Posts made by swordsman3003

@Subotai:

To make it short, in WW1 there was no such thing as soldiers suffering PSTD or psychological/psychiatric panic during artillery attacks etc, but in the WW2 we had evolved a little further in our knowledge.

I should not mention the factors of deliberately targeting civilians, which was a major part of WW2, in a discussion of personal deficits and/or character traits of certain commanders and generals in WW2, that was my mistake, but my point is that while in WW1 a soldier panicking was nothing but a coward, but in WW2 this was a psychiatric disorder, hopefully short lasting, but Patton failed to know such issues, and while it’s debatable how serious the slapping incident was, I support the decisions to relieve Patton of service, at least for a while.

Maybe you’re right, but I consider the soldier slapping incident a character flaw that does not reflect upon his ability as a commander. Like how he thought he was reincarnated.

@Subotai:

This might been seen too harsh, (as of 2009), but don’t forget the psychological matters of WW2, regardless of it being Patton slapping a soldier, or the much more serous aspect of Holocaust…

I don’t really get what you’re saying with this statement. The sentence isn’t grammatical and doesn’t seem to make a point. Are you saying that they should not have tolerated Patton’s personality because of the holocaust? I don’t get it.

@axis_roll:

@swordsman3003:

Another question:

To what distance to a fighter’s range extend when it is on an AC? I’m familiar with the doctrine that the AC “cannot expand the range of the fighter” but one circumstance confuses me:

Germany has an AC in Gibraltar with a fighter on it. Germany has an empty AC in the North Sea. This means the fighter could move 3 to get to UK, and then 1 to land on the other AC, so moving the fighter in to attack is justified.

However, after the battle is over, could you land the fighter back on the first AC anyways in sea zone 7 off of western europe after the first AC moves? Although that AC did not expand the range of the fighter, if the north sea AC wasn’t there this move would be illegal.

What you describe is perfectly legal WITHOUT the second A/C.  The rule is that the ftr has to a possible landing zone.  Even if there were units in sz12 that was blocking the sz13 a/c, if you attacked sz12 naval units, the ftr still has a possible landing zone (even if the battle was very low odds in sz12), so the ftr could still legally go into the UK battle.

If I understand this correctly, that sounds like FTRs on ACs have an effective range of 3 territories?

@axis_roll:

@swordsman3003:

Small question:

Under LHTR, or under AARe rules, can subs be taken as casualties in of air attacks?

Like if Germany builds nothing in the baltic on G1 and UK attacks with 2 fighters and 1 bomber, can the Germans choose to take the subs as casualties first? I tried to figure this out from reading the rules but I must have overlooked it.

I am assuming your example has the German Destroyer and Transport remaining in SZ5.  Let’s say Germany adds 3 subs, so in SZ5, there is 3 subs, tpt, dd.  If UK attacks with 2 ftrs, bomber, Germany can choose to submerge the subs BEFORE UK attacks as to not lose any subs if UK got three hits on their attack.  This is because there is no attacking DD involved, so subs get an opening fire shot and then can submerge.  Since subs can not hit planes, then there are no sub opening fire shots.

Or Germany can keep the subs in the battle, see what UK rolls, and then determine hits.  These CAN be allocated to the subs if Germany wants to lose the subs.  At the end of each round of battle, since there is not enemy destroyers, the subs can submerge.

Also, in Enhanced (AARe), these submerged subs can not cause Convoy Raid damage against the UK IC in London.

Let me know if I have not adequately answered your question.

This answer is perfect; thank you.

Another question:

To what distance to a fighter’s range extend when it is on an AC? I’m familiar with the doctrine that the AC “cannot expand the range of the fighter” but one circumstance confuses me:

Germany has an AC in Gibraltar with a fighter on it. Germany has an empty AC in the North Sea. This means the fighter could move 3 to get to UK, and then 1 to land on the other AC, so moving the fighter in to attack is justified.

However, after the battle is over, could you land the fighter back on the first AC anyways in sea zone 7 off of western europe after the first AC moves? Although that AC did not expand the range of the fighter, if the north sea AC wasn’t there this move would be illegal.

This confuses me.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@swordsman3003:

I was thinking more along the lines of a war with completely fictionalized nations, based on something happening different in history. Obviously the act of playing the game is enough to generate “alternate history.”

Does the concept even interest you?

For instance the south winning the civil war?

That would be awesome….

@Subotai:

@swordsman3003, I agree that Albert Speer deserved many years in prison, but probably did not deserve to be shot.

And not all nazi leaders deserved the death penalty, but many of the top nazi leaders rightfully deserved to be shot and killed, regardless of if we like it or not. It was a war with extremely many victims, and if you lose a battle like this, this is not like losing a game of A&A or chess…… :roll:

When real people are really killed, that is another ball game from our discussions of sports and games and such.

Even our humanity (human species) is right twice a day… :wink:

For me, its not a question that some nazis deserved to die, but rather which ones should have died. the existence of the trials was a reasonable to discern that, and much more selective than many other regimes would have had it.

I think we’re in a general agreement though.

@allboxcars:

hey now, you put Bomba’s ol’ NATO, Nukes and Nazis and A&A mechanics together and you got my vote.

Crank up the Death Ray!!  :evil:

How about including inflation and adding pimp techs that cost like 100IPCs that you can’t afford until turn 12

@Subotai:

@swordsman3003:

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

I strongly disagree with your statement, the Nuremberg trials were just theatrical facades.

Really? Not all were sentenced to death, some recieved limited sentences, and some were even acquitted. How many conquering military powers showed that kind of discretion?

@Subotai:

The Russians demanded the Nazis shot, and they were right, also, Goering said he would plead guilty if he was to be shot like a soldier, not hanged as a criminal. I’m very far from being a communist, but in this specific matter the Russians and Goering was both correct, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers, and even as an European liberal who opposes of the death penalty, WW2 was a very special case. Imo, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers. And no, they did not deserve to serve in prison, b/c they had been killing to many people. But for historical records, it would be very interesting to hear the explanations and stories from the top Nazi leaders.

Well, we have that, don’t we? They surviving members of Nazi leadership explained themselves to the world, and we have that record.

And I’m also very glad they weren’t all just “shot like soldiers” - consider the case of Albert Speer, who, after doing his time, return to productive life and helped humanity, in some small way, come to terms with the atrocities of the Nazis and how life in the Nazi regime functioned.

The importance, for me, of the trials, was that the court in session showed discretion between who deserved to die, who didn’t, and for what reasons. Not all of the Nazis were soldiers, and not all deserved to die.

And Goering was an asshole and a liar, who would probably have demanded a trial as “a statesmen” if they decided to round him up and shoot him.

@Subotai:

Edit: even if I don’t like Goering, our history from after WW2 has proved him right on some points, their offense was mainly that they lost the war… :|

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

@CWO:

@swordsman3003:

Such an undertaking obviously requires a completely new map, so on and so forth.

It depends on just how different an alternate history you’re talking about.  If you’re thinking of a Second World War alternate-history scenario which starts roughly at the same point as the real war but then goes off in a different direction, you could use the board which comes with The War Game: World War II.  Unlike the A&A global games, or A&A Europe, it does not show Western Europe and parts of the USSR already under German occupation, so it gives you a more neutral starting point.

CWO Marc

I was thinking more along the lines of a war with completely fictionalized nations, based on something happening different in history. Obviously the act of playing the game is enough to generate “alternate history.”

Does the concept even interest you?

@ABWorsham:

@swordsman3003:

@Imperious:

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable.  But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

Had Hitler been captured, how would Stalin have dealt with the man? I doubt the Soviets would allow the west to view their prized prisoner.

Oh definitely. The Soviets were opposed to trials for the highest guys, maybe in general. They were used to how they treated other Russians.

I think the Soviets were under the impression that the Nazi leaders would just be rounded up and shot. If there was a trial, they wanted it to be a sham.

@Imperious:

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable.  But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

I want to see one based on alternate history…see my post in the “other aaa variants” forum.

Barring that, WWI. It’s way cool.

I’ve played A&A for more than 10 years now, every retail variant, and many alternate rules settings. I’ve also played on a lot of digital custom maps, things like that.

I was really impressed with what was put together with AARe, maintaining simplicity while offering a large array of strategic variance.

All that aside, after much thought, I’ve decided that I’d like to work on a game using the mechanics of A&A but based on a fictional historical scenario.

Such an undertaking obviously requires a completely new map, so on and so forth. I think it would be awfully fun.

There are a couple of scenarios that appeal to me, for alternate takes of WW2. I want to know what you guys think about such an endeavor, or what fictional history sounds like it would be fun to act out.

Obviously this is a long term goal, but I gotta start somewhere.

@Imperious:

Caesar was great. His conquests liberated savage backward tribes and created a more efficient system of civilization that offered the opportunity for high culture to flourish in western Europe. The Roman Aqueducts, roads, and monetary system and central government provided stability to what were roaming tribes. Of course they also killed and fought wars, but the result of Roman expansion became a systematic order out of chaos.  I don’t know of any leader in this age that didn’t fight wars and didn’t kill or also do ‘bad things’ You cant measure historical leaders with the decorum of modern ethics. You have to look at the times and look at the final result and draw a bigger picture.

Yeah but it wasn’t like he was fighting wars to liberate them.

Wars back then, they were fought for glory, for getting military commanders into the history books. Seriously, it was pretty much all they cared about, guys like Caesar or Alexander. They did it for prestige, not in the name of helping anybody.

But then again, are we so different today?

@Imperious:

Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.

Exactly: Some people also feel the pope is the devil. Some people felt Caesar was good and other felt he was bad. Then and today.

When WW1 ended people felt the kaiser was bad, now he got replaced by Hitler who was a thousand times worse. IN 1,000 years the Kaiser will be another mere product of his age. Hitler will still be bad.

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

@Imperious:

It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.

Well it could lead to disastrous results to think that this means that the ‘laws’ themselves are just and not also a product of the times. IN 1,000 years most of our laws will be considered barbaric and again some will feel they are just fine, while new “Hitlers or Caesars” will invent a new set of them and claim the same rationale. Back and forth.

Laws are not platonic ideal forms, but changing, altering definitions based on the current situation. Things working that way offer more evolution and dynamism.

No I think it leads to very fair results. If historians, or history aficionados at least, insist upon making moral judgements about ancient figures, then it is unjust to try them according to modern standards. It’s like figuring somebody’s net worth in 1826 dollars and not adjusting for inflation.

Today we have far stricter laws of war, notions of human dignity, etc. Powerful figures in the past did not have to take those into account when they made their decisions. But it might still be reasonable to say that military figure X was a traitor to his country because he overthrew the legal authorities upon his return from a military campaign, in spite of laws against it.

@SgtBlitz:

Britain and the “West” were totally cool with Hitler mucking up the territorial boundaries of Europe as long as he provided a buffer state against World Communism; the Munich Agreement cooked up by Chamberlain ceding the Sudetenland to Germany was hailed as “Peace in Our Time.”  The Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 let him wage complete war with absolute safety against the West in 1940.  Which he then used to launch a surprise invasion of Russia in June 1941.  Somehow he believed he could switch alliances on or off again with complete abandon; even his generals believed this to some extent, Goering was trying to work out a peace deal with the Western allies in the end days of WWII.  So to him declaring war was no big deal, he would of forged some new treaty/ceasefire somewhere along the way to patch things up, with his deluded thinking.  His forces were stuck in Russia too by this point, and knowing he was in for the long haul, he probably expected some help from the Japanese if he joined in their war.  (Of course which the Japanese had no interest in, and had just signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia earlier that year…)

Yeah I think he started to get a deluded idea of how people thought about alliances. He seemed to be under the impression that crushing the USSR would cause the UK to “come around” and become his ally at some point.

Hitler wrote in his unpublished book that he expected the UK and Germany to take on the USA during the reign of his successor in the 1980s. Go figure.

@SgtBlitz:

Hell, though, I HAVE lost a game to Allied players where I pulled off a successful Sealion as Germany round 2…  So I guess America probably could liberate Britain and turn it around…

I got UK capital on turn two with Germans due to oversight on the Allies. They retook it and actually I was pretty much screwed because I lost so much in taking it….but luckily I was playing AARe and took the requisite additional VCs with Japan and sub stalled the US from taking Hawaii back, so I won. Close though.

Small question:

Under LHTR, or under AARe rules, can subs be taken as casualties in of air attacks?

Like if Germany builds nothing in the baltic on G1 and UK attacks with 2 fighters and 1 bomber, can the Germans choose to take the subs as casualties first? I tried to figure this out from reading the rules but I must have overlooked it.

@ABWorsham:

@swordsman3003:

I play several times a week during the summer.

I have a dedicated family who loves to play the game.

Lucky you. I have result to bribing the homeless in an attempt to get A&A players.

It is really hard to convince somebody to play if they have never played before. The game looks very complicated (even though it is not) and this dissuades a lot of people.

The only real way to farm opponents to play against is to let somebody ask you to play the game.

@Imperious:

everybody was a criminal if you apply today’s standards of law upon them. In 1,000 years most of today’s leaders will be criminals to the eyes of future apes who take over our planet. Just ask Charlton Heston.

Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.

It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.