husky65
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by husky65
-
-
Very much so, if you stage an ivasion of Japan from the USA/Hawaii you need to have every piece of kit that was available for Normandy (more was planned IRL) - all available on ships, that means a vast mass of amphib/merchant vessels wasted as floating warehouses.Originally posted by iolo:Interesting, tks. Yeah I guess the distances involved would cause some logistic problems...
Drive the Merchant to a convenient island, offload and return for more kit - sort and load that kit as required onto amphibs for the short trip to the beach head is a far more efficient way of doing it.
-
Basically - supply, air cover and training.Originally posted by iolo:Midly off topic, but how come the US didn't just do that? Forget those silly little islands and go straight for Japan?
I know, I really have some reading to do, but indulge me plz.
The first real amphib invasion the US conducted in the pac area (WW2) was a fiasco, the later landings allowed them to get their doctrine in order, build and equip specialist forces, specify improvements and at the same time build supply centers, workshops and very importantly airbases.
The question to really ask is - why did they run 2 seperate wars (army v navy/marines) in the Pacific? the answer is 'the leaders were too dumb to insist that one branch of the service should subordinate itself to the other in the national interest'.
-
Surface area rather than landmass, and the battles tended to be bloody but a hell of a lot smaller than the European battles.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Too small?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? :eek:
The theatre covered 1/4 the earth' landmass! An was sight to the bloodiest battles in history. (Yes, even more bloody than in Russia)
CVM
From a game perspective, SC does not handle naval warfare terribly well - not a big deal for a european conflict, but critical for the Pac.
The game mechanism has no way to simulate the Japanese shortage of Oil, nor their inability to move troops, nor their inability to move critical resources, nor the political divides that crippled the Japanese military, the battles will be farcical -
a one hex island group is surrounded by naval forces, the army on it is battered to non existance, then the corp storms ashore capturing a useless bastion that has no impact on supply and that you probably can't get the unit back off of.
The scale is wrong for a Pac game and you can't stack.
The question to ask is 'why bother', just build a force and head straight for Japan.
The SC system neither supports the reasons for the Japanese need to attack south, nor their inability to do so in the long term, balancing that it also does not support the effectiveness of submarine warfare against the Japanese, nor the effectiveness of CV airpower.
SC is the wrong game system to do the Pac with.
Given the amount of research done for SC1 and the amount of feedback given, SC2 should simply build on SC1 and be in europe.
-
No one who has any conception of the realities of the Pac theater wants it done with this system.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Wow, guess no one wants pacific theatre.
SC is a great beer and pretzels European Theater game, as a system it is totally unsuited to handling the Pac war.
SC2 (if it bears any similarity to SC1) should stick to Europe and build upon SC1s success.
-
Originally posted by ElekTrick:
Yes but dont you understand norway was ocupied sweden was not so
Actually we do know that IRL Norway was occupied and Sweden wasn't, but it doesn't change much from a game perspective.
and wtf no body answers my question what about Narvik its not on the map ????? Why ???
You will also note that Cronulla is left off of the map (a disgrace IMHO), such are the design choices, you have to end the map somewhere in this type of game.
-
Originally posted by Augustus:
Husky + Norse
The game is just too easy otherwise. I think the Axis should be forced to defend a broad Western front...stretching up to Scandanavia.
Leaving Norway out makes the game unbalanced in the Axis favour, in my opinion, same as Greece.
That is an AI issue, if the AI invades via Norway or Greece once or twice, you lose that certainty.
My preference in these types of games is not so much a 'what if' scenario, but rather to play a game that reflects, as closely as possible, historic events.
The World At War TV series is available on DVD.
-
If you play the Axis, you are taking Hitlers role - it is silly to suggest that you should be required to take his personal paranoias as well.Originally posted by Augustus:I like your ideas. If you play the Axis, you can ignore Norway...I think this is wrong (I re-call Hitler being absolutely paranoid about losing Norway, and thus committed massive arms and troops to protect his newly acquired territory.
The whole point of games like this is to give you choices, introducing specific rules to then remove those choices is counterproductive.
-
Originally posted by John DiFool:
Give me a break.
