Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/25/2018 3:41:23 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
I propose a Gentleman's agreement which states that the Allies agree not to have units west of Gazala in NA at the time of DAK arrival unless they have captured Gazala & Tobruk.

To have the solution incorporated in the game would take a considerable amount of time.

If you are not familiar with the DAK NA dynamics please read DAK Africa agreement thread.

If anyone thinks the agreement should have some different parameters chime in.


< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 6/25/2018 3:52:00 PM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw
Post #: 1
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 1:56:02 AM   
Christolos


Posts: 548
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
I promise to abide by this agreement.

Thanks PvtBenjamin for proposing it.

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 2
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 12:10:21 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 1097
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Columbia, MD. USA
Status: offline
Since Tobruk is a fortress, bypassing it should be reasonable presuming there are 2 ir 3 units sieging/ZOCing it.

It's not easy for the UK to take it, as their TAC bombers don't remove entrenchment (yet).

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 3
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 2:00:31 PM   
LordOfPants

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 4/5/2018
Status: offline
I disagree with the requirement to take Tobruk, as it's a fortress that historically was bypassed by the British. I also think the "no units west of Gazala" works badly if the Axis player defends Gazala, as it keeps the allied player from surrounding the city and cuts the hexes you can attack it from in have. "No units more than 1 hex west of Gazala unless they've taken Gazala" if you want to stop the gamey 'force the DAK to spawn cut off and surrounded' thing without preventing historical options like bypassing Tobruk or surrounding Gazala.


(in reply to Taxman66)
Post #: 4
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 2:23:26 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 548
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Since Tobruk is a fortress, bypassing it should be reasonable presuming there are 2 ir 3 units sieging/ZOCing it.

It's not easy for the UK to take it, as their TAC bombers don't remove entrenchment (yet).


quote:

I disagree with the requirement to take Tobruk, as it's a fortress that historically was bypassed by the British. I also think the "no units west of Gazala" works badly if the Axis player defends Gazala, as it keeps the allied player from surrounding the city and cuts the hexes you can attack it from in have. "No units more than 1 hex west of Gazala unless they've taken Gazala" if you want to stop the gamey 'force the DAK to spawn cut off and surrounded' thing without preventing historical options like bypassing Tobruk or surrounding Gazala.


These are both very excellent points. I guess I didn't think it all the way through before chiming in...

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to LordOfPants)
Post #: 5
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 3:01:44 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
I don't really care that much. We had a discussion in the AAR to fix the DAK situation discussed and I volunteered to present it. Bill said it would take too much time to fix so I started this thread as a solution.


How about everyone decides on an individual basis.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 6/26/2018 4:37:52 PM >


_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 6
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 5:35:37 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
Deploying the DAK should be triggered by the 8. Army crossing the libyian border, or at the date in Dec. 40, whatever comes first.

The Axis player should be able to decide where to deploy the DAK, in Tripolis, Bengasi or the polish-russian border.

I imagine this way to get around all the previous requirements, and it gives the Axis player full control, while the Allied player can avoid all trouble by staying in Egypt if required. He will otherwise still be able to counterattack the deployment after that decision is made.

< Message edited by Sugar -- 6/26/2018 6:01:44 PM >

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 7
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 6:11:08 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Sugar


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

So Is it possible to change to the 1) Axis deciding where they want the placement of the DAK in NA and 2) if the NA Axis ports are at 0 then they appear in Italy?

If not a Gentleman's (or womens) agreement would have to be the solution I guess.


Hi

It's not impossible. The trouble is that all the Decisions already in existence would have to have numerous further layers of scripts added on top of them, to ensure a range of choices and also to cater for the presence of enemy ships outside any relevant ports.

Or to put it another way, there would have to be a string of scripts leading to just the one that players would see, and this would have to be worked out and replicated (with suitable modifications) for all six of the Decisions that exist for the DAK.

I'm afraid that the amount of time it would take isn't really available. I appreciate this isn't ideal, and can only recommend a sensible, gentleman's approach to the DAK.



_____________________________

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 8
RE: DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal - 6/26/2018 6:18:22 PM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 618
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
I read Bill`s posting already. Nevertheless I imagine this way to get around most of the issues.

This game is nearly perfect at this stage, this would be the final step imho. Just a suggestion, I won`t be disappointed if the effort is too huge, especially after the constant improvements of my favorite game since 2003.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> DAK Gentleman's (woman's) Agreement Proposal Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148