Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: British Defeat

 
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 >> RE: British Defeat Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: British Defeat - 11/30/2016 10:48:45 PM   
Qwixt


Posts: 901
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Lol, it's hardly "tin foil hat" theories, it's very real. Very much disinformation especially on the origins of WWII generally.

Yet I'm not interested in "completely disabling" the British conquest rubric. I find some of it quite meritorious. However, when (1) the British main isle has been completely occupied by German troops; (2) no British ground or air units remain there; (3) the RN Atlantic fleet has been completely destroyed with no loss of German capital ships; (4) the RN Med fleet has been completely destroyed with no loss of Italian capital ships; and Egypt has largely been overrun... I wonder why there has been no dialog for conquest or surrender.

I just checked my rulebook for GMT's "A World at War", the worldwide follow-on game to AH's "Third Reich", and they've revamped the conquest and surrender terms for Gt. Britain and the Soviets. They are now based on a resistance level computation taking into consideration of a number of factors bearing on the ability of those nations to wage war effectively. Given the circumstances in my game it is clear that under the AWAW terms a surrender by Britain would've been offered nonetheless.

This is why I suspect something else may be going on with the apparent "never surrender" stance in this game. I just don't understand why that is. It's not necessarily devious; but without some strong basis for not allowing for British surrender what is one to think?


I think a more likely explanation is that testers and devs never fully wiped them out so completely. If you look in the tech support section, you will see a thread about the game not ending for player when germany has been completely wiped out. So instead of seeing a nefarious plot by those evil liberals to re-write history, which only you and a select few notice of course, perhaps take a step back and realize it might be an oversight or bug by the devs on detecting when a core country might be wiped out.

< Message edited by Qwixt -- 12/1/2016 12:36:19 AM >

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 61
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 12:25:28 AM   
Patrat


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Oh, it's modern leftists alright. The same ones behind the ban and censorship of swastikas in historical games and other merchandise


I'm sorry but you are quite wrong if you think modern leftists are the only ones ever offended by the swastika.

My father was a ww2 vet, and was hardly a leftist. Back in the day, if anyone was rash enough to display a swastika around him or his ww2 vet buddies, they were asking for trouble.

Btw he had no problem if the swastika was shown in a documentary or an history book, but if someone was to display it on "other merchandise" watch out.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 62
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 5:22:43 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42840
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I guess in terms of a sensible and interesting discussion this thread has long since ceased to be, but the last post just confirmed it.

Jingoistic pride? After everything I have said? You appear incapable of understanding simple facts and I think it obvious where your muddled world view leans in the direction of.

But in terms of military understanding - which after all is why most of us are here - the real doozy is your answer to point 5. You believe it is only jingoistic pride that makes me think that the complete destruction of the Royal Navy could not be achieved without any loss of capital ships for the Germans and Italians?

A pointless waste of time.


Warspite... your username, the fact you played as the allies instead of the default axis selection in your first play, and your continuous posting about how great the Royal Navy is or was precede you. If you think I ever considered your statements to be impartial you are sadly deluded.

Some of us are more impartial to fact than you are, and are willing to consider alternatives to prevailing "wisdom". Your own national blinders prevent you from looking at this question without preconceived notions so don't believe your own opinions carry any weight with me. You haven't answered the questions I posed to you above, so you betray your own [lack of] motivation to discuss honestly. Thanks for playing.

warspite1

Capitaine you clearly have not read my comments regarding the Royal Navy, across many forums, or you couldn’t have honestly written what you wrote. I am under no illusions as to the RN in World War II – good and bad. “Continuous posting about how great the Royal Navy was”. Never read the Naval war day by day then? Never read my comments in WITP-AE about RN carrier operations? These, as well as countless others will confirm I am honest and objective when discussing the RN.

I chose HMS Warspite as the basis for my avatar, user name and sig line because I have deep affection for that ship. In the same way I can appreciate USS Enterprise - you know the latter’s not British right? I don't apologise for my choice of avatar and didn't realise that such a display of affection was a crime.

I chose to play the Allies partly because, from posts I see with these sorts of games, the majority of players it seems to me, play the Axis. I also happen to be British so I have a natural leaning to play ‘my side’ first. I wasn't aware that was a crime either.

But according to you, despite the honest comments I have made on this thread that do not always put my country in a good light, you say I cannot be impartial. You are wrong – and because there is documented evidence that your comments are false, you are bordering on trolling.

Because someone does not agree with you, you dismiss them as ‘modern leftists’, because I do not agree with you, you dismiss me as wearing national blinkers. You say my opinions do not carry any weight with you. No, they clearly don’t, and given your comments on this thread so far I would not expect them to - and that is fine.

