what it could be if it has to be mature. But the fact is that we are not in 1775. And that is true for the EU ideal too. And that's why it is doomed: we are not in 1775, 'cause there is no popular support for the EU, because the EU is no longer a solution but a problem, because if we were in 1775, the EU may play the King's role (acting against local traditions, wills and institutions... as it does). So say we all for politcians! By the way, I don't understand you point: melting french ethnic uprisings with Spanish strikes and radicals demonstrations... Speaking of what I know, french uprisings, wether the state is french or european won't change anything in their open rebellion against law. That's no cry of despair but power struggles between the states and gangs. A fight the state lost. More generally, I don't think the EU is a king of hope for most people. The fact is: would french or italian be willing to die for protecting Latvia? I don't think so. The EU institutions wouldn't even want to fight. This is the 21st century? That's right! Europe's times are over. Just have a look: no babies, or instability generating immigration; poor military, ill-oriented and suicidal diplomacy, self-hate of its own values and history... You won't make a giant assembling ill limbs and senile spirits. Let's stand by stronger friends and civilization brethern instead of losing our time with EU. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1BseAzgS4 "I'm Palpat and I approve this video".

Wishing: -French air force in 1968 and 1979 -Austrian Draken? -More WP squadrons (GDR and such) -A mid-1980 campaign? (With Mirage 2000, and why not advanced MiGs?)

Ok, so it will speed up the process. The joining of strangers in the US is more often showed as a new bargain decided by a defeated US in european (all anti-war) papers: nationality in exchange of duty. Thanks a lot for having clarified it to me.

Storm in dawn, French MS 406 above Lorraine, February 1940.

Ok then. But what's the deal with these stories we are keeping told in Europe: migrants joining the army in order to get the nationality (the whole thing showed in the anti-war usual propaganda you might figure alone, blahblahblah foreign mercenaries... blahblahblah exploiting poor people)?