Jump to content

Rolend

Members
  • Posts

    333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Rolend

  1. One other note is that sometimes success can have an ill effect. Morale seemed to drop in the German army after months of great success in Russia, and this was before the set backs at Moscow. It seemed to many soldiers that no matter how many Russians they killed or captured and no matter how much territory they took there seemed to be an endless supply of both Russians and land.

    I like the idea of morale in a game but I would think it is a very dicey thing to get right.

  2. Well I do like the system but I think it needs some tweaking. I would think that it needs to be a little more centered around the country in question. Take Russia for example. Mucking up the war in Finland should have a much larger impact on moral then say Italy taking Tunisa. The fall of France was huge because pre war they were seen as the BIG militray power in Europe, even more so then England and when France fell and in such and EASY manner it shocked everyone and that inculded most Germans.

    So to have a single rule applying to all countries is to me just way over simplified and that is really the only issue I have with it.

  3. DD ummm you wouldn't be testing the new patch would you??? Just a small hint, how is it looking? smile.gif

    As for the OP, yea some times after I finish kicking the Allies rear when I play the Axies I get a pang about what it would have really meant had the Germans won the war in that manner. Then I remind myself that it is just a game, like playing checkers, I am not really making war and killing millions of people in the process and as long as I keep it that way, then I think no harm no foul. If I have to have a habit, and yes gaming of all kinds is a habit for me, it is better then say drug addiciton smile.gif

  4. Originally posted by Blashy:

    Too much at the "micro managing level" for my taste.

    If they were implemented, on/off switch please smile.gif .

    Yep I agree with Blashy on this one, if they add it please give us an option to disable it. I mean where does it end, there are lots of things left out and if we manage to add them all then it will take days to make one turn smile.gif Micro managing every aspect of a war would not be much fun for me as 90% of your time would be spent in admin and only 10% on the battles. I prefer a game with 90% battles 10% admin.
  5. Originally posted by dicedtomato:

    "Uber-Submarine" (with apologies to the Beatles)

    In the town where I was born

    there was a man who sailed the seas

    and he told of his life

    sinking the Royal Navy with submarines

    We all live in an uber-submarine, uber-submarine, uber-submarine...

    As we live a life of ease

    every one of us has all we need

    nuclear reactors and guided torpedoes

    in our uber-submarine

    We all live in a uber-submarine, uber-submarine, uber-submarine...

    LMAO sooo funny thanks I needed a good laugh, I was kind of dragging today, now I am chuckling to myself with a picture of a yellow U-boat sinking the entire RN with one torpedo smile.gif
  6. Originally posted by Lars:

    I've really got no problem with the existing model either. It's more fun than putting X number of u-boat chits and X number of escort chits in a convoy box. I've played those game systems before, and that's all they really modeled, the attrition aspect.

    What I would like is for surface ships to keep on moving through a sub tile if the sub is set to silent running. But for that we'd need stacking.

    Oh, and commerce raiding for surface ships.

    It is funny that we are banging heads over this as I to like the curent system I just think it needs some tweaking. Yes you are right commerce raiding should be a part of convoy itrediction, after all that is why the German surface fleet was built in the first place.

    After the WWI I think the Germans were smart enough to learn they were not going to beat the RN head to head so they focused in on merchents. Had Hitler listened to Dornitz and put all those surface ship resources into U-boats instead then England would of had a MUCH harder time in the first few years of the war.

  7. Well DD I understand where you are coming from but I still don't agree. To me to judge some one who has to make an on the spot war decision, without the hind sight of years of history to help make that decision, in the same category with true evil criminals is just plain wrong and way to "can't we just all get along" for me.

    WAR IS HELL period and that is why it should never be used only as a last resort. I hope you don't have this idea that we can somehow EVER cleanly fight a war. Frankly I am glad it is brutal it helps keep us from using it as a normal tool. Being an old Star Trek fan (the original series not all those touchy feely crap that followed) I remember one show where they came across a race of people who did just that, fought a nice clean war by the rules. The jest of the story was that because it was such a clean war they did not have the motivation to end it, so it went on for generations.

    War is hell, ugly and brutal and people die. Maybe now that modern technology has made war even more deadly it will help keep us from using it in only the most extreme cases. But if it is used it should be managed in a way to bring about the swiftest conclusion no matter what is needed.

    Denying the 'enemy' the tools to fight a war and yes that means the people who make the war machine possible, is in my opinion a very proper target of war. Wars are won and lost by the machine behind the troops as much as the troops themselves thus making them a valid target. I know this sounds heartless and cruel that is what war is and if you are going to take part in it then you have to be ready for the realities of war.

    Personally I think the decision to bomb Dresden was a mistake and was done more for ‘payback’ and revenge then a sound military target but it was a valid war time target and should not be considered a war crime.

  8. Blashy well if I was in one of those camps and knew my turn in the chamber was coming I would prefer they bombed the camp, not because it might be an easier death but because I would know a bunch of Germans would be coming with me and that camp could be put out of 'action' for at least while. Yea if I was in one of those camps I would say bring on the bombers.

    Very few people after the war were put on trial for war crimes involving carrying out the war, they were tried for the holocaust and similar evils. Personally I don't even like the term war crimes as most of those crimes had very little to do with the war. So to lump people who wrongly or rightly made tough war decisions, WITHOUT the knowledge of the past 50+ years that we have, in the same sentence with such evildoers is just plain wrong.

  9. Lars the Germans only had a handfull of U-boats in 41 there is NO way they could of destoryed the RN as you suggest. Now had they the 300+ Dornitz wanted sure they could of made a large impact.

    So you would have to go back and change pre war decisions not to mention that you would have to give the Brits the same pre war options to build up ASW as they would of seen the Germans building up all those U-Boats smile.gif Around and around we go.

  10. Well the history of war shows countless times that luck plays a huge part in the outcome. Now to take luck out of the game will be turning it into a chess game and make it VERY unrealistic. No thanks I like luck in my games and this comes from some one who is very unlucky.

    One other note, no MATTER how much money you invest in a problem it does NOT assure a return on that investment. Just ask the drug companies who can literally invest a billion dollars on a promising drug just to see it fail.

    I like the system the way it is, maybe some minor tweaks but please don't take the luck out of it.

    [ May 23, 2006, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

×
×
  • Create New...