Errata &Thoughts on Forgotten Threads

[JerseyJohn]

Probably most of us comment on things and think it over, decide we weren't quite right in our statements and would like to revise what we said, but we can't remember where we said it.

If that's the case, feel free to put it here.

[JerseyJohn]

There was a discussion some time back about Festung Europa's anti-aircraft defenses, specifically on AA guns causing losses to American bomber formations to and from daylight raids. I believe EdwinP. was the originator.

At the time I said B-17s flew too high to be effected and only came under effective AA fire when they dropped to lower altitudes over the target area.

Not entirely true. German heavy AA guns were capable of reaching the higher altitudes and did inflict losses. They'd aim at the formation (or ahead of it!) instead of individual aircraft. Even near misses often caused damage and casualties, hampering the mission. I intended to mention this in a revision but never got around to it.

In game terms, however, I don't think this is overly significant and can be thought of as including in the overall losses incurred during the attack.

[JerseyJohn]

In a few threads on diplomacy and the role of non-beligerants we discussed the importance of countries such as Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Turkey in enabling Germany's wartime economy to function despite desperate shortages of needed raw materials.

In an excellent book, Hitler's Silent Partners, by Isabel Vincent , some of this is gone into in detail. I was particularly gratified to read her discussion, starting on page twelve, of Portugal's special role as the link to South American trade, a vital link to resources and an outlet for tainted gold. Of course she also goes on to discuss the Swiss bank accounts, which are among her main concerns.

Two recommended books on related topics are:

The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben

-- by Joseph Borkin

Architects of Fortune

-- by Elaine S. Hochman

It was, and is, my view that these neutral countires were not trading with the enemy, so to speak, as neither the Axis nor the Allies would have been considered as such. If Portugal chose to do business as usual it was entitled to do so; in the present day U. S. neither consumers, business men nor the government ask questions about how imported goods were produced, unless someone like Mike Wallace causes a stir over it on 60 Minutes etc & etc..

I'm sure I've been using products that were made by oppressed child laborers or innocent people serving political prison sentences in bad regimes. Sorry, if I get the chance to help them I will, meanwhile, I'm just sorry about their oppression.

[Iron Ranger]

With the help of Zapp I wrote a on how worthless Rockets are, I then added a second post on how exp is not used in reducing damage recived by Rocket units. Both still stand and Rockets are still useless.

Rockets still suck!

Long live air fleets that can fly 500 miles conduct operations and return, must have had some impressive carbarator in those engines!

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed.

Rocketry's time hadn't arrived but it was a good field to have been researching if the war hadn't been going on!

Hitler was impressed with people like Werner von Braun, whose personality was similar to Albert Speer; in other words, he liked people who had technical smarts that he thought he could use.

If V-2s had been ready in 1939 with the larger versions in development, things would probably have gone differently. It's easy to put down the rockets in this game, but it was a different story for Londoners when, with no warning at all in the case of the V2 a bunch of houses were suddenly turned into ruins.

We also have to consider that German rocketry was sabotaged in every conceivable way from slave laborers making deliberately faulty parts to turned German operatives in England (yes, not Britain or the UK, but England!) giving the wrong target coordinates and feeding back misinformation on damage results. It might still have been different if the program were being handled more efficiently.

Germany already had a good prototype jet aircraft in March of that year and Britain, which started the jet aircraft idea in 1929, was on the verge of one, though it wasn't anywhere near as good as Germany's. Italian engineers already had some good ideas on jet engine design but no way of incorporating it into anything -- Unlike the U. S. and Britain, the Italian government and the German government, did not have ideas flowing back and forth.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Nice idea for a thread JJ.

My two cents worth on a topic likely hashed over elsewhere.

I have read a bit on how the gamer has trouble with the axis merely attacking all the minors one by one as just so much undefended plunder.

First off Spain was supposed to be a buddy. Attacking Spain is no better than stabbing a buddy in the back.

In a game where there is no repercussions, I cry foul. I think if the Axis "casually" attacks Spain, countries with an "understanding" should be allowed to "rethink" that "understanding".

For instance, one of Germany's minor allies sees Germany as a menace, and quits the alliance.

Or another partial maybe country suddenly swings more pro Allies such as Turkey.

What if games that have no consequences based on real life history are just plain stupid.

In A3R, attacking countries at random will cost the Axis their victory in the end.

I also think, Spain and Turkey should be capable of responding more forcefully after an attack on the other. IE be given more rebuildable status.

Because if the game has no interest in real historical conditions, then it becomes pointless arguing over real historical accuracy as well. The game becomes merely a WW2 "looking" wargame.

[Edwin P.]

I also think, Spain and Turkey should be capable of responding more forcefully after an attack on the other. IE be given more rebuildable status.

I agree. Spain and Turkey Should respond more forcefully to an attack on the other.

1. Spain and Turkey both should start to accumulate and build additional units based on their MPP if the other is attacked. Spain should start mobilizing units if Vichy France, Sweden or Switzerland is attacked or transports are sighted off the coast of Spain or a long line of Axis units builds up along the border with France, while Vichy France is still Neutral. Perhaps allow the Spain to become a pro-allied neutral and the Allies to finance the purchase of additional Spainish units while Spain is still Neutral.

2. Turkey IF Spain is attacked Turkey should annex Iraq and Syria. This would give it a MPP & production base equal to or superior to that of Italy (and plunder with which to purchase a HQ) and prevent the Axis from attacking Russia from the south. It would also allow Turkey to ramp up production of units in preparation for joining the allies or taking action on its own ( ) - Perhaps the Turkish AI decides to move against an Axis occupied Egypt or Libya, or launch an attack into Southeastern Europe - Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Yugoslavia and Give the Allies Access through the Turkish Straits

Naturally the timing of the Turkish AI's action should be guided by the deployment of enemy forces and its relative strength.

I.E. With each unit Turkey builds the chance for military action by the Turkish AI should increase, this is especially true if southern Europe or a conquered Egypt is lightly guarded.

With Turkey controlling Syria and Iraq it should be able to produce 1 corps every 4 turns or 1 army unit every 8 turns. Each unit it builds gives it a 5% cumlative chance to enter the war as an independent AI or to join the Allies (but only if the Allies agree to give it something - ie Egypt or Bulgaria,Albania and Romania, so if Russia conquers Romania it becomes Turkish controlled territory, unless Russia DOW Turkey). Thus build 1 unit 5% to take action, build 2 units 10% chance, 3 units 15%, 4 units 20%, etc.

3. You should have a chance for Spanish/Turkish partisans after Germany Attacks Russia - thus removing the arguement that this will only serve to give the Axis valuable combat training.

[ January 28, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'll agree as well, that a historical wargame should be realistic in how it portrays the cause and events of the era its representing.

To be fair, I don't believe that SC represents itself as such.

It is frustrating to those of us who want a historical wargame, without that game going the complexity route to achieve realism. SC has the mechanics in place, without having extremely complex rules for the player. Granted, thats not to say that the majority of us understand the supply rules for example, in thier entirety, but thats the nice thing about SC, we don't have to. The cause and effect are there, wheter we appreciate it or not.

Could you imagine a game that has the complexity of a World at War (ie A3R/ERS), yet those details are handled by the computer, resulting in a manual that is no longer than SC's?