But you say I haven’t answered your questions to post 56 and this betrays my motivation to discuss honestly. No Capitaine, there is nothing I like more than a good robust back and forth discussion on most matters pertaining to World War II. I find them stimulating and, through such interaction my knowledge of the subject grows. However, I ceased to respond to your points as it became clear they were not worthy of further discussion and entering into further dialogue with you only takes us further down.

There are two reasons (and post 59 added a third):

1. From what set out as a seemingly honest enquiry about an aspect of WWII and how it’s modelled in games (that was answered by many) the thread has descended into a rather nonsensical attack on ‘modern sensibilities’, 'British superiority', ‘modern lefties and leftwing schools’. You also make a rather embarrassing claim that "most nonleftists" "have a higher respect for history". What the hell does that mean? So David Irving (a "nonleftist") has a high respect for history does he? And that is a rhetorical question and I hope to goodness you wouldn't actually answer yes to that....

2. Most important to me is the military discussion. Your opinion on this became totally worthless in that regard as soon as you said that from an historical perspective you have no problem with the idea that the RN could have been wiped out without any loss of capital ship to the Axis. You ascribed my comment that it could not happen in real life to my ‘Jingoism’. I can picture having that sort of thought process as a 10-year old. But then I grew up, read books and educated myself on World War II history. Differences of opinion are great, they spark debate. But I am not debating with someone who has such a total lack of understanding about naval warfare.

3. The third I’ve touched upon. You claim my wish to play the Allies in a game, my deep affection for a battleship that has a proud war record, spread over two world wars, that is second to none, and the outright lies you have made about my view on the Royal Navy all conspire to prove that I am hopelessly biased in favour of my country and the only reason I cannot accept you are wrong about the UK surrendering is due to that bias.

So those are the real reasons I no longer wish to indulge in a "discussion" with you Capitaine.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/1/2016 6:23:34 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 63
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 10:46:58 AM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4110
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt
I think a more likely explanation is that testers and devs never fully wiped them out so completely. If you look in the tech support section, you will see a thread about the game not ending for player when germany has been completely wiped out. So instead of seeing a nefarious plot by those evil liberals to re-write history, which only you and a select few notice of course, perhaps take a step back and realize it might be an oversight or bug by the devs on detecting when a core country might be wiped out.


The UK should surrender if they've moved their capital to Egypt and the main island and their new capital has been overrun. At that point the normal surrender rules apply and perhaps the UK moved their capital to Canada instead?

If that is the case, then the new capital in Canada would need to be captured to force a final surrender of the the UK.

The bug in the tech forums is related to a rare disappearing capital error that then does not force the normal surrender rules to kick in. This is something we are looking into and a surprise to us as the issue never came up in almost 6 months of beta.



(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 64
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 10:52:56 AM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4110
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
I just wanted to quickly add that despite the historical arguments that the UK would have continued to fight had their main island been overrun, one of the main reasons we have the UK capital move to either Canada or Egypt was for play balance and especially so in multiplayer.

Early on in the series so many years ago (I believe during initial testing) it was quickly discovered that a Sealion, and no matter how costly it was to the Germans and no matter how much it would affect a coordinated Barbarossa, was more or less guaranteed to bring about an Axis victory if the UK surrendered. It became a bit of an exploit and due to the historical case that the UK would have continued to fight on we made the changes in game to what we have today.

This being said, we feel this setup is better overall as at least now there is more of a risk/reward balance that players need to carefully consider, i.e. a Sealion can still be of great benefit to the Axis if successful as it does significantly weaken the Allied position overall, but if not well executed or too long or costly it can still run the risk of weakening the Axis positions elsewhere throughout the course of the war.

But as mentioned, if players prefer a different setup it is as easy as simply disabling the one DECISION event (as described in an earlier post) from the in game interface option and doesn't even require a player to crack open the Editor to make this change.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 12/1/2016 2:42:15 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 65
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 1:09:14 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
Thank you so much Hubert. I wish you'd have posted this earlier so we could have avoided some of the ugliness that resulted in this thread.

In my case, the Brits moved their capital to Canada, so that explains the lack of surrender in my case. My whole point wasn't about the Britain being "hard to beat", but about what I needed to do to conquer them. And if it was even possible. I can only go by my experience here. I can certainly understand play balance concerns because the reason I launched "Sealion" was because I subscribe to the theory that knocking out Britain is the key to an Axis victory, at least historically. I was dismayed when after so thoroughly defeating them, I hadn't knocked them out of the war (at least to a Polish or Free French extent). After all, what does it mean if you intend to be able to fight a one-front war against the Soviets yet you can't secure a conquest of GB?

It's nice to know the elements of the game options on this. At least I understand your all's thinking.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 66
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 1:18:22 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Patrat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Oh, it's modern leftists alright. The same ones behind the ban and censorship of swastikas in historical games and other merchandise


I'm sorry but you are quite wrong if you think modern leftists are the only ones ever offended by the swastika.

My father was a ww2 vet, and was hardly a leftist. Back in the day, if anyone was rash enough to display a swastika around him or his ww2 vet buddies, they were asking for trouble.

Btw he had no problem if the swastika was shown in a documentary or an history book, but if someone was to display it on "other merchandise" watch out.

Well, nobody's particularly "fond of" the swastika. It's not a question of liking it, it's a question of the historical record. It is what it is.

And for the record, my father was in WWII and so was my best friend's father, and we grew up with a very different view of the conflict than what is being purveyed today. Not that it makes one way or another necessarily correct, but that views back in the 60s and 70s (and presumably before that) were much different.

The censorship of history is a bad and serious thing, and pardon my political observations but it is the totalitarian left that is behind all of these efforts. They have much more in common with Nazism than the more libertarian, more freedom-oriented right (though they try to insinuate the reverse lol).

< Message edited by Capitaine -- 12/1/2016 1:19:42 PM >

(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 67
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 3:30:06 PM   
Goodmongo

 

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Patrat

I'm sorry but you are quite wrong if you think modern leftists are the only ones ever offended by the swastika.

My father was a ww2 vet, and was hardly a leftist. Back in the day, if anyone was rash enough to display a swastika around him or his ww2 vet buddies, they were asking for trouble.

Btw he had no problem if the swastika was shown in a documentary or an history book, but if someone was to display it on "other merchandise" watch out.


Thank God the US has freedom of speech. If we restricted everything that offended everyone there would be nothing left. Trigger warnings, safe zones, micro-aggressions, snowflakes are what you get nowadays.

(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 68
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 7:31:53 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

The censorship of history is a bad and serious thing, and pardon my political observations but it is the totalitarian left that is behind all of these efforts. They have much more in common with Nazism than the more libertarian, more freedom-oriented right (though they try to insinuate the reverse lol).


I am mystified. Who do you mean by the "totalitarian left"? Perhaps it is "the tankies" (i.e. the Stalinists)? They are nearly all dead now, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 69
RE: British Defeat - 12/1/2016 10:42:42 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
Um.. the Democrat Party in the US is pretty totalitarian.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 70
RE: British Defeat - 12/2/2016 12:17:27 AM   
Patrat


Posts: 89
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: online
It's pretty obvious you have never lived in, nor know much about, a totalitarian state, if you think the US Democrats are totalitarian.

As far as the Swastika goes, I'm fine with it if its used in its proper historical setting. i.e. history books, documentaries etc. It's when people want to use it on "other merchandise" that i get suspicious that they just want an excuse to upset other people who they don't care for (usually minorities), while hiding behind the "It's History" argument.

Same goes for the Confederate battle flag. Most people I know who want to display it, don't really know crap about the Civil War. They just want an excuse to fly it because they know it upsets people they dislike.

Before i get labeled a Democratic leftist, I'd like to mention that i voted for Ronald Reagan, Twice.

< Message edited by Patrat -- 12/2/2016 12:57:25 AM >

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 71
RE: British Defeat - 12/2/2016 11:29:16 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
Where do you see swastikas displayed outside of historical matters? I have never seen one myself, except on TV about some obscure groups claiming to be Nazis.

As for the Confed battle flag, it has always been a symbol for Southern pride, like it or not. Most of those people have great pride in the Southern prowess in battle and that's all. The usage of symbols like these by a relatively few number of hate groups doesn't or shouldn't color their historical relevance. I don't really have a problem with States removing the flags from their official displays, that's not a very appropriate usage. But I'd hope you could agree that the leftist groups have gone way too far.

And, while declining to go into detail due to trying not to foster too much verboten political conversation, one needn't "live" under a full-blooded "totalitarian regime" to recognize their Orwellian principles and how they are embraced more than ever by the party I mentioned. Try to be a little less condescending, friend.

(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 72
RE: British Defeat - 12/2/2016 12:11:08 PM   
IslandInland


Posts: 702
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline
This thread should be locked.



_____________________________

I saw generals create imaginary "masses of manoeuvre" with a crayon and dispose of enemy concentrations, that were on the ground and on the map, with an eraser. Who was I to criticise them, hero as I was of a hundred "Chinagraph wars" of make-believe?

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 73
RE: British Defeat - 12/2/2016 12:22:32 PM   
steel3250

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 8/8/2006
Status: offline
UGGGH! More Politics. Is this a game forum??????

(in reply to IslandInland)
Post #: 74
RE: British Defeat - 12/2/2016 1:19:54 PM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2782
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline
Yes agreed - locking this up. Lets keep things polite and respectful. This is a game. This is a forum about he game and it should be a pleasant place to be.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to steel3250)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: British Defeat Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.188