Shaka of Carthage
-
Posts
1,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Shaka of Carthage
-
-
This one I love!
I've got to add this to my list.What's this Pork-Barrell Russian invasion thing? -
Wachtmeister
I can tell you why Hitler didn't come to an agreement with Spain.
Mussolini and oil.
Everything Franco wanted, so did Mussolini. Mussolini wanted French Syria and needed German economic aid. If Franco got Morrocco, Mussolini would have had to get Syria. And don't forget the oil. Spain imported oil as well. Once at war with the Allies, no more oil. This consideration alone would have forced Germany to delay Barborrsa and concentrate on North Africa, Egypt then Iraq.
I don't believe Hitler cared for Franco, one way or the other. But he admired Mussolini.
[ June 02, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
KDG
By itself, that change would mean Fall/Winter are no different.
-
There is a technical support forum for stuff like this.
But I believe its the order you loaded things in.
SC first
Patch next
User mod's last
(or maybe its the Mod's then the Patch?)
-
There is a technical support forum for stuff like this.
But I believe its the order you loaded things in.
SC first
Patch next
User mod's last
(or maybe its the Mod's then the Patch?)
-
Liam
The answer to your questions are simple.
Game balance.
-
Pretty much "ditto" what JerseyJohn said, with the addition that there were Free French forces fighting in Italy as well.
I actually have some numbers for Polish forces in WWII. Maybe the Free French. If you're interested, say something and I will post them.
I like the idea of Commonwealth forces appearing in Egypt based on special events. As long as it is historically accurate.
-
Interesting discussion about the different scenarios. I wonder if starting in 1940, isn't a solution for this new "Rambo Rome" gambit.
-
As someone pointed out, your discussion about how to handle this within Zappleague is just like the discussion regarding the other gambits.
The Allies pay a cost for doing this. The counter to the Dutch gambit wasn't obvious the first time it occurred. There is a counter to this also, even if its just the fact that the Allies don't get any more bid favoritism.
The intent of Houserules is to add something to the game or take something away. Not restrict a specific gambit.
-
Immer Etwas
The details (along with other stuff) is here. 2nd post I believe.
JerseyJohn
is it to be understood from some of the later posts that nothing along the maximum damage lines can be written into the present game system?
No, it can be written in. Its just a question of how much and how low. Your statement about them being in preparation for an attack and spreading them out is also the idea I had when I said it should only effect readiness.
-
Edwin P
The thing about rushing your units to the port, may be fun, but its a game tactic. And even though a unit in SC may be "destroyed", not all of its manpower is gone.
As you pointed out, the Free French used British equipment. All of the French equipment was left in France. Once the Americans entered the war, especially once they got into North Africa, the Free French forces there adopted American equipment as well as organization (interesting, because the American organization was a copy of the French organization!).
-
I think JerseyJohn has come up with a very good idea.
We all know France is gonna fall. One way or the other. So in the back of our minds, we all worry about saving what we can when France does fall. So lets remove that incentive.
The number of Free French units (air, ground or sea) are randomly determined.
Now, I might as well have all my French units die fighting the Germans since the location of my units doesn't have anything to do with them becoming Free French. And once France falls, I lose them anyway.
In addition, as part of those randomly determined Free French units, we can get DeGaulle HQ. And as JerseyJohn pointed out, by them being UK units, any tech advances they would benefit from (o my god! French JETS??!).
Within the context of what Dan Fenton asked, you could use certain events to trigger additional Free French units and the Polish units in service to UK (and Russia). That random logic would be the same as that used to determine the number of Free French units UK initially got.
-
zappsweden
That is a conclusion that has been reached many many months ago. The discussion on how to fix it was going strong even during my lurking days. And it continues today. As Bill Macon mentions, its not as simple as making a "correction" (whatever that may be) to the Air unit. Its much deeper than that.AIR SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL GROUND UNITS ONLY DAMAGE THEM.There is the problem of the number of air units you can have. I have tried playing with a limit on that number. It helps, but it still results in one side or the other massing every air unit he has because together they can destroy a targeted unit.
There is the problem of the Jet tech. There is no counter (other than your own air), though there are many suggestions here (ie incr HQ and/or Units air defense; expand hex range of Radar air defense; reduce Air attack factors). Some want Jets taken out. Others want a Prop and Jet tech. Others want Rocket tech as a pre-req for Jet tech (thats my favorite). To this day, I still cannot reconcile the difference between the attack values a air unit, the defense values the target unit has and the combat ratios displayed on the screen.
Combined with Long Range, the Jet tech dominates. Other than complaints about what that does to carriers, no one has asked for LR to change much. There was some talk about a range reduction, but I think the "historical" purists proved that the initial range is ok.
There is the "weather" effect on Air. It hasn't been debated much. But there is much to be said for the Air unit being "grounded" during Winter and Fall.
Almost forgot, there is the issue with the advance in tech not really increasing the cost of the unit. Some want to strip out the strength point increase (ok, just me likes that) and others want a proportional increase.
Lastly, but the most argued point, has been the "historical" effect that air units had during WWII. Thats where I initially jumped into this, since I have wanted the "readiness" to be the only thing a air unit could damage. That leads to the WWI "trench" warfare, which leads to fixing the combat model, which leads to fixing the Armor units, so on and so on. Not many want to work out all the problems this presented step by step.
Its a complex subject. Especially since we can't "playtest" the majority of the corrections we propose.
Until then, I suggest you try limiting the number of air each side can build and grounding them during winter/fall. Its the only thing you can do to the current game system.
-
2-D Group Therapy. That's very good. I like it. Being true doesn't hurt either.
-
Historical penalties for Spain should be more than just the partisans.
But within context of the current game, taking Spain (as the Axis) is well worth it because of Gibralter.
And with Gibralter you now control the Med.
And with the control of the Med, you are gonna want a German port. That means Vichy France has to go. But no need to hand Vichy Algeria or Vichy Syria over to the Allies, so before Vichy France falls, take out Algeria or Syria. Then might as well take out the rest of North Africa on your way to Egypt. But why stop there? Might as well go for broke and take Iraq!
And somewhere along that path to victory, the knife of defeat is slipped into me by Russia or UK.
-
As you may have seen me say before, but it doesn't hurt to say again, between xwormwood and Bill Macon, you have 95% of the last twenty-five (25) years or so of WWII Grand Strategy and Strategy games. With a couple of Strategy/Operational ones thrown in there as well.
If you counted the Operational/Tactical ones, you would have many many more.
-
Aren't the US battleships named after states?
And the carriers named after presidents?
When I die, I want the same thing a Green Beret did. I want the bathroom named after me. That way everyone will think of me at least once a day.
-
JerseyJohn
The mindset you described is exactly why "peacekeeping" is bad for military troops. Once you get trained, just like the individual who newly learns martial arts, you are aggressive. You want someone to pick a fight so you can show them. Especially if you used to get your butt kicked before you learned martial arts!
And for soldiers, you want that aggressive spirit.
As you get older (or you have a few fights) that "inner calm" becomes more pronounced. You realize you aren't indestructible and there are things in the world you want to enjoy. These are the guys who need to be out there doing "peacekeeping" for the military... as in National Guard.
Of course, if you are a politician, none of this counts. Its amazing how the guys who never served are so "hawkish" once they became the leadership. Clinton and Bush Jr love(ed) to crack that military wip.
-
Our Authority figures need to be kept in check. True.
But there is another side of this that never gets addressed. Survival. But how far do you go?
If you walked to work everyday thru a certain community, and during that time every now and then someone would shoot at you or plant a booby trap in your path. Then what do you do? You have to get to work everyday. But is it right, to ensure your survival that you take action against the whole community? That others die, so you can live? Espeically when some who die, if not most of them, are innocent? Where exactly do you draw the line.
And there is no authority figure for you to depend on. You have to decide by yourself.
Those perceptions of survival are some of the buttons authority figures push to make you take actions you would not otherwise dream of.
Something about the easy way, the right way and morality. And having to live with those choices.
-
Maybe this is why the Germans never built those navy ships (Z-force?).
And I can't show you the Air Force guys, because the bellhop wouldn't let me take pictures inside the hotel.
-
What it comes down to is that you have to satisfy the basic needs first before you can pontificate about the needs of the world.
Food, clothing and shelter come first. If you don't have it, you will do what you can to get it.
Our problem as a nation is that the "basics" in life for us have become something that a small percentage in this world will ever achieve.
So for food it has to be meat every day. For clothing its different set of clothes for each day of the week, if not the month. And for shelter its everyone with thier own room. Lets not forget the SUVs and cable and fast foods and vacations and plastic surgery and Hollywood, etc.
And while we pig out on the resources of the world, is it any wonder that everyone else looks at us and wonders? And those that are starving look at us and hate us? Just like the poor in the US hate the rich and the middle class envy them.
Life isn't fair. And then you die.
-
Edwin P
You're correct, depending on who you are fighting and how they treat you, it has an effect on the national will. Russia is a good example. If the Germans had acted as "liberators", Russia might have fallen. Japanese treatement of POWs stiffened national will for the US.
Be careful with "pacifist nature of the population" when you are referring to the French. It was the French Leadership that gave up, not the French citizens.
The following points you make are valid. But here is where you have to be careful. Instead of trying to replicate the details of each point, you want to replicate the effect. That way, you can abstract some of it, instead of becoming overly complicated with additional details.
SeaWolf_48
Thats a true point. The difference is that the "head" is not always the capitol. As I tried to show with the French, it wasn't Paris falling that caused France to surrender. And in current day Iraq, it wasn't taking Badghad. It was the occupation of ALL of the major cities and the inability of Saddam (wherever he is) to give orders that caused Iraq to "fall".I STILL BELIEVE THAT IF YOU CUT OFF THE HEAD THE BODY WILL DIE.Interesting point about needing six (or is it eight?) units to cut off the supply lines of a city. It really should be based on the "zone of control" that each unit projects, even if that zone is implied.
[ May 28, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]
-
Ahhhh... the classic "book smarts" versus "street smarts". Far too many of us dismiss the knowledge of street smarts. We are taught the "how", but the "why", we don't bother to learn.you don't need an MBA from Harvard to appreciate the many, many simple ways to promote a product... -
For those of you that are curious as to why the Infantry didn't carry alot more or have more men armed with anti-tank weapons, I can help you understand that.
Its the weight.
Squad, Platoon and Company, the most effective Infantry weapons are Machine Guns. .30 caliber, 7.5mm rounds, those things are heavy, especially when you are carrying a couple hundred rounds. All effective infantry know they are nothing more than ammo carriers for the machine guns.
So even if there were effective anti-tank weapons, the Infantry wasn't going carry them. That was the job of the anti-tank units. Thats why so many attacks were stopped once enemy armor arrived, because the infantry could do nothing more than take cover until friendly anti-tank units arrived.
Satchel charges, mines, etc. That was stuff the engineers (ie pioneers) carried.
Molotov cocktails? Only in the movies. Any gasoline the military found went to vehicle use. Any alcohol was saved for party time. It was never wasted on enemy tanks. Civilians on the other hand, didn't know any better, so they were the main users of molotov cocktails.
Second list of odditys and semi bugs.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
You can get the old DOS version as a freebie from Matrix. It has been updated to work in Windows.
Uncommon Valor is available (from Matrix), but it only covers a specific time and region.
There will be a new version of War in the Pacific that is being developed now. Believe its available by the end of the year. There is a topic in the General Forum that give a website.