JerseyJohn
-
Posts
6,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JerseyJohn
-
-
Thank you, and equally Awesome Brother Sea Monkey, the forum's original Master Chemist!
I'll definitely go down there, very eager to see how it's developing, and equally eager to see old friends again.
Michael Emmry has a thread at the general forum asking about CivIV (actually, if anyone is still playing it and, naturally, it isn't too archaic for yours truly
) where I've been talking about my current adventures with the Civ WWII scenarios; not bad when they're working properly, except as we used to say, for all the damn micro management. And, naturally, Civ has never had the feel of a true war game. -
Greetings Michael, good to see you again after all these years of being away. It was CivIV that, indirectly, brought me back to the forums.
The past few years I've been toying with it on and off (solitaire), while glancing once in a while at the unopened CivV box, finally completed a few games of IV Beyond The Sword and then tried the WWII scenarios. Found them interesting, when they weren't crashing, like the idea of not starting out at war and being able to build up first, but soon found the total lack of realism to be a turnoff -- things like Yugoslavia, out of nowhere, attacking Italy and Germany simultaneously! In my latest effort, as Germany in the 1939 scenario, I was in the middle of slaughtering Norway in late 1940 when I noticed Sweden starting a new coastal city between two Norwegian cities I'd already conquered -- that same turn the Baltics attacked me in East Prussia, lost decisively, and retreated back into it's own territory. I didn't bother going any further, having already conquered Yugo (happens every game I played), Denmark and most of Norway after provoking a DoW by contributing too much to a mixed fascist/democratic wedding! The rest of the game would have been tediously familiar: the Low Countries would have declared war on me next, followed by some other minor nation while off in the distance Romania would be gleefully taking on both the USSR and Turkey pointlessly going down in flames. I think the main problem is every nation in the WWII scenarios seems to have winning the game as an AI goal, even Albania (in the '36 scenario), Greece, whatever. The flip side is there are a lot of things I like in them (including the Japan 36 mod) but it only feels like a game rather than a simulation of real events.
-
Greetings Brother Rambo! Haven't been here in years, as you've probably noticed but finally curiosity, perhaps nostalgia, got the better of me.
I've been playing the original SC solitaire on my old computer while watching TV, pretty much like playing card solitaire, but at this point it's doubtful I'd give much of a game to the great champ you've always been. Mainly I like to play around with odd scenarios, none of which are of a caliber to submit for others to try out. Assuming of course that anyone is actually still playing the original version two years after you posted this. Also, I have the game on my old computer, don't know if it would work on this new one with Windows8 (which I'm not crazy about).
Great to see you're still active and hope to posting with you again as I try to catch up on some of the topics I've missed.
-
Oh please, we aren't going to start groveling now, are we?
(I can see JJ preparing one of those nifty scanned-in pics right now).
I'm sure we just have to wait just a wee....bit.....more.
As you wish, Snowstorm. I'll bring this one out of retirement.
Link, if picture doesn't show: http://images.art.com/images/-/The-Wizard-of-Oz-Photograph-C10110948.jpeg
"Hubert said come back tomorrow. Or maybe the day after, or maybe the day after that. Yes, it will be ready for you then. Or perhaps next week. Yes, that would be a good time. Or, maybe next ..."
-
The beginning of a wargame designing dynasty. And when Jr is in fourth grade we'll get SC-3. A win-win situation! :cool:
-
Link to Photo, if not showing:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/FatherSonDM_468x308.jpg
"Okay dad, soon as I'm done with my homework I'll create SC-3, with hexes, so Jersey and Kuni and those other guys will finally stop nagging about it."
-
Hubert, God, all these distractions!
Congratulations to you and the wife and best wishes for the growing family. :cool:Very glad you like the ideas in this thread. :cool:
-- Regarding the posts that have been put up since I was last here --
I think it's true that it would be unreasonable to expect a century scenario, or anything approaching it, with a tech that ranges from 1-5. It was probably unreasonable of me to put it that way in the first place, but I keep wondering what the political and economic world would have been like in 1950 if neither world war had come about. But, as Snowstorm and others have said, that's more for a Civ scenario than SC.
So, since there would be no way to have a world where tanks and aircraft are set at L=0, not existing at all for military purposes, the earliest year we should start at is probably 1916, where aircraft were becoming adapted to warfare roles, and tanks were on the brink of being developed and deployed.
Two 1916 Scenarios:
One with WWI in progress,
and one where WWI hadn't yet begun.
I'd say have them run for twelve years with all the major powers having at least L-2 infantry and artillery, Germany, Britain and France having L-3 of both, and everyone having L-1 land weapons.
Britain, Germany and Japan would have L-3 naval levels, France, the United States, and Italy L-2, with everyone else at L-1
Britain, Germany and France would have L-2 aircraft tech, everyone else L-1.
So, the other scenarios I listed would each span a decade, all of them starting off without a major European war in progress. Major powers would start off with L-2 war techs, minor powers L-1. Due to the staggered times of each, the levels would be at different levels. For example, 1938 L-1 aircraft would be the L-5 aircraft of the 1920s.
-
Thank you, Snowstorm. Glad you like it and I also like your suggestions. :cool:
After posting it I realized it would be asking a lot to have play cover a full century. I think four decades would be fine for the early 20th Century scenarios, maybe less for the later ones, but I think it would be interesting to be able to trace a hypothetical history spanning the late thirties thru the late seventies. If there weren't a Second World War, if the Axis powers weren't overthrown, would there still be a Cold War later on?
My guess is techonology would need to range from L 0-9.
In the early twentieth century aircraft and armor would be set at 0, and should probably be very expensive to research, with both being useless till level 3, or even 4, so they couldn't be pushed through too early.
I'd say aircraft carriers couldn't be researched at all till flight level 4 is achieved = advanced biplanes.
This would need to be adjusted in each of the scenarios.
For example, in the earliest scenarios L-9 aircraft would represent the best planes flying in the 1920s, perhaps the early thirties.
In the 1938 scenario L-3, which would only be held by the USA, Britain, Japan and Germany, would represent the early Me 109 for Germany, Hurricane for UK, predecessor to the Zero for Japan, and the varios fighters the US started the war with for the USA. L-10 would represent military aircraft flying during the Vietnam era.
The later scenarios would need to include rocket and nuclear weapon research. Here too I'd say research should be expensive, and the first three levels virtually useless.
In nuclear L-7 would be dirty bombs, L-8 A-bombs, L-9 A-Bombs with Booster effect, L-10 Hydrogen Bombs.
In rockets, L-4 would represent the V-1, L-4 the V-2, L-5 the earliest rockets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, L-10 ICBMs.
Looking forward to further opinions, and for Hubert's views on these ideas. :cool:
-
Hubert I know this is asking for a lot, possibly too much, but the discussion in the Horn of Africa thread started me thinking about some other scenario ideas and I want to ask if it would be possible to set them up in SC-Global. They all have the same basic idea but from different starting dates:
1) The World of 1904 starts off with no major war going on and continues indefinitely through the 20th Century. Local wars in the Balkans; Japan and Russia on a collision course in Manchuria; Europe beginning to set up the complicated alliances that would lead to WWI etc. Human player takes a major power with goal of leading it to world supremacy by the end of the century.
-- (2) World of 1912 Europe is set in the alliances and treaties with hidden agendas that in two years would lead to WWI. Human player chooses a major power to lead through the rest of the 20th
Century with an eye to avoiding the catastrophic First World War.
-- (3) World of 1920 Mainland Europe devastated by WWI. Bolshevik Russia taking back Ukraine and attempting to conquer Poland. Germany attempting to put its pieces back together; possibility of early merging with newly created Austria (unlike the later Anschluss, it was Austria that wanted to merge during the 20s). U. S. returning to a policy of isolation. France trying to fill the power vacuum created by Germany's defeat. Britain in reduced global role, bankrupt, looking to reduce the size of its navy without also losing its control of the oceans. Italy and Japan emerging as regional powers. Human player chooses one of the major powers and tries to emerge as most dominant world leader by century's end.
-- (4) World of 1934 A weak Germany now ruled by the Nazis; Versailles Treaty no longer recognized. USSR able to either continue Stalin's very harsh modernization, or to begin territorial expansion. Japan and Italy beginning to eye conquests. USA, Britain and France dealing with severe economic problems. Human player leading a major power, in same role as above.
-- (5) World of 1936 A more powerful Germany begins to reestablish itself as a major European power. Italy in Ethiopia and Japan in Manchuria. Belgium cancels its defensive pact with France. Etc. Human takes major power, same role as above.
-- (6) World of 1938 Italy allies with Germany, Japan bonds with the European fascists and tries to conquer China, a strong Germany begins expanding. UK and France deciding how to deal with the new aggressive Germany; France politically unstable, military no longer dominant on continent, UK militarily weak, hasn't begun rearming. U. S. A. totally isolationist and crippled by the Great Depression. USSR beginning to purge its officer corps, in the tail end of Stalin's pre-war programs, more modern than before, but ripe for possible revolution under the right circumstances. Human player takes a major power, same role as above.
Would SC-Global be able to creat scenarios along those lines, and if so, can play extend over entire decades?
-
It isn't only you. :eek:
-
I'd bet on it too!
-
Italy is a minor in this release so while they will not have units in the Horn of Africa at the start of the game, as soon as they are activated the applicable Italian units will appear on the map including in the Horn. Needless to say expect some interesting battles down there for control of that area
In August of 1940 the Italians conquered British Somaliland, but lost all of their East African colonies by the end of 1941. The British conceded that it wasn't a picnic, that many of the Italian units fought hard and well, but ultimately they can't do much due to being cut off from supply and reinforcement.
As you say, there can be some interesting battles, but all in all with the Italians unable to either reinforce or ressuply the area they have to fall to the first determined push.
Before the war the British were worried about a simultaneous push by Italy from East Africa through the Sudan and up the Nile while also advancing from Libya through Egypt, to the Nile, both forces linking up to take the Suez Canal. It was worth worrying about because, on paper, the Italians had a lot of troops in both areas, but the whole thing was a logistical impossibility, and the Italian generals knew it even though Mussolini didn't.
Unless he was a complete fool, which he wasn't, Mussolini's reasoning was the war would end almost as soon as Italy entered, and the matter of supplying East Africa would become a nonissue. And he'd have been right; perhaps Italy would have been able to take French and British Solialand before the peace treaty; a comparatively meaningless triumph, but at least a couple of trophies to hold up to his people. But in any kind of protracted war I can't see how this they can do much in this theater.
As far as Italian aircraft attacking the Red Sea and Indian Ocean etc -- were they capable of anything like that? And how long would they have been able to fuel those bombers, assuming they had them in any significant numbers?
-
There's an interesting account of the Italians in East Africa, The Civilizing Mission: A History of the Italo-Ethiopian War by A. J. Barker. It came out in the late 60s, which was when I bought my copy and read it so, unfortunately, I've forgotten a lot of it, will probably read the book again because, like The Washing of The Spears (the Zulu War) or Winston Churchill's book The River War, about the British in the Sudan (he served as a cavalry officer in the campaign), the Civilizing Mission is an interesting look at a apart of history that isn't much covered elsewhere.
Anyway, the recently unified Italy was invited in the late 19th century to grab Abyssnia because, other than Liberia, it was one of the last remaining totally independent African states. Italy already had Eritria, north of the three Somalia colonies, the southern part of Somiland on the coast, with Britain having the central portion and France the north. Both countries had already swallowed so much of the continent that they could hardly have handled more, and Italy would make a good balance while getting rid of the last large, independent, African nation. Unfortunately for all of their plans the Italians, in the 1890s, suffered a collossal defeat at the hands of the Ethiopians, as the British had against the Zulu at Ishandwana. Unlike the British the Italians waited forty years to return, long after the original colonial invitation had become an embarrassment.
The reason Britain and France were willing to let someone else take Ethiopia was because, like the Sudan, it had almost no economic value, would be a difficult military objective -- the Ethiopians, considering how hopelessly ill equipped they were, including an unarmed one plane air force (that was wrecked in an unrelated accident by an American pilot), managed to put up a very credible fight even in 1935-36; Italy, despite having what at the time was one of the most modern air forces in the world, wound up resorting to poison gas to finally ensure the conquest.
No doubt the other reason the French and British were willing to see Italy in East Africa, as SeaMonkey mentioned earlier, was because once at war with the UK it would be impossible for the Italians to supply, or reinforce the place -- unless it took Egypt, and the Suez Canal, as it attempted to do from Libya shortly after entering the war.
I've often wondered if there might have been some better military use for Italian East Africa than what was actually done there historically, so I'm glad Skrivebordsgeneralen came up with this idea for a possible campaign in SC-Global. It ought to be interesting, if only the place had a better supply situation, but as it was historically I can't help but think it was pretty hopeless. As was the case in North Africa for the Axis, the more troops and aircraft that would have been placed in East Africa the more severe the supply problems. I'm sure things like fuel and ammunition could have been stockpiled before hostilities, but without being replenished when the fighting started the Italians would have been in the same situation as the Americans in the Phillipines, or as they actually were in the real war, having to fight counting every cartridge, shell and gallon of fuel, all of them irreplacable.
Still, an interesting idea for hypothetical scenarios, especially if France is neutral, and allowing supplies and reinforcements to pass through it's own colonies to the Italians. A very hypothetical situation.
-
"Either we got security, or we ain't got security. This Snowstorm guy knows about my connection to you-know-who, so we ain't got security. Which means we gotta fix things so we do; starting with Snowstorm."
-
By Jove, that's the term for them, yes, Hellhouds! :eek:
Hitler receiving orders:
"Yes Adolf, we know you'd like to become known as a great humanitarian, but I've been discussing this with Blondie and Wolf, and this is what we've decided: You're going to enact the Nuremburg Laws, give as much power as possible to Heinrich Himmler, you'll absorb Austria and Chechoslovakia, then you'll invade Poland like a good little bunny, and after that we want you to --"
-
You Texans are a hard breed, SeaMonkey. And besides, if he'd chosen to remain alive, I'm sure we'd have found out the poor guy was just obeying orders, like everyone else -- :eek: --I think his dogs called the shots.
-
"Can't get Hubert Cater's SC-Global because I'm in hell, Valkure. I tell you it simply isn't fair. It's cruel and insensitive, that's what it is."
-
"Marvelous Old Guard reunion party. Snowstorm's done a marvelous job of bringing the surviving fellows back -- and look, over there, JerseyJohn selling Florida swampland to some poor chap!"
-
Your wife is obviously a very sensible lady, Snowstorm. :cool:
-
Plenty of band aids now, bought a bunch in the big Wallgreen (there are those walls again! :eek: ) assorted sizes box. Needed one desperately before buying them a few months back, haven't needed one since I bought the box. There's a moral there. Also, I've been a lot more careful with those serated meat knives.
There's a distant memory of being very small, in that sort of half crawling-half walking stage (okay, yes, it was last week!
) of seeing light on the wall during a bright summer day, it having gone through Venetian blinds the thing looked a lot like a ladder. And the frustration of putting a foot on what should have been the bottom rung, and not being able to climb it. -- (added later)
Love that image of Burt Lancaster in Great Atlantic City, which is a terrific place if you don't move too far from the ocean. Of course, as soon as Lancaster entered a scene it went up a few notches. :cool:
-
Thank you, Snowstorm and DD. I agree with Snowstorm's idea of making it a very expensive luxury item for country's with too much change and resources.* :confused:
DD -- Did you say, desert jamoke? :eek: No, say it ain't so, Joe, I mean, Dave. That can't be. For almost a decade now I've been living my life according to the teachings of DesertDave, and before that, his twin brother ImmerEtwas. And there's no jamoke in there, anywhere! :cool:
Which isn't to say I don't like the idea of a brass gong. Planning to pick one up myself pretty soon.
*The irony is I think it's pretty much a fact that those terrible weapons kept the most terrible war in history, far worse than WWII, from happening during the decades after 1945. One shudders to imagine what such a war, even without a nuclear arsenal, would have been like in say, 1955.
-
Sure it makes sense.
I'm wondering if those weapons are a sensible use of resources. The Manhattan Project, along with the huge cost of designing the B-29, which is rarely mentioned, were both very heavy burdens for the U. S. economy. I was glad when the book and movie, Flag of Our Fathers brought out something almost never popularly discussed before, that the United States, by the end of 1944, was going broke. Great Britain had already gone broke even before that.
Did the United States really need the atomic bomb to finish off the Axis?
Or did we really start it out of fear that Germany, and perhaps Japan, might have been developing their own nuclear weapons. And then, after finding out they didn't have them, did we go on with the rest of this economically ruinous r & d (ruinous considering we already had full blown wars going in both the Atlantic and Pacific!) because we thought it would be a good way of blocking post war Russia?
As a weapon A-bombs are great, if hideous, weapons. There's no doubt about that part.
We can only imagine if the war would have continued if Germany had developed one in mid-war, say 1943, actually built a few, with some sort of reliable delivery system, and dropped one in the middle of London. On the eastern front I think a better military use would have to drop them on specific Soviet Armies rather than urban or transportation centers.
-- Bringing me back to the earlier point. I think the United States feared Germany would have such a weapon ready by 1943 or 44. Once we started on our own project its momentum took over.
-
I've been skimming through this thread trying to take in the gist of what's being said but I wasn't really interested because I have pretty much the same feelings as DD, or as the military analyst (played by Walter Mathau) put it in the movie, Fail Safe when discussing WWII, "We won't discuss Hiroshima or Nakasaki because they're more properly a part of World War Three."
I doubt WWII bombs, even a lot of them going off in a fairly short period of time, could have triggered even a localized nuclear winter. As strategic weapons they weren't as damaging as the thousand bomber raids that hit Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and other cities. I think their main value would have been psychological. And also, something people knew little of at the time, radiation damage.
There was something like a ten year age of the A-bomb period, in the middle of which a booster effect was developed that made them much more deadly, but still nowhere near as horrific as an H-bomb.
Then the mid-50s and the hydrogen bomb comes along and dwarfs atomic bombs, makes the largest of them seem almost tactical compared to their so much larger evil descendent.
Anyway, Bill Macon is the expert on these things, so I'd defer to anything he has to add here.
We have to make allowance for one or more of the powers developing an atomic bomb, and in order to do anything with it they would also need a sophisticated delivery system. To see V-2s in that role isn't historically realistic, but here to I think it has to be accepted as an option. I think nuclear weapons first began going on rockets in the early or mid-50s, but I may be wrong.
-- I think we'd need to assume that delivered on anything less than a B-29 there would be a good chance of the weapon going off in flight. I remember reading that was one of the reasons B-17s were ruled out; they weren't considered a stable enough platform for in flight arming. But, as always, I may be wrong on this and would defer to the opinions of those with greater knowledge of this than I happen to have.
We have to also consider that in the 1940s it took a long time to process the materials for an atomic bomb, so making them would be a long and costly process. I think the U. S. was making two or three a year during the forties, but I may be wrong. Lesser powers would be able to churn out what, one every year and a half to two years?
I don't think these would be war winners unless the country being targetted is in the shape Japan was in the summer of 1945.
-- And, regarding Japan, as has been pointed out by several historians, there were many ways the U. S. could have made the civilian death toll many times higher. The cruelest would have been to have just destroyed the Home Island transportation network, including mountain bridges. The result would have been the starvation of millions.
Anyway, all of those super weapons are necessary evils that have to be put in the game if it's going to be historically realistic.
But we also need to keep in mind that a WWIII game would probably not be very interesting. At least not after the first move or two.
-
Snowstorm, That, and for those who, like myself, prefer being The King! :cool:
) where I've been talking about my current adventures with the Civ WWII scenarios; not bad when they're working properly, except as we used to say, for all the damn micro management. And, naturally, Civ has never had the feel of a true war game.
Any Civ4 players here?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Part Two from above post ...
I gave it another try this time hitting the Beyond the Sword Resources option instead of Play A Scenario and the game is holding up much better. Also, when it goes buggy (which it has once or twice this time too) I shut it down going back to desktop, then open it again and return to the saved game, which it's recovered from. The scenario itself (Europe 1936 - Historical Option), has been enjoyable and seems reasonably historical. My idea in starting with 1936 is to try to enter the war with more advanced research and industrialization than what Germany actually opened with. The flip side is the campaign in Russia, using the CivIV system, will probably be a nightmare.