General Billote Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 (Compassion) - I guess I'll have to wait and find out when someone tries it on me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 22, 2002 Author Share Posted December 22, 2002 You two still at it? Jeez -- nothing on TV so I'm back. CvM is about to post on the FreeFrench as the Japanese. Should be interesting. He'll probably find a way to install a Finnish Shogun. On the Candian invasion you were right before, or maybe it was Compassion, I don't know, the two of you have been at it so long you're turning into a single entity! Anyway, I think you said it; if you sink the British fleet why go to Canada when you can just invade Britain. By the way, the other day I had 16 airfleets and thought I was being pretty gamey till I found out my opponent had 40. Just got done reading the new posts from page 2 of this thing and it was your suggestion to invade Britain after sinking it's fleet. Should have known -- every French General since you-know-who has been getting his rocks off thinking about crossing that creek and doing the William the Conquerer routine. Yes, and make those poor Brits do disgusting things like eating snails -- ugh! [ December 22, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Billote Posted December 22, 2002 Share Posted December 22, 2002 (John) they've got plenty of disgusting cuisine without borrowing from the French...Take on some Fish Pie just for an opener...then you can travel up to Scotland if you'd like some Hagas (Sp?)...Don't even try to eat a sandwich with out pickle on it....Very British Relish...And then of course British Bacon which is about an inch thick.....YUCK...and cook your fried eggs in six inches of oil...great idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 22, 2002 Author Share Posted December 22, 2002 General Billote, Agreed. I like London Broil and thank the Brits for at least contributing that much. Their cuisine is undoubtedly what made them tough enough to rule so much of the world! Imagine what the Ancient Romans must have eaten to make them so nasty. [ December 22, 2002, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireMarkX Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Alright, by 1944 Canada was producing 1000 Armoured Trucks, and cars. 400 Tanks I believe, 100 Aircraft and 20 Ships. How many was Romania, Norway, Sweeden, and Iraq, producing? And on the oil side, although Canada did not produce its full oil production until 1958, it still was producing, alot of oil, the main of the commonwealth. Get Canada stronger!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 23, 2002 Author Share Posted December 23, 2002 Brad Beyond the specific numbers and regardless of whether the items were actually manufactured elsewhere, probably the U. S., there can be no dispute that Canada and the Canadians were a major contributor to the war effort. An amazing accomplishment considering it's comparatively small population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpitfireMarkX Posted December 23, 2002 Share Posted December 23, 2002 Those items were made in Canada. Not all went to the Canadian armed forces, some in the "arms for Russia deal", some for the USA, one item, Canada made 950 dive bombers for the US Navy, and the British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 Is there a way to move this forum to the very top and make it permanent? There are some great ideas here for SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 30, 2002 Author Share Posted December 30, 2002 Genghis No. It's an old forum but I like to bring it back because it covers so many topics that keep getting revived. Glad you like it. [ December 30, 2002, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 JerseyJohn Most Interesting Thread. Thanks for the link to it. What makes the invasion of Canada possible, as mentioned much earlier, is the fact that the US can't operate units to Canada, nor can the UK build units in Canada. Futhermore, Canada should stay independent even if the UK falls to the Axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 15, 2003 Author Share Posted May 15, 2003 Edwin Glad you enjoyed it, this one is special to me because it was my first venture into the posting topics area. Agreed on Canada -- you're right, as soon as a foreign power set foot there, U. S. would be pouring troops across the border. No doubt the same would apply to Mexico. I believe Canada does remain independant but I haven't conquered UK since downloading v1.07 so I don't know if it still does. [ May 15, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Canada is closely tied into the US/UK economy WW2. With a US Capitol and land connection deeper in US why don't the Canadian's get a full 10 for their resources shown? They had a larger Navy then the Germans at one point???CORRECT??? [ May 16, 2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Ditto on the kudos to JJ for the thread. My thoughts: 1. It's not the job of the game designer to protect undefended countries (nor to protect areas with no air defence). If Canada is defended it won't be conquered, and in fact it becomes a sinkhole for Axis resources that are drained away from the areas of decision. 2. The economics and communication of both the US and Canada need serious help in future versions of the game. Both are way undervalued economically and the land border between the countries isn't on the map. Why in God's name would the US ever sail men or equipment to Canada? (Transport from South Dakota to New York, load them on ships, sail to Halifax, unload, trasport to Ottawa...yeah, right) 3. SC can be played "realistically," I think. In other words, if the player(s) follow the historical "script" of WWII, the game works out fairly well. And it's fun to do that. But after 100's of games, it's also fun to be able to try some really bizarre ideas. When I do, I often get my ass kicked by AI. But then, my record is an allied victory by February, 1941 vs. AI (using several 'non-historical' ideas). That's fun too, and what makes this an outstanding GAME is its flexibility to allow both. I personally would like to see it tweaked for greater realism without losing its ability to induge our whims from time to time. 4. I think a trans-Atlantic invasion in either direction would have been impossible. Well, impossible for the Axis and nearly impossible for the allies. Britain was the key. Thanks again JJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 16, 2003 Author Share Posted May 16, 2003 santabear Appreciated . Agreed on all points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Idea: One way to reflect the land bridge between Canada and the US would be to allow land units to be operated between the two at half the cost of a normal operating move. Thus the US could transfer troops to/from Canada in one move instead of two. [ May 16, 2003, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 I think if a land hex were added to connect the two it would probably not be neccesary to operate back and forth at all. If the Atlantic is to remain basically the same, with the US and Canada where they are (but, hopefully a land hex added to connect them) it might not be a bad idea to add a port city abstractly representing French Marinique in the southwest Atlantic corner, more or less the Caribean. As a geographical feature it could be represented as one city hex, unfortified, with a port attached and no surrounding land area. It would be ungarrisoned with a French Aircraft Carrier initially based in port. The U. S. would have gone to war if Germany had gained control of the place, but having it there would add some interesting options, especially in making new scenarios. Aside from which it would provide France with some badly needed MPPs. Another possibility instead of Martinique would be assign perhaps five or six hexes in the lowermost southwestern corner representing Venezuela with two oil wells and a port city of Caracas. The country could be a pro-German neutral with a wild card chance of joining the Axis, especially if the war is going well for Germany. In order to utilize the Venezuelan MPPs they'd need to arrive in Germany via convoy. The Axis would have to own either the Bay of Biscay ports or Gibraltar and the Allies would be able to reduce the imports using subs within range of any of the involved ports, same as German U-boats. If Venezuela were allied to or controled by the Allies it's MPPs would go to Britain, again via convoy. In the scenario editor Venezuela could be set at either Allied, Axis or neutral. Militarily I'd make it the equivalent of Romania. Of course, Marinique and Venezuela could both be represented. Venezuela as the cluster of five or six connected land hexes in the SW corner, two oil wells and the port city of Caracas. Marinique would be a few hexes to the north east, a single city hex with an attached port. I think both additions would be better than either and they'd add a little variety and spice to both the game and scenario creation. [ May 16, 2003, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Interesting Idea, Venezuela = 1 Minor Port City, 2 Oil Fields, 2 Forest Hexes I'll have to think on it. My gut feeling is that the US or the UK would probably invade Venezuela pretty early in the war. Of course, this could push Turkey and Spain closer to allying with the Axis powers and keep the allies away from Europe for a few turns. The allies would also need a strong navy to pull their forces back from Latin America. Also during an invasion the oil fields would probably be damaged (aka Russian Scorched Earth). Most interesting idea. [ May 16, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 I started out thinking along those lines also. In the game I don't think it would be a very easy objective and historically I don't think it would have been easy either, though of course a piece of cake compared to facing either the Japanese or Germans. The only complicating factor would be whether other countries such as Brazil, Paraqui or Argentina would have jumped to aid the Venezuelans. Brazil was very pro-German. The United States pressured it to not just remain neutral but to actually declare war on the Axis so as to insure it would be lurking in the shadows. Argentina, of course, also had Axis leanings as did several smaller South American nations. The idea of the major South America countries actually allying with the Axis is a bit beyond the point of likelihood, but not beyond the possible. These options would be of primary interest to those who, like myself, enjoy creating scenarios with hypothetical situations. Perhaps it would be better to have a South American Option where several of the largest nations, led by Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, combine in a pro-Axis Alliance. This would be particularly likely in a Z-Plan situation where, theoretically, the War doesn't start till 1942. How does Germany spend those extra three years diplomatically? What incentives would be offered to garner overseas allies? How does the United States react? So let's say instead of calling it Venezuela we call it "South American Alliance," make it a bit larger with a few cruisers, three oil wells, three mines, two port cities and a sizable enough army and airforce to hold it's own. Ideally it wouldn't be allowed to transport troops. It's military actions would take place entirely within it's own continent and an invasion of the involved nations would be a perilous and costly undertaking. The incentive might simply be the throwing out of foreign, principally United States, economic domination. By necessity these countries would have needed a new market for their goods, it would have to be Europe and, after the fall of France, that could only mean Germany. Perhaps the alliance would only be a compliant one of German warships and U-boats being allowed to use their ports for repairs and as a safe haven especially while convoys were being formed. There would have been little likelyhood of a United States invasion and certainly no chance of the UK doing so. Naturally, in order to have this make sense we'd need a new type of city and port status. A pro-beligerant neutral that would openly aid and abet one side but not the other, exactly the way the United States aided and abetted the Allies, but not the Axis, between 1939 and the end of 1941. The US would fill that role for the Allies till it's direct entry into the war and South America, represented by the 3 ports, 3 cities and 4 resources listed above, could represent that status for the Axis. The Allies could always openly declare war on them or they might openly enter, but I think biased non-beligerant status would be the most accurate. The best and most sensible way for Britain and America to have fought such a coalition would have been to defeat Germany, eliminating the only economic link and pulling those nations back into the Western Economic sphere. My original idea involving Martinique is much more modest, just a south-west Atlantic port with the potential for Axis control as a naval base. [ May 16, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Land hex between the two... that is a brilliant idea. Simple and effective. Atlantic remain as it is... That is BLASHAMPHEMY (however you spell it)! If for whatever reason, the Atlantic cannot be expanded... then there is no choice but to designate certain hexes as the entry points for "sea zones". Those "sea zones" can be as simple as the intell reports we have now, showing us in a graph what the strength of each force is in each "sea zone". Axis entry points would be different than the Allied entry points (to avoid a 'blockade' of a entry point). Then each turn, the "results" of the combat actions in each "sea zone" can be given to us. And entry into a "sea zone" would be of a specific duration, so they would automatically exit once that length of turns has expired (ie same logic used in the Suez transport). French caribbean... JerseyJohn, is this the route that the French "colonies" shipped materials to France by? Or did it come thru the Suez? Marinque and Venezeula... I like it. But weren't the resources used to blockade those from Axis reach something we don't currently have? In other words, wouldn't the US and UK need more ships than they have now? I don't like the idea of them being invaded, I think that should be something that you blockade, meaning Axis would have a convoy route that Allies could interrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Here's Another idea, 2 or 3 hexes in the Southeast (I mean SOUTHWEST) corner representing the Panama Canal with a convoy route going to the US. The convoy route would give the US an extra 15MPP per turn (345 MPP per year) and represent trade with Latin America. If the UK falls to the Axis in 4 Months (8 turns) US naval reinforces will sail through the canal to aid the US in the Atlantic. So the Axis has to take the US before reinforcements arrive from the Pacific or blockade the Canal. The Allied Navies have to defend the Canal until the reinforcements arrive. The US would also receive these reinforcements if the war lasted beyond the historical date of the Japanese surrender. The reinforcements would consist of 2 Carriers, 3 Cruisers, 1 HQ, 5 Army Transports, 1 Sub, 1 Battleship [ May 16, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 Shaka Marinque and Venezeula... I like it. But weren't the resources used to blockade those from Axis reach something we don't currently have? In other words, wouldn't the US and UK need more ships than they have now? I don't like the idea of them being invaded, I think that should be something that you blockade, meaning Axis would have a convoy route that Allies could interrupt. Our postings passed each other. As you can see from my posting we are thinking along identical lines. Yes, the basic parameters would be changed, Allied Atlantic naval power stretched a bit -- I think very interesting stuff and obviously you do to. Looking forward to more input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 Edwin Another good idea, though I think you might mean SW (American side) instead of SE (near Africa). Perhaps all these things can be combined into something. They were all certainly within the realm of possibility -- though not in the literally historical context. America and Canada (linked) where they are, Canal Zone directly beneath and South American/Caribean hexes in SW corner & vicinity. [ May 16, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Ah, thats the Suez Canal not the Panama canal. What was I thinking. Question: After the war started how many ships did the US send from the Pacific to the Atlantic? If so, perhaps give the US an extra naval unit 1 year into the war arriving from the Pacific. [ May 16, 2003, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 The Suez can be added as well if Hubert turns some of those red arrows in the other dirction. I don't know if that's the way to do it, of course, but there must be a two way street method to it. [ May 16, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 Shaka Got caught up in the South American idea before and neglected to mention I also think your entry point and conflict idea is a good one. I think all these things can somehow be worked into this revised without expansion Atlantic movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts