Posts made by Imperious Leader

Well Impy, you are talking about heavy bombers, I am talking about the light and medium bombers that were more of all-purpose attack bomber or low-level strike attack. The heavy bombers were used for Strategic Bombing but the light bombers were used for tactical bombing. How ever to reflect these different kinds of units in on piece, we let them have the ability of both! By the way, not all nations developed true heavy bombers.

I am not speaking about such planes. Only special planes that were could be used for close combat attack were capable and those comprised of Dive -Bombers and Fighter-Bombers NOT as YOU put it “Bombers”. The bomber piece thats in the game does not cover this function and is more close to the functions of the fighter unit. Light and medium bombers do not perform targeted close combat ground assault missions by and large . They were used to drop ordanance on fixed objects such as bridges and built up positions and not moving targets. Please research this stuff! Even the German Arado 234 Jet Bomber was designed as a fighter-bomber but could barely even hit a damm bridge!

Look at it this way: If the plane has a Payload of bombs….then it cant hit any selected targets, if it has only one bomb… then its more likely to have the capability of delivering this bomb in a manner thats targeted. Okay?

So if you want Histirical value fighters have to have this “targeted” thing you like, while the bombers are for mass “spraying” of some area with saturation. The nomenclature of “fighter-bomber” or “dive-bomber” does not make it a “Bomber class” unit. Its a fighter plane with a single bomb under its wing or fuselage . It may even have 2 bombs but its still under the fighter classification.

NOW… what about the “like for like” hits?? thoughts?

Well I disagree upon a like-for-like approach. It is fine as it is and I also think that only bombers should be able for targeted attacks and artillery if so directed! It is in my opinion not realistic.

Level Bombers cant hit ground targets with accuracy they invarable “carpet bomb” the entire place hoping to get close to something. Thats why they made Dive Bombers for close ground support combat because they can zoom in to the location and fly back up for another run.
The bomber is the last piece capable of this.

On the issue of this “like for like”– when an attack began and both sides had armor it was natural for each arm of the combatants force to engage each other on equal terms. Infantry with limited Anti-tank weaponry but with a number of anti-personal weapons often engaged “soft- targets” while the larger mechanized elements within the fighting unit also used their weaponry against the “best” most potent or “juicy” hard targets which comprised of armor. Its totally natural for this to occur and its so stupid that the game basically says… we shall ignore the reality and now allow you to hide your tanks behind your infantry . You may now use your infantry to soak up the blood from all the tank hits because they can never be hit as long as Infantry are their to do the job of “death”.

I find this quite astonishing-

That way it help influences the central problem of “Infantry push mechanic” that betrays the reality of your buys. Now your not gonna just buy infantry, because they no longer can “soak up the gravy” like a sponge, Secondly, another problem that still has to be addressed is retreats. The very idea of this thing were the attacker tries to take out all the defenders except for one then ends combat so as not to get stuck in the territory and destroyed on your opponents turn is totally unrealistic.
Either side should be able to retreat after any round. Now since you probably think this is too much of a change, then the “like for like” idea helps dissipate this problem as now you directly engage the goodies and can leave after getting some good licks in. Either way its more Historical and not more complicated.

thats clearly a threshold that should not be crossed. It basically ends the game with some quick tech trick and soils the glory of an otherwise good romantic war that was WW2.

OK lets have the master list of all these ideas… the problem with assesing one NA vs. another is to compare all the rules as a whole. Just post the whole thing.

On artillery topic… the idea of 7 units attacking my planes is not good. Remember 1 out of 10 planes were shot down on average. So only one roll should occur at most in any case, and the artillery unit cannot perform other functions if it commits to aa duty (but can move). It cant have the cake and eat it too.
Also the new heavy artillery unit should become something like this:

attack at 4, defend at 2, move 1, cost 6
if used as an attacking piece its hits must apply against enemy armor or regular artillery units before hits go against infantry.

Also, now you must allow all units to hit “like for LIke” consider:

All armor hits must go against enemy armor followed by artillery, followed by infantry

All artillery hits (except heavy) go against artillery followed by infantry followed by armor

All infantry hits go against infantry, followed by artillery, followed by armor

NOW the next unit id like to reintroduce is a Mechanized Infantry piece (armored Infantry)

attacks at 3 defends at 2, moves at 2, costs at 4

does not aid other units like artillery or perform other functions

unless you want this: Each mechanized infantry aid in the movement of one infantry unit with a +1 movement modifier at a 1/1 basis. This represents the piggyback effect and transport by halftracks to the front.
the cost of this unit would have to go to 5, which pushes the cost of a tank to 6.

lastly, the game needs different types of infantry:

1)elite ( Waffen SS, kwangtung army, Folgore, British and Soviet Guard units)
attack 2 defend 3, move 1 cost 3 (their is to be some restrictions of the limit of how many of these you can buy)

2)regular which are established (manpower restrictions)

3)Light which represent smaller elements (Volkstrum units, brigades, commandos, perhaps marines, rangers, chindits, Soviet Rifle divisions etc)

attack 1 defend 1 move 1 cost 2

again—(their is to be some restrictions of the limit of how many of these you can buy)

manpower restrictions:
i have to set this asside for a latter time.

Who is Jugger?

he is somebody who basically is a carrier pegion that takes info here and drops it off at larrys site, basically all these ideas with NA’s are taken with him like a German adjunctant reporting to the Fuhrer.

It has to be on a D10 or it will bring too much value to a 4IPC unit. If you got Artillery at 2/2 plus +1 for each infantry , plus not it assumes the duty of a 1 in 6 chance of hittling airplanes… YIKES!! now they are better than infantry-

Just make it a d10 rolls as stated, but in the more elaborate manner of structure of which you stated and tell Juggernought your alter ego in crime that we now have a new piece!

And to sustain that you need more infantry then any other unit, so your saying that since you see the value of lots of infantry and your buying them more than any other unit you have agreed by inference that they are the most valuable unit. Excellent!

ok try this… play a game where all you buy is say tanks and nothing else for land combat, second play a game buying no new units except infantry. See how far you get That goes for all of you peeps. That will solve this once and for all-

I wouldn’t hesitate to attack Moscow with 3 tanks if it were defended by only 3 infantry. Now, if I win, who’s the bigest looser? Russia. So it all depends on the context. Infantry are very good units indeed but you can’t win a war with them only…

And Duke, did you honestly ever win a game while buying only infantry? Seems impossible to me… Unless?!?

Of course if it means winning the game you have to go for it. Even if it means losing. But your not comparing “like for like” : that would be 5 infantry vs. 3 tanks.

No you cant win the game with just infantry… the whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate the value of any one SINGLE unit– " MVP" unit of the game. Infantry stands best allways-

Tanks and all the rest of course have their part to play and you cant just win with only infantry and nothing else. that is incorrect either.

If you want to keep it simple you would do away with these “national advantages” but you too feel the same as i do but want to approach it by some similiar avenue that is closer to what has allready been established. What you dont realize by all this pussyfooting is that you see a need to “improve” the game because its lacking in some respect. I totally agree that it needs some additional items…but this rears the ugly head of additional complexity which you detest. Believe me we are both brothers in the same cause and i will try to come up with something that you can be accomodating too. (at least thats the plan).

Id like to do away with AA guns consider: The level of abstraction in this game having ONE armor unit and ONE type of infantry unit does not lend itself to now offer a “unique” unit that becomes the anti-aircraft gun… No nation had ever assembled huge groups of these guns that just moved around and shot at aircraft… We have artillery that becomes basically all units such as anti-tank guns, assault guns, rail guns,long and short range artillery, self propelled artillery and yet we have another unit that JUST SHOOTS AT OTHER PLANES. Now this is quite absurd.
I propose that artillery shoot at planes with a preemtive shot with one d10, while up to 2 can fire at each plane (rolled seperatly by plane type) to allow something along the lines of what you say to should be . This would allow an accurate demonstration of a/a abilities since now you have a statistical varation of 0,1,or 2 hits which fall within the framework of the possibility of losing a plane.
The old AA gun can now be a specialized unit such as your heavy artillery or v-2 rocket launcher, or anti-tank gun or a whole host of speciality units. In this way we add a piece, add realism, and dont clutter up the game with complexity.

3 infantry and I have 3 tanks…who wins?

the person who caused the most net causalties in terms of IPC lost wins…

3x2 vs 3x3 and IPC investment= 6 vs.9 I think on average you may lose 2-3 tanks, while 2-3 infantry are lost. Its best to compare the same units as per the same investment… Consider: 15 IPC spent of either 5 infantry or 3 Tanks

infantry defense is 10, while the tanks are 9. But in terms of loses i think the tanks would be destroyed before the infantry on average… check a dice roller for proof.

During the war one in ten planes were shot down by anti aircraft fire. Losing a plane with a d6 hitting on a “ONE” is too much of an advantage anyway to increase it to 33% success ratio is really too much power to this unit. The plane idea is not bad. But i dont like how your entire air force just turns into “Jet fighers overnight” and can cause problems. Why cant you just introduce a new unit and why does every previous unit have to morph into 50 different units??? Just add new units to the game that add this flavor you seek… That way you can now build heavy tanks, heavy artillery, jets, heavy bombers, heavy this and heavy that…

The game is played turn by turn. it takes time to build up the real army before you attack. Like in Chess you have to first mobilize your army and conduct movements that create the biggest tempo. If the horse comes out before the buggy your in for a defeat.

I agree hes basically saying that Infantry is the most value as a unit without realizing it. He admits that :

It’s the side with most tanks, fighters and bombers that wins.

So by inference these units will win if you have tons of Infantry to soak up the battle scars while the goodies are screened from combat loses. I am sure he doesnt think these units fight alone without support of many additional Infantry units taking it on the chin every turn. This self defines Infantry as having the most value because its utilitarian contribution in many facets of game include many more of them to be involved in any big attack. Anybody who has more planes or tanks than infantry will lose in the long run, because they will be placed in harms way which costs more to replace.

Reasons never to get married:

(permanent girlfriend that lives in her own bedroom is just fine however)

1)Marrige is the #1 cause of Divorce…

2)The worst thing is to get married and have “children”… The primary reason is one of self serving interrests:having children because proves they have failed in life and want a second chance to set the record straight with another copy of failure. The second reason which applies to our more sucessful people is to transition wealth within the family. The last reason is primarily for ignorant people who assume that making kids will lead to being “taken care” in your old age which a mentality that you find in the pre-industrial age.

3. If you read “civilization and its discontents” by Freud you will understand alot of how society and men and women should function.
   check out this:
   http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/freud-civ.html

4. Read anything by George Bernard Shaw as well. He will put things in perspective for you. Their is no specific play that i can refer you too, any reading of his works will leave a sentiment about marrige that is quite sour to say the least…

5. IMO women drain the creative life from the man who strives to build and create great works for society. The womens focus generally tends to revolve the most mundane elements of life which toil the very life energy from the mans ability to forge ahead. This constant tug from our companion is a constant reminder that we have to make personal sacrifices of the very force of the supremacy of the “will” which must remain pure and never resign to medocrity. So by getting married… you lose your drive or “will” and soon abandon all your dreams in order to capitilate to anothers “will”. YOU surrender your life for that other person.
   If that appeals to you then get married… If you want to be poor and married have kids…

BTW I have to add that i have been living with my Girlfriend since 1992 and I am able to maintain my own wealth (doing quite well) and sanity, because we only share time on Fridays, when she “offers” to tag along with my friends on any other day i simply remind her thats outside “what we do”. Yes i seem to behave like some gestapo agent, but we all have to follow orders like good Germans…

Arado 234 Jet Bomber so i can bomb UK and never get intercepted by lousy Spitfires. After the Meteor came out id have a run at the eastern front. The song “aces high” from the battle of Britian movie would be playing in the backround… on an endless loop

Man we lost 10,000 men just taking Wake island from Japs… i dont see the big deal with Iraq. Heck we only lost 1,100 taking and holding an entire hostile nation for years… Why didnt anybody complain about Wake Island? Oh i forgot that was a war with a Democrat as President … or 4 term “King” called FDR. And I also forgot that life didnt matter then and Democrats also controlled both Houses of Congress… NM :wink: :wink: :o

In California their are no intelligent Aliens either and their are too many of them at that!

Its totally lame… OMG its sooo lame i tried to sell my copy on ebay the day the game came out and the price droped so much nobody wanted it and now i just use the jewel case for storage.

N. Italy 6
S. Italy 4
Algeria 1
Greece 2
Yugoslavia 2
Lybia 2
Somalia 1
Ethiopia 1
Tunisia 1

Germany took Greece, while Italy tried to first invade it and got pushed back into Albania. Germany also took Yugoslavia under operation “retribution” which was to punish the new government from throwing out the former pro german leadership. In fact it was just about to turn into another Germany minor ally untill the coup.

Algeria was vichy french and under german occupation

Somalia and Ethiopia were conquered by british forces in 1941 long before the game starts…

Tunisia was also vichy french

Im sorry to burst the ideas you made but it totally ignores what actually transpired… Id just make values for the remaining territories and Germany might be able to give some aid to Il Duce since Italian forces fight with germans in the Soviet Union and Afrika. Probably about 5 IPC at best.

The other route is to boost the value of italy itself.

Dunkirk or “operation Dynamo” as it was called was not a British defeat, but could have been. The German air superiority cost them 177 planes to about 130 british planes lost and while the France were of course losing every where else Churchill got in total some 338,226 troops were evacuated (220,000 British, 120,000 French), while the germans got 34,000 british soldiers captured plus all the British equipment and of course some additional French soldiers.

In the matter of “Overlord” to say this:

It should be pointed out that Hitler never gave complete operational control to any of his generals if he could help it…. comes from being a paranoid megalomaniac. If we are going to talk about changing Hitlers personality we may as well consider that the war never happened.

Means that any speculative analysis of any Historical point according to your interpretation History has no real value because nothing could have happened any other way than it did, because after all people act exactly consistent at all times and could not possibly make decisions contrary to their personality.

Does this mean we cant learn from it?

Rommel in complete command of OB West would have meant pushing the Allies in the sea on the first day, way before a beachhead would be possible. Quite possibly all the small factors of Hitlers poor sleeping habits,Rommels wifes B-day, military exercising planned for the following day and Eisenhowers decision to cross the channel on the 6th all contributed to its outcome, along with “hitlers personality”.