Liam Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Oh one last point, Nuke Proof bunkers and the Theory of Nuclear War was a 50s thing really, no reason it couldn't have evolve earlier as some stated. No reason if WW2 hadn't stretched into 48-49 a smaller scale of the hysteria many of us remeber! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hmmm -- reducing a unit 10% for a dirty bomb would hardly seem worth doing. Maybe it's better to see it in the sense of a morale killer. In 1944 Londoners were far more distressed over the V-2 attacks than they ever were from the Blitz. Who wouldn't be, there were no sirens, no anti-aircraft fire, only a sudden thunderous explosion! At one point they considered abandoning the city. Consider in that the fact that double agents were deliberately feeding incorrect target information back to Berlin to have future rockets land off course! Yet enough of them got through and did damage in the city itself to have a substantial effect far greater than the actual loss of life. It's sobering to wonder what effect they'd have had if German air parity would have been established, the rockets protected by air cover and observation planes able to report accurately on where the rockets were really landing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 According to my sources, between Sept. 8, 1944 and March 27, 1945 out of 1054 Rockets landing on England, 517 hit London. No mention of the intended targets for the V-2. If London was the intended target that is an approximate rate of accuracy of 50%, pretty decent for an infant delivery system without the benefits JJ describes above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Yeah, those rockets were precise because they weren't covering much terrain and London was huge also. How many of them destroyed industrial sector buildings, barracks, or killed anything but civilians. I'm sure they hit... and killed... but they would've needed a hell of a lot more explosive capabilities or a much more precise guidance system to be as effective as their cost. Airpower and Balloons would've helped but then again, conventional bombers would be used then instead and at much more deadly effectiveness considering 50k died in the Blitz. They were as Hitler named them vengeance weapons<terror weapons> and dreaded, but the UK's resolve was not diminished. What we speak of here my friends is an evolved Rocket several techs beyond what the V-2 was. You're getting quite near to a tactical Nuke.. If not that weapon that could kill tens of thousands in a couple lobs over London. The actual V-1 and V-2 in SC are ten times more powerful than the real ones could've ever been... little exert from The Rocket and I The V-2 rockets developed by Germany during second World War were mostly a strategic fiasco. The 3200 missiles eventually fired at the allies killed some 5000 people. That figure totally disappears in the horror statistics of World War two. Roughly twice as many people died during rocket production in the concentration camp Dora. What I mean to say here really is that 10% of the effectiveness-morale get wiped out of a unit. For a duration..Perhaps accumulative as I mentioned in my posting... an additional 5% per turn reflecting radiation exposure. We could even have countermeasures for cleansing this... Cities and Resource hexes taking a lot more punishment, 20-25% of it's production cut for how long? We could also multiple that worse than a military unit who can move. Whilst back then it wasn't easy cleaning up Radioactive material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 anyone that plays terif should have a 25% chance of getting an A-bomb. Why not its the only way to beat the guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Curry, read the strategy guides, all of them 10 Xs. Play Rambo, Avatar, DragonHeart, Zappsweden and Iron Ranger all 100 Xs each. Then play Terif 100 Xs... But while you're doing this you must be aware, study strategies, do this do that and there ya go. You'll beat Terif... The rest of us, once in awhile with great strides in Tech or another Luck Factor.. <or a strategy he's never seen> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 My suggestion to those of you who care to tackle the "Titans" of SC, is you must approach the game with a novel perspective. Now the editor limits us being able to change the mechanics of the game, but the linage of strategy can be altered to a point. For those of us who have played the same campaigns hundreds of times, the initial approach/opening moves are pretty much "cut in stone" with only the variability of tech upgrades to upset the balance. That is why you see people surrender early in the game, the outcome is predictable, not completely, but the odds are in favor and the players become bored. So what can you do to even the playing field? Not much if you haven't dwelt within the depth of the mechanics of SC as Terif has, by investigation or replications to a point of conditioned reaction. But what you can do is choose a custom campaign that neither has ever seen/played. Fire that baby up, don't examine it, and play a mirrored contest. Personally those have been my best SC experiences as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 SeaMonkey, I prefer the 'growth' and 'establishment' of an Empire. Reliving a piece of history..anything close to that is fine and dandy.. Editing the base characteristics has a flaw, in that the other player will merely contest fairness until you concede to give him more 'toys', 'goodies' and a neat 'setup'. Ultimately you can alter the beginning of Fall Weiss in your choices to about anything you'd like. You can successfully invade the USA as the Axis in 1941. You can successfully Invade England any time virtually but neither will mean victory neccessarily. Likewise for the Allies.. Any early Strike on Italy minus Rambo's Gambit can cost the game. That or Minor Jumping. I've used this many times to my favor... Ahistorical as Terif has taught does hurt and only a very very skilled tactician<and lucky person> can make him wrong there but let us leave Migs, Harriers, F-15 Strike Eagles out of the setup as well as ME-363s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 In total agreement Liam, I only play customs that have both feet in the historical context of WW2. What realistically was feasible and actually considered by the belligerents in some cases. Many of the plans that were nixed by the authority in charge allow us to investigate what supposedly insignificant idiosyncracies could have resulted in a totally different outcome. Relevant strategies by the military minds of that period provide us with a more expansive playground and for the game demand a relative balance to be fun. That is the goal of this custom designer, leave the starships in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts