Topics created by Red Harvest

A lot of this could have dropped a few days ago Red. Let’s say YG had purposely moved your thread. Well only moderators can do that not YG. You wanted the board policed and actively lobbied for it and you got it. Now that the rules aren’t acting in your favor you’re upset and insulting people…again.

In your deletion thread you started acusing anyone against you point of view as throwing temper tantrums. I and some others simply pointed out there were reasons to delete threads you started hurling the insults. If YG’s friends are backing him you shouldn’t wonder why. He’s  done more for this site and the game than a lot of people and has helped people readily with courtesy and knowledgeable advice.
So yeah his friends will go to bat for him.

You haven’t been here that long as well as some of your lobbyists for no thread deletion. You guys lobbied for a site change people didn’t like for reasons other than censoring you.

This site has a culture and most of us can get along just fine without going ballistic. I even posted that I could see why you guys were mad about lost threads and suggeated burying the hatchet. You didn’t. Apologies were made and that still wasn’t good enough. So you escaleted it. You wanted intervention well you got it.

There are plenty of rivalries on this site and people who flat out don’t like eachother at all. However few of them have ever lobbied for a dramatic change over one thread. If you want to sit and talk the way you do to people like you have, I guarantee people will rally against it.

@Red:

@Young:

How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up only makes A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.

You’ve been pretty eager to fling insults my way in it (you might call it slinging “feces”) rather than contributing to identifying the problem.  You know what, I’m happy to leave it as it is.  Your second post in this thread suggested you feel the same way, leave 'em be, work things out, rather than deleting the thread.

And yes, it does have to do with G40 as that was what the improperly deleted thread was about.

Hint: The thread will sink on its own soon enough since the problem that created it has been rectified.

This thread was created at the occasion of an issue on a thread of the G40 forum.
To reach the people reading this G40 thread it was sound, to put it in this forum.
However, now the issue has been resolved (clearly not to the satisfaction of everyone), this thread should go in his real category:
it is a thread about an issue on the G40 forum, not about G40 A&A game.

I think it should go in this forum:
Website/Forum Discussion

Should it be erase? For transparency, I don’t think.
This thread reflect the reality as it is, that’s all.
There is an issue of real interest,
a more or less civil debate,
but nonetheless a 2 sides debate rising arguments,
and mod and admin have to decide, on this specific matter.

The only problem is about the title of the thread, which I find on a too individual level.
I see no reason to keep a thread as an explicit grudge against another member.

However, there is still an on going personal matter as the lasts posts showed, more or less directly.
So, it is up to you people.

(And all the forum politics the Mod had to apply in this case.)

@P@nther:

Why don’t you just use the information to be found here on this site.

See for example:

http://www.axisandallies.org/p/whats-new-in-axis-allies-pacific-1940-and-europe-1940-second-editions/

In this article you find even links to the new setup charts.

http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-europe-1940-second-edition/
http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-pacific-1940-second-edition/

So no reason to “ARG”.
🙂

Thanks, this is what I was looking for.  Why isn’t this a sticky in this forum section?

It’s not like I don’t look around for stuff like this.

Being deep into a game of global with the wrong setup is definitely reason to go ARG.

@221B:

While they probably would never fight it out directly against each other, I think that the submarines of that era could be compared to each other in terms of how well they did (and how well they potentially could have) against merchant marine ships.

I’d have to place them in this order with regards to their potential:

Japan Germany US UK Italy

Of course, the Japanese squandered the potential of their subs by using them to attack warships, rather than merchant ships.  So in order of actual performance, I’d say this order:

US (Japan was devastated by lack of supplies) Germany UK Italy Japan.

Part of the reason for my placing Germany below the US is because the allies, particularly the British developed effective defenses which the Japanese did not (and the Germans did not need to as they were a continental power).  Not sure where to place Russia, but since (like Germany) she is a continental power, there was very little, if any, efforts regarding submarines that I am aware of.

I’d also like to point out that Germany had some very interesting submarine ideas on their drawing boards, but either chose not to (or were unable to) develop these in any meaningful fashion.

Thoughts?

Good post, and I agree with what you’ve written. I’d like to expand on what you’d written about Germany’s very interesting sub ideas. Late in the war, Germany had begun building highly advanced Type XXI U-boats. These were built in sections, to allow for a faster rate of production. These submarines had more in common with postwar nuclear subs than with their WWII contemporaries.

Most WWII-era submarines were intended to spend most of their time above water, surfacing only when threats were detected or battle expected. Type XXI U-boats were intended to spend nearly all their time underwater. The batteries of Type XXIs lasted several times longer than normal subs’ batteries before being recharged. These subs had a snorkel–a snorkel which allowed them to run their diesel engines and recharge their batteries while still submerged!

Type XXI subs had a rubber coating, making them far more difficult to detect with radar or sonar. Even if a sub was detected, it could use its battery-powered electric motor to quietly move to some other place. These subs could also move quickly! Unlike other WWII-era subs, Type XXI subs moved more quickly under the surface than they did on the surface. This was because of their hydrodynamically advanced, streamlined design. These subs also had very sophisticated electronics suites, perfectly suited to an underwater game of cat and mouse. These U-boats could fire large numbers of torpedoes in a small space of time; allowing them to strike a devastating blow and then disappear.

Most torpedoes of the era were diesel powered. Compressed air was mixed with diesel fuel and burned, thereby turning the torpedo’s propeller. The compressed air used in this left a trail of bubbles–a trail which both alerted people to the torpedo’s arrival, and provided a path back to the launching submarine. In some places, that bubble trail would glow at night due to phosphorescent microorganisms. Japan’s torpedoes used compressed oxygen with which to burn diesel. That meant a much smaller bubble trail, and significantly longer-ranged torpedoes. (The Allies’ bubble trails consisted mostly of nitrogen gas, which of course is useless for burning anything.)

Germany used electric torpedoes. These had the advantage of being much quieter and more difficult to detect than diesel-powered torpedoes. And of course they left no bubble trail. The problem with Germany’s early electric torpedoes was that the batteries weren’t that good, causing the range to be too short. But batteries improved throughout the war, thereby extending the torpedoes’ range. While Germany’s electric torpedoes never came close to the range of Japan’s Long Lance torpedoes, they nevertheless had a very respectable range by the war’s end. When that range was combined with the overall stealth and sophistication of Germany’s Type XXI U-boats, the effect was absolutely devastating.

Or would have been, had those Type XXIs seen service. In 1944, Albert Speer ordered the construction of large numbers of Type XXI U-boats. Some of those Type XXIs were in the testing/working up phase when the war ended. None saw action against the enemy. A smaller version–Type XXIII U-boats–appear to have been very effective in limited action against the enemy. However, Type XXIII U-boats could only carry two torpedoes each, and were limited to coastal duties.

I found a hypothetical scenario that pitted the Richelieu & Jean Bart against the 11" KM battlecruisers…suprisingly it was ugly for the French.  The scenario claimed to be using the Dunkerque and Strasbourg with 13" guns, but looking “under the hood” they were actually using the Jean Bart/Richelieu and their 15" guns.  Since the editor doesn’t work for me I did text edits to put in the actual French BC’s with their appropriate arms, ammunition quantities, and hull/flotation hit points.

The French get mauled!  It isn’t even close after playing it from both sides several times.  (No wonder the designer fudged in French BB’s with BC names…it was an attempt to balance the scenario.)  The heavier armour belt/turrets of the German boats seem to handle the 13" French guns, while the fast firing 11" German guns soon take out the turrets and/or magazine of the French ships.  In about 1/4 of the engagements one of my French boats pulled a “Hood” early in the exchange from about 13,000 yards (where the Kriegsmarine ships couldn’t even identify her yet but were reliably hitting.)  Boom! went the entire magazine.

I don’t know if there is some sort of artificial difference in the 3D model, if it is a reflection of the gunnery bonus for the Germans in the game, a particular range band, or even the 5.9" secondary guns of the KM scoring (vs. 5.1" for the French), but those quad turrets and thinner belt are proving a very brittle instrument of war.

And after you knock out the French guns, the stern chase is a breeze for the Germans!

In fairness to the Japanese planners:

“After the initial salvo at long range (20,000 meters), the four Kongo Class battleships and 17 Class A cruisers detailed to the night attack force were to break through the American screen–suicidally if necessary–and clear the way for the force’s two torpedo cruisers and the light cruiser and 14 destroyers of a destroyer squadron to expend the remainder of their ready torpedoes in a close range attack from as little as 2,000 meters.”

IF they had ever actually gotten the massive fleet battle at night (without radar, which they couldn’t plan for, since they didn’t know about it), and acually managed to get a significant number of cruisers and destroyers to 2,000 meters or less, they might have had a chance of achieving the 15% hit rate.  But a lot of their planning DID involve timing their actions to coincide with Mr. Murphy’s annual vacation  :lol:

That is not the message I recall.  Perhaps I’m mistaken on the warning or misread it, but it didn’t give instructions, just said that it had been flagged as spam and that a moderator would have to approve it before it was posted.

Just contact a moderator to get the link posted. It says nothing to the effect that when you post a link and it is declined, somehow a moderator automatically knows exactly what happened without you telling anybody.

Instead of discussion how the script is written, perhaps you PM me so we can get the problem resolved?

Since the type of unit is not specified, any land or air unit will work.

Red Harvest,

I’m 53 and I also had a long typing habit to break. But I did it and so can you. Don’t let this old habit reduce the enjoyment you can give and receive via this forum.

“Tall Paul”

@Red:

@GeodrivE:

Don’t you think making all the french pieces would be a waste since you really won’t get the chance to use them. It would be like classic again with the Russian cv’s and bb’s. I’d rather see the effort and money put into pieces to represent Air and Naval bases.

No.  And it certainly wouldn’t be a waste to do the Italian pieces right since they are sticking around.

It isn’t a $25 game with generic pieces, it is a $100 game.  I find it surprising that with so much other attention to detail, and the obvious interest in the European theater (since it sold out quickly) that the decision was made not to do it right the first time.  It would seem to be a logical stepping stone to expanding the game anyway.

As for air and naval bases, I don’t mind the cardboard pieces.   They aren’t mobile anyway and really are only markers for the territory, not units.

Hey, if they make 'em great! I’m just not getting my hopes up to see it happen anytime soon. Cause at $100 like you said, I think they would have already made them if they wanted to. To me, I can play with what they gave me and have a good time.

Disregard the first post, I need to update for the new SE set up and rules.  Something of sufficient quality with both rule changes and setup should be stickied for those who bought AAP40 earlier.