Desert Dave Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 As originally posted by Camicie Nere: Immer - you're thinking of Norsk Hydro "heavy water" plant at Vermork. It's a really fascinating story about how the British dropped in some commandos to sabotage the plant and how these guys escaped on skis all the way to Sweden while being intensively hunted. A really interesting episode that has not really gotten the attention of historians that maybe it deserves. Haven't had a chance yet to pull out the appropriate reference material on this, but now that you mention it, I do remember the British commando raid -- expressly for the purpose of foiling that German (mis)adventure. You are right -- that would make a heck of a story, either rigorously historical, or magazine article length non-fiction, or even -- a kind of semi-mythic epic, say like -- Guns of Navarrone, where you would preserve the general outline, and use poetic license to make the story even more interesting/exciting (though I am not sure you would even need to do this). I am surprised some enterprising La-La Land script writer hasn't tackled this topic. Given the current interest in anything WWII, and Nazis as (justifiably, I would say) modern-day Scourge and EVIL Personified, and the fascination with ever-potential Nuclear horrors as apocalyptic frisson, and then -- you could mix in a love-triangle, as in Casablanca and presto! -- Box Office magic! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by Immer Etwas: "I am surprised some enterprising La-La Land script writer hasn't tackled this topic. Given the current interest in anything WWII, and Nazis as (justifiably, I would say) modern-day Scourge and EVIL Personified, and the fascination with ever-potential Nuclear horrors as apocalyptic frisson, and then -- you could mix in a love-triangle, as in Casablanca and presto! -- Box Office magic!" Please god, no - I've seen U-571 and Pearl Harbour, and I have no need to endure such suffering again - a Hollywood reinterpretation of that raid would (of course) have the raid done by a US army unit, with a bunch of badly stereotyped Brits and Germans as supporting cast, add the hollywood tart du jour for compulsory love interest and we have a film that is about as interesting as spending the same amount of time vigorously hitting yourself in the scrotum with a hammer (I told you I'd seen U-571 and Pearl Harbour). It amazed me that a writer could take as dramatic an event as capturing the enigma encoder or the attack on Pearl Harbour and have to invent a stream of absurd rubbish to attempt to make it interesting. The people who made those two films should have been collectively nailed to the Hollywood sign as an example to other filmmakers. Compare and contrast such rubbish to the movie Apollo 13, which takes a dramatic event and simply shows its drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 As originally posted by husky65: Compare and contrast such rubbish to the movie Apollo 13, which takes a dramatic event and simply shows its drama. Which means -- it COULD be done again. There are many pampered "bottom-lines" in Hollywood, none of which are more important than making money, however you might (... deliberately) screw up Historical accuracy. You are right to assume, however, that it is immensely unlikely that this picture would be made in any satisfactory, let alone artistic, fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Hubert; I agree Sweden needs to be handled differently and in an historical context, but without all the problems of such things as fleets and all. First a complaint. The additional forces in Sweden to disuade the German player are all out of wack with historical reality. A 10 point air unit means the Swedish AF has one third the number of first line combat aircraft Germany had at the beginning of the French campaign? (albeit no HQ to increase effectiveness). My "simple" proposal. When the Germans take Norway they get an additional 10 (or 5 points if you are that worried about production being upset that much) points not tied to Norweigan resources. This represents the production of iron ore from Sweden. IF Sweden is invaded, or IF Norway taken by allies, this ceases. Obviously if allies invade a neutral Sweden (highly unlikely) Germany would get the production for as long as Sweden held out. Should Germany invade it is self evident. Up the points toward intervention by USSR/USA if Germany invades. Get rid of the air unit in Sweden, possibly the extra ground unit, leave on in capitol and one other where it is now. Obviously the points toward intervention are meaningless once USSR and/or USA in the war, but at that point Germany should be busy with more than a worry about sacking Sweden! You now have the historical reason for invading Norway (to forestall interdiction of Swedish ore) and a more natural reason for Germany NOT to invade Sweden. If you like, you could end this extra point total in 44 or tied to allied landing in Europe, or some such thing. Just some thoughts Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Surprise, surprise: I mostly agree with Marc. I only don't think that additional Sweden-ore mpps have to be made dependent on Norway (because the Norway campaign was not to get the ore in the first place, but to secure the shipping lines for it). That's why I also would like to have the mpp benefit dependend on whether there are allied ships in the baltic sea. But I would be happy about *any* change in this regard. I'm not convinced that implementing some moderate additional MPP ore-convoy benefit tied to the existence of a neutral Sweden would unbalance the game, even if the Axis mpps are not cut down elsewhere. Anyway, even if there will be no change made at all with respect to the issue of certain neutrals contributing to the Axis war efforts by mpps, the "military might" of Sweden should *really* be reduced again. Btw this just makes me wonder: has anyone tried to declare war on Turkey? Are they, too, on steroids now? Straha PS: There is another issue from the review I have to agree with, and it is that the reduced turn-length does not make up for the missing effects of seasons. But I know that changing this is a major issue, and I do not expect this to be adressed before SC2 ... [ July 24, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Straha ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Like I said, you've made good points, and they will be something that I consider for the future, but as it stands now, it's not going to change. I have tried to avoid special rules for this game, and for the style of game that this is, I like the idea of having all resource income based on "what you see is what you get", not based on a special rules regardless of historical context. So in working with the current system and not having to make wholesale changes to engine setup, I have tried to make adjustments based upon the feedback and adjust accordingly. Some people found that Sweden was too easy to invade and wanted more units or a sizeable Swedish navy etc., I went with the addition of two units and positioning them accordingly. Sweden did have a Royal Air Force, now as for it's size I cannot say for sure, but I am taking some liberty with it since I discluded adding naval units. In the end it may not be perfect I agree, but I think it is a reasonable addition and the option is still there if you wish to invade, now the question is, is it worth it or not? Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts