Note that the size difference between 1/2400 and 1/3000 is drastic! If someone would combine Panzershiffe’s plastic material and molding and better sculpting with NAVWAR’s range and smaller scale I think I’d still be collecting them! As it was, I got frustrated that neither was quite the AA substitute I was looking for and gave up for a while.
For an even more drastic scale difference, see the 1/6000 scale models made by Figurehead Ships. They’re half the size of the Navwar ones:
Some ideas:
France #2: The Voie Sacrée. It could be used for some sort of troop reinforcement purpose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voie_Sacree)
Ottoman Empire #2: The Goeben Affair. This could provide Turkey with extra naval units. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pursuit_of_Goeben_and_Breslau)
Italy #2: Monte Grappa fortifications. Their construction could improve Italy’s defensive position. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Grappa)
Austria-Hungary #1: Joint operations. Austro-Hungarian forces might gain some kind of fighting power advantage when working jointly or under unified command with other countries. (In the summer of 1915, the Austro-Hungarian Army, working under a unified command with the Germans, participated in the successful Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive. Later in 1915, the Austro-Hungarian Army, in conjunction with the German and Bulgarian armies, conquered Serbia.)
Some comments:
“#1TANK Project: the British player may buy tank Tech at 50% regular price I.E. at 7 bucks starting on turn 6 and there tanks are 1 dollar cheaper.”
I’m not sure if this refers to Britain being one of the few countries that had tanks or if it refers to Britain getting a discount on their purchase. Britain and France were the two main tank countries. US forces used a few borrowed French tanks. Germany had a very small number of large, clumsy tanks. I think that was pretty much all.
“#2Mass conscription: on turns 1, 2 and 3 Russia may deploy normal infantry on any originally controlled Russian territory”
How many infantry? (Your equivalent NA for France gives a number.)
“#1Dardelines forts”
Dardanelles.
One general change I’d suggest would be to use the term “elite troops” (or something like that) rather than “storm troops” for countries other than Germany because that term wasn’t used anywhere else.
@i:
what are the X’s above the division simbols mean?
I assume they designate brigades/regiment-sized units:
Also was there any chance of the japanese keeeping iwo jima, there would need too be special victory conditions.
I don’t think there was any chance of Japan keeping Iwo. The Americans took every Japanese-held island they assaulted during the war; they bypassed a lot of Japanese-held islands, but they captured 100% of the ones they invaded. The U.S. needed Iwo badly as an emergency B-29 landing strip, and as a base from which to provide its B-29s from Tinian with fighter cover over Japan, so they were highly motivated to take it. American airpower and naval power effectively isolated the Japanese forces on Iwo from reinforcement in the period leading up to the amphibious landings. So I think the victory conditions for Japan basically would amount to a combination of two factors: holding out for as long as possible (number of turns), and inflicting as many casualties as possible (ratio of US forces lost relative to Japanese numbers).
I’m trying to figure out the nature of the larger question that’s behind the specific argument you’re making. You’re saying, basically, that wars are not caused by invaders but rather are caused when the people whose country has been invaded decide to fight back. Leaving aside the question of whether that’s correct or not, the thing I’m wondering is: what is the larger point which this argument is trying to make? Is it just a matter of semantics, a purely abstract debate over how the concept of war is defined? Or is it expressing a viewpoint about what policies a country should follow if it finds itself in such a situation? A viewpoint which could, for example, run like this:
Proposition A: Wars are caused when invaded countries defend themselves against the aggressor.
Proposition B: Wars are bad things.
Conclusion C: Avoiding war is a good thing, so invaded countries should not defend themselves when they are invaded.
I don’t have any favourite government organizations, but I’m amused by the fact that the unofficial meaning of NSA (a highly secretive outfit) is No Such Agency.
I think, Ryan, that your debate with the other guy got hung up on the question of how one defines war. You seemed to be arguing with him that a war is only a war if the two sides are shooting at each other, and your argument seems based on the premise that an invader will only start shooting if the country being invaded resists the invasion.
I think your analysis was inspired by the fact that Hitler managed to acquire a number of territoires “without firing a shot” prior to the invasion of Poland. Technically, it’s correct that the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia were not “wars” – but I think that’s an overly simple way of looking at it. For one thing, those annexations were preceded by political violence by Nazi-affiliated street thugs aimed at destabilizing those countries and/or at giving Germany an excuse to invade. The violence wasn’t a case of shots being fired by an army, but it was still violence.
I would further argue that what we’re discussing here is not so much war as the broader concept of armed aggression. Sending military forces across a country’s border to indimidate it into surrendering, without either side shooting at each other, may not be a shooting war, but it’s still armed aggression, in the same way that armed robbery is still armed robbery even if the robber doesn’t pull the trigger of his gun. I dont think its at all a situation in which the attack only becomes seen as something “worse” if the country (or person) being attacked resists, and I would oppose taking that line of reasoning to its next logical step, which would be to put the blame for the war on the victim rather than on the aggressor.
I would also point out that, when countries are invaded (especially without a declaration of war), the aggressor doesn`t always just walk in peacefully and refrain from firing unless the victim resists. The aggressor often goes in shooting – look at Pearl Harbor – and thereby makes it a shooting war unilaterally.
The concept of defeating an enemy without firing a shot is an old one, dating back at least to the Chinese military theorist Sun Tze, who stated that the supreme skill of generalship was to ensure that the enemy was beaten before the fighting even started. Its certainly the ideal way to defeat an enemy whose territory you want to conquer -- but ultimately, its still aggression backed by the threat of military force, even if no actual fighting is involved.
Did the pictures expire?
I would like to see table examples.
See this thread for an index to table picture threads, and for a few pictures directly incorporated in the index:
In his book “War”, Gwynne Dyer discusses how the wartime alliance of the US and the USSR quickly feel apart once Germany and Japan had been defeated. He argues that any experienced 18th century diplomat would have had no problem understanding why the US and the USSR ended up at each other’s throats after WWII, even though the concepts of democracy and communism would have been completely alien to him. The reason why alliances in major wars tend to fall apart after victory is that the winners are the biggest pieces left on the chessboard after the losers have been eliminated, and thus are the biggest potential threats to each other.
Peter Perla discusses these kinds of “hybrid” gaming systems (strategic-operational games and operational-tactical games) in his book The Art of Wargaming. Basically, they involve combining high-level decision-making with low-level combat resolution.
Perla says that the potential problem with hybrid military games is that the player runs the risk of falling between two chairs. A good strategic player may fight all the right battles, but may lose the war anyway because he’s not skillful at the mechanics of detailed combat for each battle. A good tactical player might win all his battles, but might lose the war anyway because he lacks an overall strategic plan.
Where exactly was Battle of El Alamein?
West of Alexandria and north of the Quattara Depression.
Was there any naval action? I’d love that
I believe that Cornelius Ryan’s book The Longest Day describes an attempted German motor torpedo boat strike against the Allied invasion fleet. It didn’t amount to much. Nor did the Luftwaffe attack against the beaches led by “Pips” Priller – just two fighters doing a strafing run. Priller himself (in the movie The Longest Day) realizes that it was a token gesture: as he and his wingmen zoom away after their attack, Priller laughs and declares, “This was the great moment of the German Luftwaffe!”
Hey I’m having a hard time finding names for my maps, as there isn’t much to Iwo Jima, can you guys help out?
I’m not sure what you mean by “finding names for my maps”. Do you mean that you’re having trouble finding maps of Iwo Jima? Or do you mean giving distinct names to subsections of an Iwo Jima map? If the latter, you could divide Mount Suribachi into different levels (summit, upper slopes, lower slopes, or whatever) and you could divide the flat part of the island into generic regions like “Northeast Sector”, “Beachhead Sector” and so forth.
Lots of faked footage but a good source of inspiration:
Yes, that is Hailie Selassie, The Ethiopian Leader during this campaign.
“I must still fight on until my tardy allies appear, and if they never come, I say to you without bitterness, the West will perish.”
Mongolia was technically neutral, but it was very cozy with the USSR. Liberia allowed the Allies to use its ports from an early stage of the war. Sweden allowed Germany to ship iron ore (IIRC) across its territory from Norway. Saudi Arabia had British sympathies.
If anyone hasn’t taken the battle for berlin i’d like to stake my claim on it. I need a game with russian. gotta love those vodka drinking german killing snow marching bad a**es
During the Soviet drive towards Berlin, the Russian troops at the front end of the advance sometimes put up inspirational signs along the roadside for the benefit of their comrades coming up behind them – things like “Fifty Kilometers to the Lair of the Fascist Beast!”
In his book “The Last Battle,” Cornelius Ryan says that when the Russians launched their big assault across the Oder, some of the Russian troops were so eager to fight the Germans defending Berlin that they didn’t even wait for the assault boats and portable bridges: they threw themselves into the river (equipment and all) and swam across. As I recall, Ryan points out that a lot of these guys had lost everything during the German occupation --their families, their villages – and that the only thing they had left to live for was revenge.
I keep mine in similar plastic boxes too (Flambeau Zerust Tuff Tainers; I think the model number is 5004). I’ve bought all the A&A games over the years, including some in multiple copies, so plastic boxes are the only way to keep that many plastic sculpts organized into all the categories I want (including colour and model variations). The U.S. (the only country to show up in every A&A game) is spread out over four containers; Britain, Russia, Germany and Japan each use three containers; the other countries use one each. The American pieces used to occupy just three trays, but with the arrival of Global I redistributed them over four trays to allow more room for future growth.
Yeah , youre supposed to be able to play them in the car
It’s an A&A game for mechanized players. :-D
A couple more ideas:
Operation Lüttich (The Mortain Counteroffensive)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lüttich
and
The Falaise Pocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise_pocket
(see John keegan’s book Six Armies in Normandy for background)
The Battle of Berlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Battle_(book)