You make it sound like I amwanting to take a Piper Cub and mutate it into an
F-16 (yes no analogies are perfect but I think my
point is clear). I frankly don't see how this
one fairly minor change (making Lend-Lease an
option not automatic) adds "to the detriment of playability,
prompt patches and sensible extention of the existing game."
Choices beget strategy-or didn't you hear? You
can make it TOO simple ya know.
You are trying to extend the map, change the entire naval combat/transport paradigm, add the idea of manual lend lease and you think this is a simple change that will not have effects on AI, play balance and complexity? - and will also be a quick programming job that will not mean other things have to be ignored whilst this rewrite is done?
You are trying to build an F-16 out of a Piper Cub.
Plus we ARE talking about SC2 (if and when),
aren't we?
The post you replied to was not talking about SC2 and I am not.
I understand that adding this to
SC1 is likely out of the picture. My point is
that there are a LOT of things which can be
added (SC2) which likely will not be too trouble-
some from a playability standpoint, but which
will nevertheless make for a much richer game.
And what Immer said.
I have no interest in what Hubert chooses to do with SC2, I will make my decision on that game if/when the time comes and based on its merits.
However, I do have an investment in SC1 and I will continue to oppose attempts to graft complexity onto that game.
-
Originally posted by Gunslingr3:
What would happen if the U.S. didn't have a $300+ Billion per annum military empire stretched across the globe? Would Canada find us too tempting? Mexico? How would the military strength of this country that the Founders envisioned and protected fail to hold back these threats?
ROTFLMAO
I note that you take 2 nearby examples, but ignore the Nazis, Japs and USSR any of whom could have destroyed the US if it were not for the vast military empire that protected you.
WTF is an idiot with an AK going to do to stop a nuke, chemical weapon or even a panzer div?
The founders of your country were aristocrat farmers who never envisioned the ability to destroy a city at the push of a button, the right to bear arms cannot protect you from that simple threat, or even the ability to deliver simple chemical weapons.
You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law.
But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property."
-Bastiat, "The Law"
So, you enjoy quoting drivel - the ability to quote rubbish does not make it valid.
Where education is paid for by the individual, only the wealthy get a good education, the poor and their descendents are doomed.
What makes you think companies would suddenly stop spending the billions they currently do on research? Do you think that research on subjects that people will only fund at the point of a gun are somehow superior? Why?
Are you enjoying a stupidity festival or something? look at air travel, weather prediction, firearms, the internet, computers etc
Without Govt funded research, you get very few of these.
I would recommend you get hold of some of the NASA 'spinoff documents' as an example of what your govt has paid for.
BTW, who do you think pays many of these companies to do the research?
And without some pretty major road funding, gasoline engines would never have progressed to the stage where the Moller skycar was even approaching feasible.
You know this because...?
Because I'm not stupid.
Perhaps you can show us how, in an environment where the major use of Gasoline engines has not been promoted, and there is no large market for them, they will attain the sort of power to weight ratios required to provide reliable VTOL ops as per the moller skycar.
"From your statements, it seems that you choose to be an uneducated serf" Ad hominem. :confused: You're the first person to resort to this in this thread. I hope you're the last.
Not ad hom, you have advocated only paying for the parts of society you use, that means you will be a serf (no police, no judicial system that are not paid for by the wealthy) and you will not get an education (as above) - nice attempt to distract from the paucity of your arguments.
Why would OPEC cut off their share (~40%) of contributions to the world oil market? Why have they in the past?
Because they can, its called power, it allows them to generate a lot more money for less outlay and gain massive concessions - you might want to ask the Japanese about the consequences of having your strategic assets controlled by someone else.
The U.S. spends more on it's military than North America does on oil. If, in the absence of a U.S. Empire OPEC decided arbitrarily to double it's prices, what is the consequence?
The US economy collapses and the US has no stick to threaten the arabs with to get the tap turned back on.
The other countries of the world, who produce more oil, would have greater incentive to increase their own production and take the OPEC customers.
Exactly the way it didn't happen last time, other producers didn't need to invest to increase profits - they just increased their prices in line with OPEC.
Why build infrastructure to generate profit, when you don't have to?
The higher prices would also encourage research in alternative fuels and power sources (without even a politician confiscating someone's earnings and ordering it be so!) just to reap the potential profits.
Exactly the way it didn't happen last time.
