|
Grey Hunter posted:The West Point was one of those big liners right? Yep. Her historical counterpart survived the war but wrecked off the Canaries while being towed in a bad storm in 1994. You can still see the wreck at low tide on Fuerteventura. 
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Koesj posted:No I mean that if you want to engage in a discussion about your work with jaded historians you can go there. Sorry, appreciate your concern. Ramblings....?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Drone posted:Bored, so I copied the list of variant rules options for the Sealion scenario from the DC:WtP manual, since I suppose it's relevant to the conversation. Appreciate that. I could have commented a lot on those variables but I'd rather not interfere more with the subject in hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Happy one month of being at war, everyone! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Drone posted:Happy one month of being at war, everyone! Not quite as exciting as our last one month anniversary. But we are at least doing noticeably better in the Philippines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Nice picture!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
At first I thought: Aha, that Lt. Dempsey! This officer already before the war had a pretty good understanding of the problems with the Mark X torpedoes. No, not the pistol igniters (no magnetic igniters on the Mark X), but internal leakages which made them run deeper than their depth-settings. He even informed the Cavite Yard about his findings but no action was taken. When I checked I found that S-38 wasn't Dempsey's boat, after all. S-37 was. Hopefully, we shall soon hear from her, too. Sorry about that.... 
fredleander fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Drone posted:Happy one month of being at war, everyone! We'll be at Los Angeles by Christmas!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Ikasuhito posted:Not quite as exciting as our last one month anniversary. But we are at least doing noticeably better in the Philippines. I'm doing much better across the board really - apart from the much higher plane losses - there is still no real confirmation of what has been sunk at Pearl Harbor, so I've either been very unlucky there (again) or the Americans are pulling off a masterstroke of censorship and hiding the loss of their ships. The enemy carriers are hiding, but while the Kido Butai needs a couple of weeks in drydock to clear their damage and replace lost planes - I have to hope they can do this before the Enterprise pops up. the next danger stage is when I start loading troops from the Philippines for the invasion of Java - this is where I did a lot of damage to the Japanese in my game, and I want to limit my ship losses for this phase. I just need to clean up the last bits of resistance in the north first. There are no real troops in the southern islands, so I can pick them off as I go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain? Germany wasn't going to get the bomb before Britain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain? Well, they invaded Russia in June, not winter. But yeah, the Russian winters (and in particular the muddy pre/post-winter seasons that are unique to that part of Eurasia) were completely underestimated by the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain? They needed a lot more luck/wins to have even a hope of winning the war in its entirety. Aside from Russia, they controlled all of mainland Europe apart from Switzerland, Sweden, parts of Turkey and Portugal/Spain (although Spain was friendly with them). Not invading Russia is way deep into gay black Hitler territory. "Winning" North Africa would've been a lot easier with more air power devoted to that front, making it safer to transport supplies over the mediterranean and doing more to prevent the RN from resupplying as quickly as they did irl. If they somehow manage to prevent war with Russia and the US, I'd say they could've peaced out for some time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Drone posted:Well, they invaded Russia in June, not winter. But yeah, the Russian winters (and in particular the muddy pre/post-winter seasons that are unique to that part of Eurasia) were completely underestimated by the Germans. Was it '41 or '42 that was the worst in recent history as well? Not destiny-changing, but doesn't help their situation at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:If they somehow manage to prevent war with Russia and the US, I'd say they could've peaced out for some time. Yeah, if they had beaten the British Empire in Africa, cut the Suez canal, then U-boated mainland Britain to starvation, they could have gotten a peace treaty - Vichy France would have been an "ally", and they could have focused all their efforts on Russia in 1942.... ....And still have gotten their heads pounded in. Because they went to war with goddamn Russia!.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I found the Sealion talk on the previous page super interesting. Did the Germans ever really have a plausible win point for the war? Could they have conquered all of mainland Europe, not invaded Russian during Winter, won in Northern Africa and then just peaced out of there until they got their nukes working for Britain? No, they were pretty much hosed from the start. Which isn't all that surprising when you get into some of the more academic literature on the subject - the Nazi leadership was such a bunch of bumbling clowns it's an honest-to-god miracle they ever got anything done at all. The German economy from the 1930's onwards was basically run as a gigantic pyramid scheme. Comrade Koba fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
If they could have avoided war with Russia, then I think they'd have been able to get some kind of peace deal that was favorable, though I bet the war would have continued for far longer than 1945 if that happened. The Nazi state would not have been able to sustain itself in peacetime though... its massive budget and entire economic system was based on an unsustainable model of loot and plunder that would not have been able to continue over long-term periods of peace. And those things were what kept the Nazis tremendously popular among the people. The German consumer economy proper wasn't even really put on a wartime footing until around late '42 or early '43, aside from having to do without certain food imports like bananas or coffee. Fortunately war with Russia was inevitable. If Hitler hadn't started it, Stalin eventually would have. And still pushed the Nazis' poo poo in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Drone posted:If they could have avoided war with Russia, then I think they'd have been able to get some kind of peace deal that was favorable, though I bet the war would have continued for far longer than 1945 if that happened. Possibly, but then they wouldn't have been the Nazis. Huge territorial expansion to the east was essential to their plans from the start. EDIT: For anyone interested in this, there's a really great archived thread on the subject: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3541449 Comrade Koba fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:There are no real troops in the southern islands, so I can pick them off as I go. What (how) do you know about the US troops in the southern islands.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Can I have the Zuikaku as my lucky ship again, please? Also grey, why is the British navy still floating? I feel like your not doing your English duty to build spectacular reefs!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Drone posted:If they could have avoided war with Russia, then I think they'd have been able to get some kind of peace deal that was favorable, though I bet the war would have continued for far longer than 1945 if that happened. The Nazi state would not have been able to sustain itself in peacetime though... its massive budget and entire economic system was based on an unsustainable model of loot and plunder that would not have been able to continue over long-term periods of peace. And those things were what kept the Nazis tremendously popular among the people. The German consumer economy proper wasn't even really put on a wartime footing until around late '42 or early '43, aside from having to do without certain food imports like bananas or coffee. Oh really? I would have assumed a Russian attack on a defensive Wehrmacht at its 1940 strength would have been goddamn awful for the Russians? (I understand an answer to this is offense was significantly stronger than defense in WW2 and if that's the answer, fair enough) And is there an alternate where the Nazis just don't even try to engage in operation Sealion at all and attack Russia in March of 1940, giving them a good 6 months without Winter substantially making GBS threads up their army? I should probably take this to the history threads but I literally know nothing other than how actual warfare works in the 1940s so I'd probably irritate everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Oh really? I would have assumed a Russian attack on a defensive Wehrmacht at its 1940 strength would have been goddamn awful for the Russians? (I understand an answer to this is offense was significantly stronger than defense in WW2 and if that's the answer, fair enough) The "Russia attacks Germany" scenario assumes war between the two either in 1942 or 1943. Russia was in the middle of a massive rearmament and reorganization in 1941 when the Germans attacked, and that's part of why Germany made as much as ground as they did. A year sooner and the Red Army wouldn't have been as gutted and disorganized. A year later and the reorganization would have already been completed. No German-first-strike at all and the reorganization completes anyway and Stalin goes first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:And is there an alternate where the Nazis just don't even try to engage in operation Sealion at all and attack Russia in March of 1940, giving them a good 6 months without Winter substantially making GBS threads up their army? Well first, in March of 1940, the Nazis hadn't even invaded France or the Low Countries yet. And they never really even attempted Sealion, it was never anything more than a plan on paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Drone posted:Well first, in March of 1940, the Nazis hadn't even invaded France or the Low Countries yet. And they never really even attempted Sealion, it was never anything more than a plan on paper. My apologies, I meant May 1940 which was the planned start date and got my wires crossed somehow. (Assuming the Balkans are avoided or goes better) Edit: Again, this is all from the perspective of a guy who in another world didn't have an incompetent school that let him do history aged 17-18. I ended up an economics postgrad student instead and whilst I don't regret it, I always wonder. Natural 20 fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Loggie posted:Can I have the Zuikaku as my lucky ship again, please? Can't give you a ship that's already taken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Also, the "Russia attacks Germany" scenario comes to us from... the Nazis themselves, so it is a little suspect. Considering Stalin had achieved most of his territorial goals through the MR pact and was subsidizing the Germans through cheap oil and grain, he probably felt relatively secure from the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, the "Russia attacks Germany" scenario comes to us from... the Nazis themselves, so it is a little suspect. Considering Stalin had achieved most of his territorial goals through the MR pact and was subsidizing the Germans through cheap oil and grain, he probably felt relatively secure from the Germans. Well, the red army was gearing up for an offensive doctrine style if I recall correctly so you could say a thing or two there but I don't think Stalin was going for an immediate attack as opposed to simply being able to threaten with one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
In this game, does 1 'casualty' represent one man? Here's why I ask: I'm rereading Grey's last WiTP LP and he sinks a Japanese troop ship or something, and the game reports '35 casualties', but Grey comments 'That's 350 dead troops right there.' Does that mean 1 casualty = 10 troops or did Grey  uncharacteristically misspeak?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Rexim posted:In this game, does 1 'casualty' represent one man? That was probably a typo on Grey's part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Defiantly a typo. Speaking of casualties I wonder how the game calculates tropical diseases because I'm pretty sure it must because grognards are grognards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Rexim posted:In this game, does 1 'casualty' represent one man? One thing to note is that the actual number of casualties isn't what's important (mechanically speaking), it's the number of squads disabled or destroyed. SIGSEGV posted:Defiantly a typo. Speaking of casualties I wonder how the game calculates tropical diseases because I'm pretty sure it must because grognards are grognards. It definitely represents malaria in certain areas, but I'm not on my computer with the manual at the moment so I can't find out how right now. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
   Its really dull in the air – this is the afternoon already.   Just as well I planned for a quiet day and ordered an offensive in China!  A entire Corps surrenders here.  We get closer to cutting this rail line.  This is my town.  The main force arrives at Changsha, and the battle begins. – I would be better with the whole force, but that's how it goes.   The men in Manilla need a rest, but they hold off the enemy well today.   Lots of good ground combat in China, but now we have to wait for all those troops to advance forwards again. I need to rest the Manilla troops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:Defiantly a typo. Speaking of casualties I wonder how the game calculates tropical diseases because I'm pretty sure it must because grognards are grognards. Troops in certain hex bands representing the tropics cannot recover disruption/fatigue
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Troops in certain hex bands representing the tropics cannot recover disruption/fatigue That's a surprisingly simple and ungrog way of handling that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:That's a surprisingly simple and ungrog way of handling that. I only like my games if they simulate how many digits each of my soldiers have, so that I can freeze them off individually  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Rexim posted:In this game, does 1 'casualty' represent one man? I had always figured that the initial casualties were the dead from the torpedo strike itself. The rest going down with their ship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I only like my games if they simulate how many digits each of my soldiers have, so that I can freeze them off individually A true grog game also tracks toes, the ears and dong with its freezing off module.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
That's more a WITE thing, WITP is more tropical trauma than winter. Russia, meanwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
If you can't invade empty alaskan islands and have your soldiers freeze their dongs off after staying in landing craft for three hours while battleships shell a penguin colony then I'm not sure anyone would want to play this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
SIGSEGV posted:If you can't invade empty alaskan islands and have your soldiers freeze their dongs off after staying in landing craft for three hours while battleships shell a penguin colony then I'm not sure anyone would want to play this game. See, that's what happens when you model fingers and toes like people ask. With grogs, it's always a slippery slope to dongs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:32
|
|
