_onepercent
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by _onepercent
-
-
Actually, this is where you should pop in and say the Art of War is an outdated and inadequate book by now, because americans didn't excist then, and do now!Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:This a discussion at Mar's Hill before Paul got there? The "Unknown"?
In fact, if you disagree, you'll get jon_j_rambo and chuck norris after you, and that can't be good. So y'all better agree now, ya hear!
Chuck Norris once defeated an entire arab nation, alone, but that barely compares to what jon_j_rambo did. Sssssshhhh, don't tell anyone, but they didn't really nuke Nagasaki....they just dropped jon_j_rambo out of a plane and as he shouted HAYAH!!!! he punched the ground! BOOM! Then he quoted the bible.
Legendary!
Yeh, I'm incredibly bored waiting on SC2. I'll check back in another year or so. Till then.
-
If Germany is Losing, Will USSR Surrender?
I suggest this as it would make for a more interesting game vs the AI or humans in those cases where the Allied player has prevented the Axis AI or human player from launching a proper Barbarossa.
For realism and gameplay issues, the Soviet war readiness should follow the German military victories. The more the germans win, the higher the Soviet war readiness should get, the more the Germans lose, the closer to surrender the Soviets should be.
It's not fun to lose as germany and you all know it *sniff!*
-
A rather important point that everybody seem to, uhm, forget, is why USA joined the war in the first place. Hitler declared war on USA because he hoped, for various reasons, that it would help the axis win the war. For everybody who have skipped this chapter in the history book, now is a good time to go back and read it.
Then it's time to ask again, did Germany win the war at that point? Hitler was frustrated that he hadto fight a two-front war, he himself had warned against this previously, and frustrated over the progress. He hadto cope with the situation and do what he thought was best.
The question is IMO all wrong. It should be: "Would Hitler declare war on USA if Germany was winning?"
-
Edwin, Germany wasn't winning the war. They lost battle of Britain, and forever after hadto fight a 2 front war, something Hitler himself had warned against. Declaring war on USA enabled them to sink american ships supplying Britain in an all-out manner (incidents had happened before the "formality").
-
I don't see lost units as "wiped out". IMHO, they got bashed into a state where organization/manpower/moral etc dropped to a level where they lost a real military value on the strategic level, not meaning they can't be regrouped, reinforced, and sent back into combat. Unless they were encircled first, I guessOriginally posted by top cat:Most armies, navies and air forces disengaged or withdrew before they are wiped out, why not in this new game so that you can have a bit more control on your own forces while the opponent has their turn.
-
I absolutely disagree with this.
Experience =/= moral.
A military unit doesn't *lose* experience by fighting battles. I'll even argue that a military unit / commanders can gain experience in retreating.
Successfully retreating without losing military cohesion, dealing with logistics etc., is a skill few master.[ July 09, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: _onepercent ]
-
Originally posted by Edwin P.:
ie The Axis (Germany) offers a peace treaty with a nation. A popup appears at the start of that nations turn it (or its parliment over its supreme leader's objections) can accept it, and if so all Axis units operate from that nation and all of that Nation Units are expelled from Axis territory. Germany might make such an offer so it can refocus its forces elsewhere. A nation might accept so it can rebuild its army.
Look, if you're playing as the German player, and you're getting your ass handed to you by France, or any other nation, you don't dictate the peaceterms with that nation. That's not the way it works.
Methinks you need to lookup why US joined the war again..Futhermore,
If no Axis units are in France or England then perhaps the USA does not enter the war in Europe? This would be a more realistic outcome than the situation where the USA enters the war when the Allies are winning the war in Europe.
In my view, if the Allies (UK, France, and USSR) are winning the war in Europe then the US would likely have remained neutral.
-
Nope, France would not accept a peacetreaty with Germany to let the axis focus on UK+Russia.
-
Hmm, Allied Option - Send armies to Russia via the Pacific or to Europe. Now the Germans truely don't know where the allies will strike. Problem: The Siberian Railroad was just 2 tracks. </font>Originally posted by Edwin P.:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.
-
Unit movement limitation is an interesting idea.
However, allies can't give french territory away unless they're setting up for a post-ww2 conflict between france and spain which is out of the scope of this game. Liberated french territories go back to france, that includes vichy france and it's posessions.
Likewise, britain was fighting a world war to protect it's commonwealth. If you think about it, then you'll realize that there's no chance at all that Churchill is just gonna say "hey, let's give egypt to the facist franco, and let's hope he reckognizes the great gesture this is!"
I'm not mocking your idea, it's still an interesting one, it's just not realistic at all that france or britain would start chopping up their territories and handing it out to facists (or anyone else) for good gesture. Wouldn't have happened. Otherwise you might as well give florida back to spain and hope they reckognize the good gesture as well, it's not happening.
-
Are minor nations going to collect their MPP and spend it on more troops during their neutrality? I like what you say Edwin, but maybe it's abit too much with limited wars between Spain and UK etc.
I'd be very happy if the neutrals simply collected their mpp and bought new units when they could.
Just like DalmatiaPartisan says re: chess, this would add that unknown factor into the game. Not knowing where they have their units, nor exactely what kind of units they have, nor how many units they have. -
Hmmmm very interesting. How many turns do you guys think it will take to knock out Poland in SC2? Anyone for the job of finding out how to knock em out on turn1?
-
This is totally awesome!Originally posted by Hubert Cater:For example, if Poland is set (initially) to a UK parent but is subsequently liberated by the USSR the new allied parent for Poland will become the USSR because the USSR is not a fully 'cooperative' ally of the Allies.
This will be incentive for some very interesting powerstruggles between allied players! :cool:
[ October 23, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: _onepercent ]
-
Ok, show us your resume.Originally posted by Liam:P.S. If anyone wants my Resume and to pay me to Beta, I'll certianly do that too
but wargames is for fun
-
Get a job!
Oh wait...this was an job application?
-
It is alittle difficult to measure military success by comparing death toll ratio. Also I can't quite figure out everything that you're trying to say, sorry :\Originally posted by eppu:Yes I`m from Finland...
Finland army size was 600,000 big at WW2.
But Mannerheim HQ rating must have 8 or 9.
USSR last assault summer 1944 to Finland.
up 350,000 man, 600 tank and 1700 airplane.
And 70% destroyet for Finnish line.
Finland loos up 300,000 man in WW2.
USSR lost millions men 40-44 Finnish line.
-
Which is why I think the opposing side should get a random percentage, say between 0 to 20% of the MPP plunder when a nation is defeated.Originally posted by Edwin P.:JerseyJohn
"The regular air, sea and land units would vanish from the map and the two sides would recieve differing amounts of MPPs; the one for captured equipment and the other for additional personnel."
One could say that this was incorporated into the plunder one received from conquering a nation.
Argumentation:
When a nation was defeated in worldwar2, the government and royals etc tried to go to London to setup "Government in exile", from where they would continue to organize whatever resources they still had to aid the allies in the wareffort against the axis.
Example: Norway. I belive it is largely unknown that Norway has a history of having a HUGE merchant fleet, that has peaked in size as the worlds largest merchant fleet. In worldwar 2, I belive the size of this fleet was the worlds third largest, after USA and UK (easy to check).
When the axis attacked Norway, the government went to London to setup the norwegian government in exile, from where they managed their resources to aid the allies in the war against the axis.
One of these "resources" the norwegian government in exile had control over, was the merchant fleet, and it was injected into the allied wareffort.
The merchant fleet was injected into the convoy system and played a huge part there.
This is DEFINATELY an MPP injection into the allied warmachine, as an direct result that the axis attacks and captures Norway.
How large this MPP is, I don't know. Perhaps it went down something like this, germans conquers Norway, axis gets 95% of the MPP plunder, allies get 5%.
The allies atleast get "something".
Same thing when the axis conquers Poland, alot of polish guys went to Britain to continue the fight, as pilots, infanterists, and whatnot. The MPP of this Polish effort might not be enough to build one unit, but I'm sure it was atleast enough to build 1/4 of a unit --- and the British haveto come up with 3/4 themselves.
If axis defeats the lower countries, poland, and norway, maybe Britain gets enough MPP from these countries by loyalists, government in exile etc, so the next corps they build, the Brits only haveto come up with 1/4 of the MPP themselves. Something like that. Might not be much, but then again, it might be exactely what is needed to turn the tide of battle:)
-
-
-
You raise a good point, but I think you're going at it the wrong way.
I think the game should have in it the factors that help create a stalemate should the axis manage to defeat all of Europe, so the players are allowed to try to their best in this what-if scenario, and get bogged down in a stalemate (which I belive is the way things would have gone).
Some free american fortresses to make it difficult for the axis to invade, and "Pacific Forces Transfer"/national guard/militia etc for the US, should the axis actually launch an invasion fleet.
Not to mention the limited transport ships each side will get, and thus have a hard time shipping a large enough army either way to go head on against the enemy alone.
[ September 28, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: _onepercent ]
The "I can wait" contrasting thread
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
I'm just kidding..... I think