I note a decided lack of such technologies that are taking up the slack now - surely those (usually Govt funded BTW) technologies must be mature now, 30 or so years down the track?
You keep seeing how things are, and as result will be tomorrow, without seeing how they could be today, and would become tomorrow.
In the trade, this is called 'dealing with reality' - I highly recommend it to you.
-
I don't understand all this hand-wringing about
not wanting to change things and make the game
even better, over some vague fear that any and
all such additions would seriously and irrecovably
complicate the game.
Lend-Lease can be done very simply: add a northern
convoy route past Norway to Murmansk (also
expanding the map in that direction, natch :cool: )
Cool in your opinion, in actual fact it adds unneccessary complication, requires quite a bit of work on the programmers part and could well unbalance the game to a major extent, it will also require a major rework of the AI.
You will need to actually build the concept of convoy routes into the game, requiring a rethink of the sub/naval combat paradigm, consequent changes to play balance and AI.
All of it to the detriment of playability, prompt patches and sensible extention of the existing game (you know, the one we all played the demo of and then bought) - all just to let you manually transfer MPPs to Russia rather than just have the MPP transfer built into the system as it is now.
I guess, in retrospect "I don't understand all this hand-wringing about not wanting to change things" etc, actually translates as "I don't understand the larger implications of the changes I suggest".
-
Originally posted by Gunslingr3:
No, I expect to pay for those I choose to use, and no more.
The classic absurd cop out, to take the obvious counter example what if nobody chose to fund the military, education or long term research?
And without some pretty major road funding, gasoline engines would never have progressed to the stage where the Moller skycar was even approaching feasible.
From your statements, it seems that you choose to be an uneducated serf, you are lucky that the evil Govt has denied you your freedom of choice in this matter.
Having someone show up from Occupational Safety & Health Administration and fine a business because their stairwell hand rail is 2 inches too short isn't helping any of us.
Except for the people who might have been hurt had the fault not been rectified, they actually research these things and settle for a cost effective level of safety, which you now propose should be compromised.
Even if UBL wants to control the oil in Saudi Arabia, how does that involve American armed forces who are established to defend the Constitution of the United States?
See how long your country lasts without oil.
Your economy took a nosedive last time OPEC pushed up the price, if they turn off the flow of oil completely the USA can't even provide enough oil to move sufficient goods internally.
-
Originally posted by Paul Harrington:
Would I buy a more complex game along the same lines as SC?
Depends on implementation, over the years I've seen heaps of brilliant ideas destroyed by poor implementation (Outpost being the perfect example).
HoI looks like a good idea, but I am very wary of a few of their design decisions.
Would I support the various complexity adding schemes proposed for SC? - No.
-
Leave it be on both counts.Originally posted by George40:I have been enjoying the game. I am curious about other peoples' thoughts on 2 issues:
-
Certainly, but if the Allies had persisted with the older doctrine, the extra amount of escorts would not have helped.Originally posted by Old Patch:I'd also add the Allies eventually swamped the Atlantic with escorts - just the British alone built over 90 DE's (+50 old US DD's), over 200 Frigates, and way more than 200 corvettes by 1944. By 1943 escort groups were larger, better coordinated, and with radar the favored tactic of surfaced night attack by U-boats became too dangerous. Forced underwater, even a slow convoy could outrun a submarine.
For quite some time there was an insane insistence on hunting U-boats in the open ocean (searching for needles without a haystack to narrow it down), at great cost in resources, when the only place that really matters with a U-boat is near the convoy - if they are not there, they don't matter.
[ August 25, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]
-
Actually it wasn't technological advances that did in the U-Boats, it was convoying and finally killing the idea that the way to hunt subs was to search the open ocean (rather than concentrating your assets at choke points and near the convoys) and the release of sufficient numbers of heavy bombers for maritime patrol.Originally posted by iolo:But it is true that the English and Americans were only able to wipe out the untersee fleet by means of improved detection measures. Up until that point the battle of the atlantic was certainly anyone's game.
The tech advances certainly helped, the doctrinal changes were most important.
-
Originally posted by Schutze:
If going with the 'concept', you've built over 600 subs. And they still die like lemmings.
Historically, to use your figure of speech, they did die like lemmings, I would suggest that you have a look at the figures.
