@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.