Jump to content

Wachtmeister

Members
  • Posts

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wachtmeister

  • Birthday 01/02/1946

Converted

  • Location
    Spring, TX USA
  • Interests
    Computers , Golf, Military History
  • Occupation
    Consultant

Wachtmeister's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Perhaps only forced retreats, would cause experience loss? (in addition to experience reduction from casualties)
  2. Perhaps the difficulty parameters could be set by means of the SC2 editor?
  3. Agree that operating fleets could produce some fairly unrealistic game play. If fleets could be operated, then it seems that sea tiles would have to show control by the Allies, the Axis, or be neutral,like land tiles. Subs would not change tile control. Then fleets could at least only operate between locations connected by a continuous line of controlled sea tiles. However, Waltero does have a good point in that it would not have taken 3 or more turns (1-3 months) to move from the eastern Med to the Irish Sea, unless wind power rather than steam turbine power is assumed. At 400 miles per day (pretty conservative at ~15 knots/hr for 24 hours), a 4000 mile trip is ~ 10 days or at most 1-1.5 turns in the summer and less in the other seasons. Since seasonal variation in game turn length will continue to change the apparent speed of fleets, a simpler solution might be to increase the speed of naval units, especially cruiser and carrier units. Also the speed of the transports sould be reduced by 30-50%. In SC1, the transports are faster than warships when the opposite should be true. In WWII only a few attack transports, former passenger liners, and converted destroyers were capable of speed close to that of cruiser/carrier task forces. Battleships varied from older units barely cabable of 20 knots to modern fast battleships that could easily keep up with the carrier task forces. Perhaps the variation in ship speed could be handled by increasing tech levels for each ship class.
  4. Suggest that any weather induced reduction in spotting would be significantly mitigated by advances in radar. By 1943, the use of centimetric "Sugar Charlie" or SC radar permitted hunting of Nazi subs in all but the worst zero-zero weather. Low ceilings at the airbase were much more of a factor for aircraft. Ships could "see" with radar in all but the very worst storm conditions.
  5. Played your compaign at Expert (level 2) with 0 Allied bonus experience, and found it to be both interesting and fun. - Thanks for the link! I managed to defeat the Allies by Feb. '45, but it was fairly tough going in the early stages. Had the AI been more agressive - more like a human opponent - then I imagine that the Reich would have been defeated by late 1940. The AI did invade the low countries, but the French were ineffective against a minimal western defence. Once Poland was knocked out and the east front stabilized, France was defeated by early-1941, mainly because the UK failed to help out with ground units. Thereafter, the Axis were able to hold in the west against the usual AI kamikaze invasion attempts in France and slowly advance into the USSR. Concurrently, the Axis picked off minor countries as the opportunity arose. I think this campaign was about as well constructed and balanced as any I've played, for play against the AI. Thanks again for an interesting diversion while we're waiting for SC2.
  6. Played your compaign at Expert (level 2) with 0 Allied bonus experience, and found it to be both interesting and fun. - Thanks for the link! I managed to defeat the Allies by Feb. '45, but it was fairly tough going in the early stages. Had the AI been more agressive - more like a human opponent - then I imagine that the Reich would have been defeated by late 1940. The AI did invade the low countries, but the French were ineffective against a minimal western defence. Once Poland was knocked out and the east front stabilized, France was defeated by early-1941, mainly because the UK failed to help out with ground units. Thereafter, the Axis were able to hold in the west against the usual AI kamikaze invasion attempts in France and slowly advance into the USSR. Concurrently, the Axis picked off minor countries as the opportunity arose. I think this campaign was about as well constructed and balanced as any I've played, for play against the AI. Thanks again for an interesting diversion while we're waiting for SC2.
  7. Beyond the all important access to critical resources is the equally important concept of industrial capacity. That is, the ability to convert all those raw materials into the sinews of war. In the area of both latent basic industrial capacity, such as steel making , petroleum refining, aluminum production, etc., and finished goods manufaturing capacity, the WA had an overwhelming, possibly insurmountable, advantage. In addition to the basic industries the USA, in particular, had an unmatched the capability to rapidly convert its finished goods manufacturing capacity from peacetime consumer goods prodution to war time manufacture of ships, aircraft and and armored fighting vehicles, just to name three major examples. Further, the USA was able to create new manufacturing capacity, as needed in a very short time. This was all done without a significant reduction of living standards for the home front. Rationing tires, nylon stockings, and motor fuel can hardly be compared to the economic rigors of total war experienced by the civilian populations of most other belligerents, including those not directly attacked. MPP's, Miltary Production Points, don't seem to account for the true production capacity of the WA in general, and the USA in particular. In game terms this is reflected in the small number of cities for the USA which I assume represent industrial capacity with the oil and mine hexes representing raw material. It will be interesting to see how JJs' idea works out, given the lack of editing flexibility for SC1. I might try a little experimentation along those lines myself, after I get back from Boston next week. At least its something to pass the time waiting for SC2 and its "killer" editing capability.
  8. JJ: Jets: Agree that the Germans could well have pushed the Allied bombers, and their prop driven escorts out of Europe for a time, but I think that within a year or so, advanced bombers would return with competitive jet escorts. Your discussion of WWII jets peaked my curosity, so I looked up some info with resultes as follows: Me 262 (1944) Max. Speed 870 km/hr Range 1050 km Armament 4 X 30 mm cannon. Designed as a "bomber buster". Glouster Meteor Max. speed 795 km.hr Range 2166 km Armament 4 X 20 mm cannon P-80 (1945) Shooting Star Max. speed 967 km/hr Range 1328 km Armament 6 X 50 cal MG These jets have similiar performance, at least on paper. An interesting fact is that the P-80 was launched in 1943 and designed, built and test flown in 143 days! First incidence of the Lockeed "Skunk Works" in action? Orders for 5000 P-80's were cancelled in early 1945. A few P-80's actually flew combat patrols in Italy at the end of the war, but had no contact with the Luftwaffe. Given the fast track ability of the USA to rapidly design and produce advanced air craft and other war machines, I think it is reasonable to assume that competitive F-86 type fighters would have been produced long before 1948, if the war had continued. Its not totally fantastic to envision jet bombers (B-47's, B-52's) in the late '40's instead of the 1950's. Of course the Germans would not have been idle during any bombing respite gained by the Me 262. For example, the Fw TA 183 looks a lot like the MIG 15 for good reason. However, bringing the captured USSR oil and metal resources into full production would have taken considerable time, so that Germany could still be behind the power curve in a production race with the Allies. Japan: Regarding Japan ,I went with what did happen up to the planned invasion of Japan. No doubt the Japanese could have had better "dice rolls" early in the war, and held out for longer, but once the Essex class CVE's started showing in up 1943 along with dozens of CVL's and jeep carriers, loaded with F-6-F Hellcats it would be over for Japan - maybe a year later? As an alternative strategy, we could well have defeated Japan by taking fewer of their fortified island bases, and let more of them die on the vine. Once the IJN is gone the supplies dissappear. The places we really had to take could perhaps have been limited to actual operations in the Solomons, the Marianas, Iwo Jima and maybe Formosa. The Phillipines would probably also have to be included for political reasons, and to liberate the local populaton. After that, strangle the Home Islands and stay out of Kamikaze range, after the industrial infrastructure has been flattened. Edwin P: I think USA construction expertise would have been able to build as much rail and/or highway infrastructure as needed if the US troops east of or in the Urals is otherwise good strategy.(Not necessesarily so.) Ability to create infrastructure, to support the necessary military logistics is one of the strongest USA war making capabilities. Of course this whole premise is based upon a much longer war with a long term concentric, rather than "knife thrust to heart" strategy. Maybe we can "war game" some of these theories with the SC2 editor flexibility. JJ's Brest-Litvosk Aftermath SC mod on steroids!
  9. Interesting topic. My take on this subject is that the USSR would either have gone down by early 1943 or never. A USSR defeat would likely have applied only to European Russia plus a buffer zone. Had the USSR been defeated, then no doubt an "historical" D-day type assult on western Europe would have been suicidal, at least in the short run. In the long term, however, the USA and its Allies had the military/industrial might to ultimately defeat the Nazis, if (and this is a big "if") they were willing to pay the price in lives and treasure. Aside from jets and first rate veteran army units, the Wehrmacht had very little ability to project its power over long distances and virtually zero naval capability. Yes, the new subs may have been tough, but not decisive. In fact there is no proof that the high speed peroxide turbine powered subs would have worked all that well in actual combat. Note that the advanced German sub technology was never developed after WW II, unlike jets and rockets. I believe also that the Allies were not that far behind in jet technolgy, and would have caught up quickly once the need arose. Regarding strategic bombers, Germany had nothing but unproven designs, and no hardware to match the Lancaster, B-17, and B-24 bombers, much less the B-29, and soon after if needed, the B-36. The Allies formula for victory could have gone something like this: 1. Defeat Japan as was actually done, but since there is no A-bomb. isolate and starve out the Home Islands. Send those 1,000,000 troops to the Eastern USSR instead of Japan proper. Wipe out the ill equipped and supplied Japanese in Manchuria on the way for practice. 2. The actual reduction of fortress Europe could have consisted of intensive strategic bombing (once those jet escorts got built), combined with carrier task force supported landings in North Africa, Sicily, and possibly southern Italy. Turkey and Greece may have also become battlegrounds, but the Wehrmacht would probably have been outclassed wherever they were in range of Allied sea power. Many of these liberated locations become bases for hitting the Reich with strategic bombing from all sides. 3. Enventually, the Axis could have been weakened to the extent that a final attack on mainland Europe, and eventually Germany itself, could have suceeded, if and only if the Allies had the will to pay the expensive blood price, not to mention a much greater degree of economic sacrifice. In summary, I think Allied victory without Russia would ahve been quite possible, over a much longer time frame. However, the US Army would have required every one of the 200 divisions that USA pre-war planners had originally projected, instead of the 90 or so actually deployed.
  10. Edwin: Interesting idea for sure. Another factor mitigating Turkey joining Axis in '40 would be an extreme reluctance to get in bed with its ancient enemy Russia, Germany's nominal ally at that time. Maybe its more a matter of timing, since it seems that Turkey would be more inclined to join the Axis if Barbarossa looks like a winner, say in late '41 or early 42. Perhaps something like Rostov falls and the Caucasis is cut off within 6 -12 months, or 2 out of 3 Soviet major cities, one of which must be Stalingrad, fall early. Spain, on the other hand, was much more likely to join Axis in '40, but the window of opportunity was short, about 4 months max. Historically, Hitler botched his "Spanish opportunity" with a little help from Admiral Canaris, who it is believed, privately advised Franco not to join the Axis. Some recent evidence has come to light indicating that Franco would probably have joined the Axis had Germany turned French Morroco over to Spain. This move would have made both Vichy and Italy very unhappy, but they or the UK could have done very little about it as long as a couple of Luftwaffe suported Wehrmacht divisions showed up to help make it happen.
  11. The ability to provide for custom scenarios using the editor could add a tremendous replayability potential for SC2. However, from a historical prospective, I can't imagine Turkey joining the Axis in 1940, with the Balkans not yet Axis, and Germany in no position to provide direct support. Regardng an Egyptian revolt, no way the UK would simply withdraw leaving the Suez lifeline to a "neutral" nation. British and French paratroopers landed to secure the Suez canal as late as 1956. This event might take the form of the appearance of a partisan corps in an ungarrisoned city or one of the Suez port squares. Then, the UK would have the option to put down the revolt.
  12. The USA's main mistake is not acting decisively sooner. Generally, we tend to be, if anything, too reluctant to take action in our national interest. A little history since 1979 alluded to earlier (Quoted from a recent speech at Pensecola NAS): WORLD WAR THREE - WW III A TERRORIST WAR >In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... that alarm has been ringing for years. >>> >AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP! >That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. > >It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years. > >America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. > > America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start. > >Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. > >In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into The US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. > >The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. > >Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. > >Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. > >The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept. > >Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. > >Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked. > >Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. > >The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. > >Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. > >The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder. > >The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. > >The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? > >The Snooze alarm is depressed again. > >Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. > > A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. > >They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep. > >The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep. > >And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. > >In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. > >The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. > >America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep. > > After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world. > >This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come. I pray the "sleeping giant" stays awake with or without soft headed "support" from the those who think we can reason with terrorists and all "get along". We better win this war and Europe had best hope we do too. As for most wars, the consequences of losing this one will be severe, Many Euros should know this from personal or recent historical experience.
  13. What "lie"?. The best intel information available at the time, indicated the presence of WMD, and we and our Allies believed that to be the case. This "lie" routine is a politically motivated construct of the liberal press both within and outside the USA. Although not widely reported, radioactive traces of possible nuclear weapons, aand chemical/biological WMD gave been found, and more may yet be discovered. Iraq is pretty good sized and full of natural and man made hiding places. Remember it took several months to dig Saddam out of his rat hole. If Saddam had nothing to hide all he had to do was allow full inspection in accord with UN resolutions. He chose instead to stonewall against the requirements layed down after the 1st Gulf war for over 10 years. Saddam paid the price for his misjudgement, and hopefully will pay the price also for his perpetration of countless atrocities.
  14. Pussyfooting around and trying to "reason" with these terrorist criminals, and the nation states that support and harbor them, is what brought on 9-11. Had we heeded the warnings provided by numerous attacks over the last 20 years, and taken action, then 9-11 might have been avoided. These folks have (repeatedly) declared "holy" (sic) war on the USA, and we can either fight for our freedom and way of life or ultimately give in and wait for the world to become one big Islamic State with a nice return to the supposed halcyon days of the 12th century. Of course the so called "Islamic" terrorists seem believe in a seriously twisted version of one of the world's great religions. The fact is that giving in to terrorist demands is viewed, by them, as a sign of weakness to be ruthlessly exploited as Spain and other nations that try to reason with the unreasonable will find out sooner or later.
  15. Pistols at dawn - at 10 paces? "Sawed-off shotguns in a phone booth" seems more like it.
×
×
  • Create New...