Jump to content

With Clusters

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by With Clusters

  1. OK, sounds great. So what's the US Army's beef then?
  2. Took this from that Jane's article: "However, US Army doctrine appears to be opposed to considering a bullpup rifle, which rules out that approach to improving effectiveness." What doctrine is that? What about it is so incompatible with a bullpup rifle? Just to make sure I'm not totally confusing myself, bullpup is where the magazine is loaded in the rear of the weapon (like the bad guys in Die Hard;), right? Um, if you can't tell, my knowledge of guns is puny, and my military experience zilch :cool:
  3. This wouldn't happen to be anywhere near that Enumclaw place, would it? "Search and Sensitive Site Exploitation" sounds a little scary, if you know what I mean! :eek: Just hope those soldier boys know enough not to, uh, 'interact' with any horses!
  4. Or if France abandones the Maginot early (whatever that means), Italian readiness goes way up?
  5. So how does the opening set up work out? What are the "fixed" deployments, if any? Are there penalties for moving some such units before certain dates/events (like the early Italian DOW for moving units in the Med in SC1)?
  6. Sounds good. But how will the point system in SC2 work? If I recall, in SC1, you got one point for every enemy unit destroyed (whether it was a corps, and army, or a carrier, all were one point), and that was it. This led to some unusual outcomes, such as the victor being able to score more points the longer he took to achieve final conquest. Look at it this way, a defender is not killing many (or any) attacking units, he's merely throwing more potential "points" in the enemy's face, trying to hold him off. I hope the new scoring system has more to do with time (in terms of when victory is achieved) and space (what territory has been conquered, including minors and colonies and such), than in the number of enemy units killed. If a person lost a game, he should be a bit more proud if he's forced the opponent to eliminate a lot more of his units, than if he was quickly mowed down with only pathetic resistance.
  7. I would like to see a "level of victory" somehow included too, with more detail than the old SC1 point system (where you could actually rack up more points by delaying the final victory, allowing you to kill more enemy units - the only way points were scored). Speed of conquest and/or territory controlled should play a major part in that. It would encourage people to continue a losing game, if only to achieve a more tolerable level of defeat. In a tournament, for example, a victor might get, say, 3 points for "total victory", but only 1 point for a "minor victory". Or something along those lines.
  8. Which is similar to the "When/If would Russia declare war on Germany if Germany was tardy with its own invasion?" I think, though, in a game, that issues of play balance might need to take precedence over any likely perceived historical outcome (which of course will always be open to debate since such an outcome never happened in reality). It would be an awfully boring and predictable game if the Axis could go about conquering everything and anything EXCEPT Russia and the USA, and get away with it. Even if one believes that neither the USA or USSR would've gone to war without being directly provoked.
  9. And, I suppose: "Would the US have still entered the war (in Europe) if Germany hadn't declared war first?"
  10. Wow, apparently, God's a major league asshole (and a bloody minded bugger to boot, if you believe that rot)!
  11. I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark, where God personally melted the faces off those evil Uber-nazis. Just who's side do you think he was on then, eh? I mean, it was based on a true story, right...? I guess it just means God really hated Jews, Gypsies, gays, and German left wingers, to let the Nazis kill so many of them, before he put the kybosh on Adolf. :confused:
  12. Of course, I hated it when I got a buch of dudes waving shovels or mine sweapers, as opposed to waving guns. They were always the first to suffer casualties from TNT (aka a firecracker squeazed between the legs) or flame throwers (aka matches)!
  13. I think he meant "what happened to their army?" quite literally, as in, where did all those men and materials go to after the swift defeat by the Germans. I know the Germans took a lot of stuff (plunder), but what about the men? Just sent home to cause trouble? Another thing, if France goes full Axis, how about instead of "starting the Soviet clock", how about just ratcheting up Russia's pre-war war readiness? So when the Germans do finally invade, the Russians are much better prepared...
  14. Or perhaps an alternate surrender rule for (some?) major powers? If I recall, the French packed it in well before the Germans entered Paris? How about a rule that if a major power capitol is isolated (surrounded, or can't trace supply to another city/resource) for a certain amount of time, the country surrenders or relocates the capitol (in the case of the English and Russians)? Oh, and my favorite color is blue.
  15. If all the major powers have individual victory conditions (whatever those might be) in a multi-player game, it might become worthwhile to allow more competetion between players on the same 'team'. You're side might win, but which player wins more? It would make it interesting as each player decides when and how much to support their 'ally' - enough to say damage the enemy and stay in the fight, but not enough to rack up more victory 'points', perhaps? Or even perhaps feel called upon to undercut an ally in some fashion. If the diplomatic rules would allow it, they could also encourage more if this type of competition. Veiying for influence with neutral nations, not just with the enemy but with your own allies, would be a great way to reflect this.
  16. How about the idea of the Allies being able to activate partisans (for MPPs and/or Diplomatic Points) if Spain declares for the Axis. I know that the Loyalists/Communists/Anti-Fascists/etc., had just taken a beating in the Civil War. But if the Allies committed to supply and support them (which they might be inclined to do once Spain became an avowed enemy), they might have been able "resurrect" an active resistance. One would have to figure out how the competing interests of the Western Allies and the USSR might collide in this endeavor, but its just a thought...
  17. One thing to consider also is the unit size in SC. While there may very well have been "green" units that were given extensive training (Hitler Youth divisions, untested airborn divisions, etc.), I seriously doubt this was ever done for the creation of an entire corps or army, which is the unit scale in "standard" SC. Whether it is worth the effort to simulate the inclusion of such a unit (division size or smaller) into its larger parent formation (corps or army) is certainly debatable. At the scale of SCET, I would think probably not. But I could see how such a feature might be interesting to someone who wanted to use the SC editor to mod a game based on smaller scale units.
  18. What about prohibiting carriers under strenght 5 from engaging in offensive opperations? They should be going back to a friendly port to refit at that point anyhow, shouldn't they?...
  19. OK, I know I've just snipped one bit of quote (sorry Eddy!), and I know this might be a little off topic, and possibly a stupid question, but I've come accross this idea of "pressure" from Stalin before, and I'm just wondering what that all really entailed. I know the Russians certainly ardently desired the Western Allies to open a second front ASAP, but what means of pressure did they really have to get the Allies to do so promptly? It seems to me that at the time they would've had limmited cards to play. Threaten to quit fighting the Germans? I mean, really, was that a possibility (making a seperate peace, I mean)? What other leverage did they have to push the UK/USA to move forward (and not accept a "we'll get around to it when we feel like it" sort of answer)? Sorry if this is kind of a hijack. That sub-topic just struck a kind of interesting chord with me...
  20. I think the hard part to model, even with all the editorial tweaks available, would be the psychological effects of a-bomb use. For example, if Berlin were vaporized, and perhaps Hitler and a good chunk of other senior Nazi leadership along with it, I would assume the effects would be much greater than the mere loss of Berlin's "resources" and the destruction of any military units in residence. Hard to approximate that without directly incorporating the a-bomb into the game mechanics. Wich doesn't seem to be in the cards this go-around...
  21. Well then, there should be a Hitler unit then too. If the Allies destroy that, then the war is over and they win the game?
  22. What would be nice is to have an after-game replay of the entire war option (with "fast forward" and whatnot included, of course). This would allow you to find out just exactly how and why you got your butt kicked in such and such battle. Perhaps both players would have to agree to such, in case of one player wanting to protect the secrets of his "trade". But it would also be a way to check for possible cheating, hacking, etc...
  23. Does it really do much good to try to run for it, at least with vehicles? If you can somehow make it into some scattered trees, does this honestly cut down your chances of getting hit, compared with your chances elsewhere? Does speed help, as opposed to sitting still? For example, if you're on a road, would you be better off just racing forward (presuming you wont run right into the enemy's guns), or gun it into reverse, rather than trying to make it to some cover? And besides scattered trees (if they do indeed help), is there any other type of cover that can help by moving into it once you hear the roar of that engine?
×
×
  • Create New...