(actually they didn't 'die like Lemmings', Lemmings don't die 'like Lemmings' [en masse], its a myth).
I think one sub should be one counter, at a suitable price.
Micromangagement hell on so many different levels - production, deployment, attacking, defending, accounting for damage done, repairs and since only 1 counter per hex can occupy, we will fill the North Atlantic up pretty fast.
All in favour say aye?
The Nays have it.
-
In the vast majority of cases, yes they are.Originally posted by Immer Etwas:These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they?
The majority of the things people want to add to SC just add complexity.
-
The Germans actually developed containers to tow a V-2 rocket (behind a Submarine) out to where it could reach the USA.Originally posted by Bruce70:There is probably some justification for not being able to transport rockets, but for the life of me I can't think of any. Surely anything that can be moved on a railway can be moved on a ship?
Can anyone offer some justification?
-
Originally posted by Gunslingr3:
[QB]
So why don't you think a programmer can arrange for an AI to set short term goals in support of a long term strategy?AI will remain bad as long as people expect it to be bad and accept it being bad as a matter of course.
(this is a general comment, not specifically directed at SC).
-
On this game scale the Norwegian resistance was simply undetectable.Originally posted by ElekTrick:You are all misunderstanding in the ww2 in Norway there wher two parts . One Qvisling and the Norwegian people ! So Qvisling wher on the side off Hitler but the Norwegian people fought against Qvisling . So i mean that in the game there should be Norwegian small troops maybe one or two corps who fight. Against the germans !
If France and the Low Countries don't get partisans in the game, there is no way Norway should get any.
-
If you are running a refresh rate fix program (such as refreshlock), disable it whilst you run SC - that worked for me in WinXP.Originally posted by 00Dawg:have a problem with SC taking about 30 seconds to respond to each mouse click until you get into the game itself? I was hoping 1.03 would clear this up, but it hasn't.
I'm running Windows ME fyi.
-
I understand what you mean now, I just totally disagree with it.Originally posted by Timjohnb5:You seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. If I'm playing the Game as the Allies from the beginning campaign on all Historical options choosen, then these historical acts are not happenning. I feel they should be placed within the game. The events did happen so they should be placed.
The point of games like this is to rewrite history, once you introduce changes you cannot expect everything else to go exactly as it did historically.
This is a mistake many people make, suggesting that if Hitler had made more subs rather than surface vessels he'd have defeated the Brits (as one example) - it ignores the fact that the Brits would have made some very different decisions in light of what they saw was going on around them.
-
This gives me an idea, why not upgrade units every second advance.Originally posted by Bruce70:[QB] I recently invested 1 point in Jets as the Brits early in the war. I got 2 advances in successive turns and had level 5 by the end of 41. Sure I got lucky, but should it even have been possible. With the system I suggested above it would not have happened.
I tend to agree with Mike that it simply shouldn't be possible to get an advance in 1 turn. IRL even if an advance came quickly there would still be time required to implement that advance. But I don't think we can or should expect more than a quick fix for SC1 and I can live with it as is.
[QB]
Get Tank tech 1 and my units do not improve, when I get Tank tech 2 my units upgrade and can go up to strength point 11, Tank tech 3 nothing, Tank tech 4 they can go up to 12 strength points.
In this example you could look at Tech 1 (all odd numbers) as being the theoretical/design work and Tech 2 (all even numbers) as being the implementation, production and getting the kit into the troops hands.
If there is a fundemental programming reason why the research is hard to change from being a 5 step research ladder, then it should be just a matter of changing the 'payoff' of research into a 0.5 increment rather than a 1.0.
Opinions?
-
I lean the other way, have all research points be in a field be 'expended' when a level is gained, ie if I commit 1 point to researching tanks and I get an advance, I lose the point - if I commit 5 points to researching tanks and I get an advance, I lose all 5 of the points, it makes loading up a tech for fast research EXPENSIVE.Originally posted by Welshwill:I think a limit should be placed on Tanks & Jets, maybe restricted by date. It seem crazy having L5 jets in 1941 and it also gives an unfair advantage. My suggestion for jets would be L1/2 between 39 & 41, L3/4 between 41 & 43 and L5 after 43. I think this would follow the historical trend.
Will
Major Historical Issues with game.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted