Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: Game pieces

« on: May 08, 2007, 08:43:46 AM »

I will be at Gencon as well my grand plan of producing / painting the peices in there historical standard is only half way there so do not plan on bringing the pieces I have done.

Plan on playing Thrusday night but do not know if I'll play every day like last year. :O)

Sean

17

WWII discussion forum / Re: Soviet war entry

« on: May 07, 2007, 07:06:48 PM »

I wish I can quote the different books I had read; dosn't mean it was true just because some one wrote it, but the Soviet Union was just using their time to build up there forces.  In fact supposedly Stalin had knew that Germany was going to attack. Despite the non-aggresion treaty.

We knew Hitler had planned on it no matter what. "Elbow space" for the German people. He just thought that they would fall quickly.  They viewed USSR as the weaker of the US, UK / USSR sides. I mean they viewed that they won them in WWI and would do so again with no problem.

This is "ONE" of the reasons that he decided to attack USSR rather than do Sea Lion. (Arguing if they would of been succesful with Sea Lion is a totaly different subject.)

I do believe that Stalin would of declared war on Germany as soon as he saw they were starting to have difficluties (if they would of had difficluties), unfourtantly I can't take credit for that train of thought either because it is a generaly held belief that he would of eventually done so to help keep control of his population.  I just do not believe that it would of been in 41 either. (Althought I do like the game as it is set up. It helps keep everyone involved in tha game. Do believe it would be fun to do a what if senario to see what would happen with USSR completly out of the picture except for some house rules on them entering on different triggers. Like in 42' or 43'.  Might be fun.

Sean

18

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Fortifications

« on: November 15, 2006, 04:28:03 PM »

You are correct my point is that some of the things are pretty clear that have been brought up.

Thats all.  If it needs to be made clearer ask away I will not reply or post anything to them again.

Example the AA gun on another post.  Yet so be it, it is not my game and I have no say so in the rules or whatever.

Sean

19

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Fortifications

« on: November 14, 2006, 05:31:32 AM »

I do realize that happens but then there is  "dumbing up" (for lack of a better word) of the rules.

You can simplify and clairify something forever and there still will be somebody out there who needs clairfication on something. 

There is a point where all your doing is repeating the same thing over and over but just slightly different in terms of the words used.  When this happens you'll have a rule book that is so clear (maybe for most but there still would be the one person who needs clairification because he/she reads the meaning of the rule differently) that it is 100 pages thick.  Which isn't bad unless it is repeating an example over and over just slightly different.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this is a great game but if the rule book had 20 pages of examples to begin with I proably wouldn't of gotten into it because it would have "seemed" to comlicated.  Mark has to worry about doing that, making it look to complicated to just a passerbyer who asked to look at the rules.

Sean

20

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Fortifications

« on: November 12, 2006, 01:52:13 PM »

Personal opinion but the way it reads now seems to be very clear on that and just seperating it into  more sentences will proably have a person asking questions about each sentence at a later time.

Sean

21

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: November 04, 2006, 06:10:13 AM »

Okay went and dug it up out of the garage.  I really need to get unpacked.

The book is "A World at Arms" by Gerhard L. Weinberg

"The author was born in Germany and spent the first year of World War II in England and served in the U.S. army occupation in Japan.  After recieving his Ph.D from the University of Chicago in 1951 he worked on Columbia Universitie's War Documentation Project, directed the American Historical Association's project for microfilming captured German documents, and found and edited Hitlers second book.  He is the author fo numerous books and articles on the orgins and course of World War II, including a prize winning two-volume study of the Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany.  He has taught at the universites of Chicago, kentucky, and Michigan, was a visting professor at Bonn University and at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and since 1974 has been William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. " excerpt from the inside cover.

It actually is a pretty good book and I was mistaken about the length of it.  The actual "reading" part of it is 920 pages then anotther 250 pages of notes to the pages and maps and index.

Sean King

22

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: November 03, 2006, 10:07:30 PM »

Another thing kind of off the subject here was that Russia would of been lost with out the US help that we gave them.

This book also explores that (it was like 1500 pages or so) as well.

It brings to light that the Russian army actually did alot on its own and actually beat the Germans in numerous battles before the US was even in the war......

I will make a point to find the book.....

Sean

23

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: November 03, 2006, 10:02:44 PM »

Yea your porably right on that one.

Although with that perspective you might not get the total truth either.  That was part of the argument of the book I had read for the class was that the german military has conventinatly blamed most if not all of its failures on Hitler or other things but not on actually any short comings the "military" made on tactical decisions.

Proably have to come up with your own opinion after getting both or even three or more different perspectives of it.

I rally need to find the book so I can at least put the title out there.

Sean

24

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Air to Air Combat during Strategic Combat

« on: October 28, 2006, 11:13:27 PM »

I would say the fighter is not locked into being a bomber even though that was his original intent. (After all if a fighter comes up to meet him he can always just jetison his bombs where he is at). 

If he does do the air to air, and wins I would say the strategic is canceled since he droped his bombs to fight air to air.

I think the one with the most planes get to choose then it goes the attacker places first if they are the same. (Or do I have that backwards.)

If the strategic fighter decides to continue as a bomber he dosn't get to change it if the defender decides to meet him in air to air. (Basically he was jumped.)

He is only forced to stay with the bombing decsion if he had to choose first to place on the battle board. Kind of making single plane bombing forces pointless if they wouldn't have air suprioity, which is fairly historic.

My two cents.

Sean

25

Rules questions from first edition / Re: Movement through sea zones that are controlled by noncombatants

« on: October 28, 2006, 11:04:46 PM »

As far as I knew the French fleet wasn't able to move at all.  Can't remember if I saw it in the rules or it was mentioned by either John or Mark at Gencon.

Sean

26

WWII discussion forum / Re: pacific blunder

« on: October 22, 2006, 05:30:26 PM »

Well and I am sure folks well see it when they see "Flags of our Fathers" that America was real close to running out of money.

The dollar bill was worthless.  Funding just wasn't there.

I had heard of this before but watching the movie brought it back to memory.  Now if its true that is another story.  I just had heard of it before.

If this is really true it could of possibly went another way if things kept getting costly in terms of people.

We take it for granted that we were going to win and Germany and Japan was stupid for attacking the US.  It really wasn't like that at all.  I know there was the unconditional surrender and all but it was real close. 

Heck Britian took all of its Gold stock to Canada in case the Island fell.  It was much closer than what current history tells us in terms of the poplulation wanting to sue for peace.

Yada, yada!

Well that is my two cents.

Sean

27

WWII discussion forum / Re: How Hitler could have won WWII?

« on: October 22, 2006, 05:21:44 PM »

I am just throwing this out there.

My professor once said that Germany was still active in terms of propaganda.  Some of the biggest proprgandas was that,

1). Germany lost the war because of the Harsh Soviet winter
2). Germay didn't ever get to full production.
3). etc.

Well the winter didn't help matters at all.  But in all honest truth they didn't plan well enough the assualt onto Russia.  They thought it would be easy.  After all they had beat them once already in the First war.  The supply lines is what got them and that came from the partisians and, well lack of planning.

It wasn't a matter of going to war time production because they didn't decide to go to war production.  It is because of other things that prevented it from going to full production.

Now I have a book they are teaching on campus (of course it is just one opinion which all history is ) I will have to find it and post what and who it is from for folks to read.  It is a great book.

Sean

28

Game Design / Re: THENORTHMANS SPECIAL EDITION ;O)

« on: September 18, 2006, 10:01:57 AM »

I will get pictures of it as it comes along.  Actually might be able to get some of the items sooner than I thought I would....

Proably going to go with the aircraft first.  Then purcahse the ships, then the ground forces.

Sean

29

General Discussion / Re: Game pieces

« on: September 09, 2006, 06:21:06 AM »

Thanks Mark

30

General Discussion / IL-2 would a close sub be a TBF Avenger

« on: September 07, 2006, 08:44:37 PM »

Since the IL-2 wasn't used so much in the naval aspect of WWII the 1/1200 scale by CAP Aero dosn't make one.

Looking at pictures I am thinking the TBF is kind of close to it but it is a little larger than the IL-2 but thought it would be close to it with maybe adjusting (scratch biuilding) the cockpit and adjusting the underbelly a little would be a good sub.

Any opinions?  Any suggestions on some other aircraft?  Here is a link of the available types.  http://www.ss-sms.com/FHSCAP1104.html

Thank you in advance.

Sean