Topics created by KurtGodel7

Turkey is keeping the British busy so that Germany can walk into Paris for some crepes. :lol:

Thanks for the informative post. You prompted me to do a little reading. At least according to what I just read, you are correct: a dirty bomb does not have a more powerful explosion than a conventional bomb. That reading contradicts the impression made by a documentary I watched; in which the explosion from a dirty bomb was portrayed as more powerful than a conventional weapon, less powerful than a nuclear blast.

There were some reports of what appeared to be nuclear weapons tests in Germany toward the end of the war. The documentaries in question treated those reports as evidence of dirty bombs being tested. But given that the explosions themselves were very powerful and produced a lot of light, the reports in question were either false (which is most likely) or else may have represented testing of actual nuclear weapons (less likely).

But not necessarily impossible, given the fact that a Nazi nuclear weapons complex has recently been discovered in Austria.

This brings me back to the aforementioned statement by Goering that Germany would have a nuclear bomb by 1946. If a dirty bomb was as unimpressive as your post and my recent reading leads me to believe, it’s quite possible that by “nuclear bomb” he meant an actual nuclear bomb.

However, it’s worth mentioning that Goering is the same guy who promised that the British Expeditionary Force near Dunkirk could be wiped out by the air, with no need for a German land offensive. Goering was also the one who promised that the German pocket at Stalingrad could be adequately supplied by air; and that there was no need for it to attempt to retreat westward. Goering had a track record of over-promising and under-delivering; so his promises of a nuclear weapon in 1946 should be taken with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, Germany was easily ten years ahead of the Allies in chemical weapons research. Perhaps more. If the German nuclear program did not result in a usable weapon until, say, 1947, Germany could in the meantime have retaliated against Allied nuclear attacks with chemical weapons attacks against Allied cities. Imagine this scenario: the United States has just dropped a nuclear bomb on Berlin. Germany has chosen to retaliate by sending a group of Horten H. XVIII planes to deliver a chemical payload to New York City. Allied leaders recognize that even though Germany has not yet developed nuclear weapons, it still has the capacity to respond tit-for-tat to the Allied destruction of German cities.

Thanks for making me look up “anachronous”

:)

If Russia had attacked an entrenched Nazi Europe, the social optics alone would change the outcome in my opinion.

Suddenly the reds are the big fear, and the Nazi’s would probably garner more support.  As for the Russia people, they would blame their leadership, and revolution would be in the air, as opposed to the desire to kill the “invader”

@KurtGodel7:

@Red:

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.  Historically, even very successful attacks severely depleted these forces.  Examples would be heavy losses in Poland and France as well as pilot/aircraft losses in several of the major early war IJN/USN encounters.Â

Aircraft were particularly prone to heavy attrition just operating.  And they were easy to target in suprise attacks at the outbreak of war.  But since the game allows them to be chosen last they don’t attrit.  Plus they can be held away from the front.  This is why the USSR’s air force is almost completely absent in the initial placement.

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.

They do in my rules set!  8-) Every round of ground or naval combat begins with the dogfight phase. In the dogfight phase, all units present fire at their air combat values. Any hits you receive must be applied to air units. Once you have applied a single anti-air hit to one of your air units, you must apply additional hits to that same unit until it’s dead, or until combat ends. (The same is true if you apply an anti-land hit to one of your land units, an anti-naval hit to one of your ships, or an anti-sub hit to one of your submarines.)

There are other ways aircraft can be destroyed as well. In strategic bombing raids, there is one round of dogfight phase, followed by strategic bombers attacking their targets using their strategic bombing values. Strategic bombing raids do permanent damage. For every ten points of damage a production facility experiences in a strategic bombing raid, it is reduced by one level. While nations receive some money from territory income, most of their late game production will come from production facilities. A sufficiently powerful strategic bombing offensive can destroy all those facilities; as well as the underlying cities in which they would exist. The correct defense against a strategic bombing offensive is to build air superiority planes; such as piston fighters or jet fighters.

There is a second way of defending oneself from strategic bombing raids: airfield attacks. To initiate an airfield attack, send your planes to a space with enemy aircraft, and declare an airfield attack. There will be two rounds of dogfight phase. Any of your planes which survived that dogfight may launch one attack against enemy aircraft, using their land combat values.

Interesting. At one time I had an idea for a variant of A&A where unit placement was at the start of your turn and the purchase phase was at the end. The units purchased were considered “in production” and set aside until placement at the beginning of the next turn. While the units are in production the enemy can strategic bomb them before they even get deployed.

By doing this the intention was to make strategic bombing more important and more costly. The other difference was that interceptors defended at full combat value and escorts attacked at full combat value for one round. I have never play-tested this so it might be a game breaker. It seems kind of fun to me though.

I refuse to use this thread . . . I hate you GARG!

Yeah IRAQ attack was impossible to accomplish for Germany! SeaLion was the right move! Really good game.

It was an illustration to demonstrate a point.

@Epiphany:

That all sounds blood awesome!  You clearly spent a lot of time working out the details and they sound really cool.

At the end of your post you were mentioning that British ships can get higher anti-aircraft tech than Soviet or Axis ships.  Does each nation have specific tech limits for all technologies available?  And are there land-based anti-aircraft technologies? If so, how does Germany stack up?  You mentioned in previous posts about the “big deal” that aircraft represent in the game, so having or not having technology related to shooting stuff down seems important.

How do aircraft carriers work?  Do they come with their own assigned aircraft, or can you field upgraded naval air units?  Or would that merely upgrade the aircraft carrier itself?  So many games, the aircraft carrier, and all ships in general, are just simple units with simple stats.  Are there light carriers, escort carriers and fleet carriers with varying stats for each country?  Can any country build them?  Could Germany for instance, field a massive carrier fleet?

You said China produces no EU’s for the first 5 turns.  Does this mean China only has what it starts the game with for five turns?  Or does it still have PU’s to build units with?  Also, do you have to spend everything every round or can you accumulate EU’s or PU’s and spend them when you want to?

I’m glad you like what you’ve heard! :)

In answer to your question, there’s a general tech tree, and there are nation-specific techs. Each nation has a list of the techs from the general tech tree it’s allowed to research. For example, Germany can research higher up the infantry part of the tech tree than anyone else; Britain and the U.S. can research higher up the artillery part of the tech tree, and so on.

In answer to your question about China: its lack of EUs means it cannot research or industrialize early in the game. But it starts with an income of 12 PUs and 10 MPs. Its light infantry cost 1 MP each, so it can buy 10 light infantry a turn, plus 12 PUs a turn of artillery or fighters. In answer to your other question: you don’t have to spend everything every round. Unspent resources get carried over to the next round.

The primary way to defend against enemy aircraft is with fighter aircraft of your own. Fighters are specialized for one role, and one role only: shooting down enemy planes. Their anti-naval and anti-ground combat values are very limited. If you were engaged in a carrier war, for example, some of the planes on your carriers would probably be fighters (to shoot down enemy aircraft), and some would be torpedo bombers (decent at shooting down enemy aircraft, great at sinking enemy ships). You’d use your fighters to destroy enemy torpedo bombers before they could take out your ships! Or you could use your fighters against the enemy’s fighters, in an effort to protect your own torpedo bomber force.

You build aircraft separately from aircraft carriers. You can land up to two planes on a normal aircraft carrier, and up to four planes on a fleet carrier. Upgrading your carrier fleet from regular carriers to fleet carriers is relatively straightforward from a technological perspective. However, fleet carriers cost 28 PUs, compared to just 18 for regular carriers. Fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers can land on regular carriers. Fleet carriers can handle these planes as well. In addition, jet fighters and jet fighter-bombers can land on fleet carriers. Strategic bombers and jet flying wings cannot land on any kind of carrier.

The rules set does not currently contain AA guns as separate playing pieces; though I’m half tempted to add them in. Currently, advances in artillery technology improve the land combat value of your artillery, and give your artillery anti-air combat value as well. If I were to include AA guns, they would be like regular artillery, except with a weaker anti-land combat value, and a better AA value. Unlike Britain and the U.S., Germany cannot research advanced proximity fuse. This means its artillery will not have the same anti-ground or anti-air values that American and British artillery have. But even though Germany’s artillery ceiling is third-best, that ceiling is still good and high.

Speaking of Germany, below is more of the list I’d promised.

Germany

Blood and Iron. German infantry have three hitpoints. (As opposed to two hitpoints for most other nations’ infantry.)

Blitzkrieg. If Germany is engaged in a land battle, and if its opponent decides to withdraw its land force from that land battle, Germany gets to multiply the land combat value of its tanks and planes by a factor of two when firing on that land force.

Crush communism. During the collect income phase of each turn, Germany receives a free manpower point for each formerly Soviet territory it controls. (Limit 4 MPs per turn.)

Fortress Europe. Blockhouses have 4 hitpoints, receive +1 to their land combat value, and cost 3 PUs each.

Bismarck. Your battleships receive +7 to hitpoints and +2 to their naval combat value.

Heavy artillery. Your artillery receive +1 to their land combat value.

Speer’s industrialization. During the industrialize phase, Germany may upgrade seven of its cities for free. In addition, Germany receives one free advancement in Industrial Technology each turn. Speer’s industrialization ceases to provide additional benefits to Germany after the first five turns of the game.

Goettingen laboratory. Germany has a research center in Hanover. This research center provides 10 EUs a turn, has 40 hitpoints, and may not be targeted unless Hanover has been destroyed.

Custom technology available for research

Panther tank (may not be researched before round 2). Researching this tech causes the following to happen. 1) You automatically receive the techs battle tanks level 1 - level 5, even if you do not have the prerequisites for that tech. 2) your battle tanks receive +1 to hitpoints. 3) Each additional battle tank tech costs one less EU to research. Cost: 7 EUs.

King tiger. (You must have previously researched battle tanks level 7.) Researching this technology causes you to receive the techs heavy tanks level 1 - level 3, even if you do not have the prerequisites. Cost: 4 EUs.

E-series tanks (may not be researched before round 8.) Medium tanks (E-25s) now cost 4 PUs, battle tanks (E-50s) cost 7 PUs to build, and heavy tanks (E-75s) cost 11 PUs to build. Heavy tanks receive +2 to hitpoints and +1 to land combat value. Cost: 7 EUs.

Me 262. (May not be researched before round 3.) Researching this technology causes you to receive jet engines levels 1 - 4, jet fighters levels 1 - 7, and jet fighter-bombers levels 1 - 2, even if you lack the prerequisites for these technologies. Cost: 9 EUs.

Underground factories: it takes 50 hits to reduce one of your cities by one size. Cost: 3 EUs.

Improved optics (may not be researched before round 7.) Adds +0.5 to the land combat value of German infantry, +1 to the land combat value of German artillery and medium tanks, +2 to the land combat value of German battle tanks, and +4 to the land combat value of German heavy tanks. Cost: 5 EUs.

Infrared illumination and targeting. (May not be researched before round 8.) Adds +0.5 to the land combat value of German infantry, +1 to the land combat value of German artillery and medium tanks, +2 to the land combat value of German battle tanks, and +4 to the land combat value of German heavy tanks. Cost: 7 EUs.

@Clyde85:

@KurtGodel7:

If I am banned for expressing the view that the communists were significantly worse than the Nazis, it would indicate to me that one or more list moderators subscribe to the latter philosophy. I would then go about finding another WWII forum run by people who adhere to the former perspective.

Which would be too great a loss for this site and greatly diminish the level of intelegent discourse on this site in the WW2 forums.

I can see and understand what you mean, I too often sympathize with the German solider and the German army, but I have no sympathy for Hitler and is Nazi party. What they did was far worse then any of that “Stabbed in the Back” nonsense from WW1. Hitler and his party did more to stab the German army and solider in the back with their idiodic occupation policies (one of the biggest factors to Germay’s defeat IMO) and their equally stupid racial superiority theories. I know Stalin and his “communist” cornies were just as bad as Hitler and his Nazi party, most people here know this, no one is disputing this, but like Gamerman said it’s like arguing if you’d rather be shot and hung, either way you end up dead! Hitler and his Nazi’s were defeated by the Soviets in the end because the reaped what the had sowen in their occupation of Russian lands. Had a more moderate policy been used maybe things would have been different. Hitler and his Nazi party are forever stained by the horros they unleashed during WW2 and no matter how terrible Stalin was people are not going to believe the “lesser of two evil” argument.

If thats what were doing here, then I say screw Hitler and Stalin and say go Cthulhu, why choose the lesser of two evils� :wink:

Thanks Clyde. I appreciate the compliments you and gamerman have given me. I also appreciate Gargantua’s recent post on my behalf.

To address your point about German occupation policy within the Soviet Union: there was division within the Nazi Party about whether the German occupation of Soviet territory should be benign or harsh. Ultimately those advocating a benign occupation lost the power struggle, leading to a harsh occupation policy. In contrast, Germany’s leaders from WWI had chosen a benign occupation policy for the eastern lands they occupied. That policy was part of the events which convinced the people of the Ukraine that “Bad things come from Russia, good things come from Germany.”

One of the Nazis’ main reasons for invading the Soviet Union in the first place was to obtain the food necessary to avert starvation in Germany and German-occupied Western Europe. It’s possible that the Nazi leaders concluded that, if they permitted widespread starvation to occur in German-held Soviet lands, they would be seen as dire enemies no matter what else they did. Ruling by fear may have seemed like their only practical option. I acknowledge that their racial ideology almost certainly contributed to this decision. They probably saw Slavs as cowardly and easily intimidated. (Such views would have been reinforced by the Red Army’s abysmal performance in its 1940 Winter War against Finland.)

Also, if Germany’s food situation was such that millions of people would starve to death no matter what course Hitler chose, he certainly would have preferred those millions to be Slavic rather than German.

More generally, I would break the Nazi ideology down into three components:

Love for Germans and other Nordic peoples Indifference or even contempt for most non-Germanic/non-Nordic people (such as Slavs) Hatred towards the Jews

The Nazis were at their worst when acting upon the third of these components; and at their best when motivated by the first component. As an example of the latter, Hitler instituted improved workplace safety standards, improved clean air and clean water standards, reduced the unemployment rate to close to zero, significantly increased wages for German workers, greatly increased their vacation time, reduced the workweek to 40 hours, and arranged for government-subsidized cruises so that those workers could see the world. He also led an anti-smoking campaign which significantly reduced the rate of tobacco use within Germany. The Nazis encouraged physical exercise; and arranged for groups of adults to exercise together. German children who grew up in the '30s were consistently well-fed and in good physical condition. This contrasted with the poorer classes of English society–so strong a contrast that even someone as strongly biased as William Shirer noted it.

Another point worth mentioning is genetics. In nature, animals tend to have large numbers of offspring, only some of which survive to have offspring of their own. The fittest animals are most likely to be among the survivors, leading to upward genetic pressure. That source of upward genetic pressure has largely vanished for humans. Instead, the human gene pool is changing based primarily on the number of children individual people decide to have.

I have seen a Nazi propaganda poster which lamented the fact that intelligent, law-abiding people were having far fewer children than their less intelligent law-abiding counterparts, who in turn were having fewer children than unintelligent criminals. Communists have taken the opposite view of this situation. Karl Marx thought that individual differences were determined almost entirely through environmental factors. The communist movement would move even further in that direction.

Lysenko [caused] the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union.

Mendelian genetics is the only scientifically credible form of genetics. The Stalin/Lysenko persecution of geneticists represented an attack on science–a far more severe attack, at least in terms of body count, than anything the Catholic Church had done to Galileo.

While communists have since backed away from Lamarckist quackery, they have continued to promote an anti-scientific, “yes, but” approach to genetic science. “Yes, Mendelian genetics theory is true, but it doesn’t do much to explain differences between humans.” “Yes, Mendelian genetic theory may apply to humans, but it does little to explain differences in human intelligence.” That sort of thing. Communists have violently opposed efforts to improve–or even arrest the decline of–the human gene pool, on the theory that such efforts are Nazi-like. Despite vast amounts of scientific evidence to the contrary, communists continue to claim that intellectual differences between individuals are caused almost entirely by environmental factors.

Upward genetic pressure, applied over time, caused apes to evolve into humans. Downward genetic pressure, such as we are now witnessing, will cause humans to . . . ?

I would argue that, to deal with current and future challenges and threats, the human race requires two things. 1) Ability. 2) Willingness to work together, and to sacrifice for a larger cause. Communists’ anti-scientific notions about genetics, in combination with the current decline in the gene pool, represent a direct, immediate threat to the first of these two things. Communists’ racial theories and racial objectives are a serious threat to the second.

Ants are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony because they are genetically similar to the colony’s other ants. What is true for ants is also true for humans: people are willing to sacrifice more for their own children than they are for other people’s children. Adopted children are four times more likely to be abused, despite the fact that adoptive parents are screened, whereas people who want to have and raise their own biological children are not.

During the rise of the Roman Republic, individual soldiers were willing to sacrifice themselves for Rome. Government officials often placed law and honor above their own self-interest. During the decline of the Roman Empire, these things had ceased to be the case. Bribery was the norm rather than the exception. The phrase “Roman soldiers” had become almost an oxymoron: few if any real Romans were willing to fight for Rome. The definition of what a “Roman” was had become blurred. By this point, Rome had become what may (for its time) have been the most multicultural city in human history. “All roads lead to Rome.” Large numbers of people from widely disparate places had congregated in Rome.

Scientific studies have shown that people are happier and more altruistic when in homogenous workplaces than they are in racially diverse workplaces. Rome’s loss of its homogeneity and its loss of altruism were almost certainly not coincidental factors. Other places which have become racially mixed–such as Latin America–are also, like the dying Roman Empire, associated with high levels of government corruption, and a low level of military effectiveness.

Based on this scientific evidence and on this track record, it would make far more sense to preserve the existence of race, than it would to support communists in their goal of globalizing and destroying race. There may come a time when it is critical for humanity’s future that large groups of people work together to achieve a greater purpose. If or when that time comes, we will need to have better institutions than existed in the declining Roman Empire or in Latin America to deal with such challenges.

would it not be better keeping producing Panzer III and IV and keep on developing new Support Tanks etc like Hummel, Nashorn, Wirbelwind, kugelblitz etc.?…It would have been far better to satisfy the needs of the troops instead of longing for bigger tanks.
The Panzer IV was maybe not equal to all the counterparts of the allied tanks but further development of panzer III and IV´s and increasing production of it would be better in the long run!..E series might have been better and easier in production but it is not guaranteed that it would satisfy the need!
I dare even to say that a 5cm gun for panzer III series and a 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/43 for the Panzer IV´s would have made a big diffrence!
In the end the Panzer IV was the backbone of all Panzerdivisions to the end of the war…

I have recently completed an advanced rules set for a WWII strategy game. This rules set is intended to do several things.

To give each unit type a historically accurate role. Fighters excel at shooting down enemy planes, but are not very well suited to attacking land or naval targets. Dive bombers are strong against land targets, are solid against naval targets, and can hold their own in a dogfight. Torpedo bombers are better than dive bombers against naval targets and submarines, can also hold their own in a dogfight, but are not well-suited to attacking land targets. Strategic bombers are intended to attack the enemy’s cities, and to create semi-permanent reductions in the enemy’s income and war-making ability.

To cause players to make big picture decisions involving research, industrialization, building up transportation networks, and other increases in war making capacity. No aspect of research, industrialization, and so forth is even remotely luck-based.

To provide a historically plausible representation of WWII. I freely admit that game balance has required me to interpret information in Axis-friendly ways. For example, Germany is able to convert its fighter force to jets on turn 4 (spring of '44), even though jets represented only a very small fraction of Germany’s military aircraft production for '44. But while I am willing to imagine away the difficulty of putting prototypes into widespread production, that represents the approximate maximum I will accept in deviating from the historically plausible.

Because this is the WWII history section, I’d like to ask people’s input about the game’s historical plausibility. Does this rules set overstate or understate the impact of specific technologies? Am I being too generous, or not generous enough, in my depiction of any given nation? Are there any technologies I have missed which should be included?

Please confine your comments to history-related questions such as the above. I also strongly welcome other comments about this rules set. The appropriate place for non-history-related comments is the main thread about Advanced Flames and Steel. Thanks.

@kdfsjljklgjfg:

I love the idea and and very interested in where you might take it, but have you considered developing this independent of Axis & Allies? I think this may actually be able to thrive better as an independent game with its own map and combat system, if you’re willing to put the time into it.

Thanks for the compliments!

This game is intended to be entirely independent of Axis and Allies. A different map (which has yet to be devised), a different combat system (which has already been created), and a different big picture approach.

Most units have multiple hitpoints. To prevent this from becoming overpowered, whoever is inflicting damage gets to choose how the hits are allocated. Presumably, the person allocating hits will choose to finish off injured enemy units before moving on to uninjured units.

The worst possible light tanks have a land combat value of 0.5 and one hitpoint. The land combat value of 0.5 means that if you have two light tanks, you will inflict exactly one hit on an enemy land force each combat round. Light tanks cost 3 PUs each. Fully upgraded light tanks also cost 3 PUs each, but have a land combat value of 1 and 2 hitpoints.

The worst possible medium tanks have a land combat value of 1, 2 hitpoints, and cost 5 PUs each. Fully upgraded medium tanks have a land combat value of 2.5, 4 hitpoints, and also cost 5 PUs each. The U.S. and the Soviet Union each have technology they can research which allows them to decrease the cost of their medium tanks to 4 PUs each. Should Japan find itself in a land war against the Soviet Union, and if Japan uses 15 ton light tanks to the Soviets’ fully upgraded 25 ton medium tanks, the Soviets will get much more bang for their buck than will the Japanese. This is one of several reasons why the main threat to the Soviet Union will typically come from Germany, not Japan.

Germany may research “Panther tanks” on its third turn. Doing so allows it to build 50 ton battle tanks. Battle tanks are also available to the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union, but those nations’ path to receive them is much slower and far more costly than Germany’s. The worst possible battle tank has a land combat value of 2, 4 hitpoints, and costs 8 PUs to build. Fully upgraded battle tanks have a land combat value of 5.5 and 8 hitpoints. On round 6, Germany is allowed to research special technology which reduces the cost of battle tanks to 6 PUs each. All of this may sound impressive, but Germany’s battle tanks cannot be fully upgraded before round 7 at the earliest.

If Germany is not content with 50 ton battle tanks, it can research 75 ton heavy tanks (King Tigers). Entry level heavy tanks have a land combat value of 4, 8 hitpoints, and cost 12 PUs to build. Once Germany has researched all technology relevant to heavy tanks, its heavy tanks will have 18 hitpoints, a land combat value of 15, and will cost a mere 10 PUs to build. This is by far the best tank situation in the game. However, this represents a long-range goal for Germany. It must chip away at that goal a little a turn, and will not be able to fully achieve it before round 12. By that point it will have spent a staggering 45 EUs on tank research. Had those EUs instead gone into improving Germany’s industrial cities, they would have resulted in an income increase of 22 PUs per turn. Considering that Germany’s starting income is 43 PUs per turn, that kind of income increase is nothing to sneeze at!

under 10 pages of actual ‘new concept’ rules would be nice.

@onetthome:

These seem pretty cool, I’ll be sure to print the rules. I’m not seeing any rules for the Pacific though  :|

I appreciate the compliments from you and from Georgemak!

I’m currently putting the final touches on another rules set–a more advanced one. As is also the case for the rules set under discussion, this rules set is designed with a global war in mind. But that being said, I wouldn’t object to a custom map designer creating a Pacific scenario.

Every time I create a rules set like this, I try to build something generic enough that a custom map designer will have a lot of room in which to work. Working within the general framework, a custom map designer could create his own starting map, nations list, national advantages, disadvantages, and available technologies for each nation, starting unit setup, and other adjustments. The rules set is intended to give map designers plenty of room in which to exercise their creativity.

But my greatest current need is for a software developer. If anyone here is a developer or knows a developer who might be interested in something like this, please PM me.

yep