|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2019 16:29:28 GMT -6
1. Vietnam is outside this timeframe from the US perspective 2. Vietnam was not the type of war that you fight in this game 3. Even if neither of the above are true, picking an outlier isn't helpful Thank you because I was hoping someone would mentioned those three points. Let's get the heck off of the subject unless you wish to bored to death by my lectures on the air war in Vietnam.  |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 3, 2019 18:29:59 GMT -6
1. Vietnam is outside this timeframe from the US perspective 2. Vietnam was not the type of war that you fight in this game 3. Even if neither of the above are true, picking an outlier isn't helpful 1- The timeframe doesn't really matter in the circumstance. The question is about balance, not technology. 2- True. But which historical war is the type you fight in this game? The Russo-Japanese war is the only one I can think of that fits well. The Quasi War maybe, except it wasn't a real war and misses the time frame by 100 years. You could maybe get close with the First Punic War, but if you're worried about being outside the timeframe of the game... 3- Every war is an outlier. None are ever the same. Except in games. Oldpop- I never tire of a history lecture. Keep telling me how complicated it is. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2019 19:20:51 GMT -6
1. Vietnam is outside this timeframe from the US perspective 2. Vietnam was not the type of war that you fight in this game 3. Even if neither of the above are true, picking an outlier isn't helpful ….. Oldpop- I never tire of a history lecture. Keep telling me how complicated it is. Ok, that's fair and thanks for telling me. First thing about Vietnam and then I will leave this aspect of it, is that the reason for the war was to "make the world safe for democracy" and to stop the domino effect in SE Asia. Reality was that the people in South Vietnam were more concerned with the three necessities of life: food, water and shelter. They did not care who was in power in Hanoi or Saigon. In their little world of jungles and rice patties, the government in those cities was irrelevant. We finally figured that out and left. Next little bit of information is about the USAF. The USAF was never enthusiastic about air to ground support. Even in WW2, while they accomplished it, it was a strategic bombing force and that's what they enjoyed. So, they get to Vietnam and now its an air to ground war except for the attacks from Thailand over Thud Ridge to hit the North Vietnam. They were not even equipped for such a war and had to go to the Navy and get the F-4B which they changed to the F-4C. They wanted to design and build their own multi-role aircraft but Congress said nope, use the F-4, so they did. They had to revise the bomb bays on the F-105's which was their primary air to ground weapon along with the F-100 Super Sabre. Anyway, that is part of lecture #1. |
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Sept 5, 2019 16:04:36 GMT -6
1. Vietnam is outside this timeframe from the US perspective 2. Vietnam was not the type of war that you fight in this game 3. Even if neither of the above are true, picking an outlier isn't helpful 1- The timeframe doesn't really matter in the circumstance. The question is about balance, not technology. 2- True. But which historical war is the type you fight in this game? The Russo-Japanese war is the only one I can think of that fits well. The Quasi War maybe, except it wasn't a real war and misses the time frame by 100 years. You could maybe get close with the First Punic War, but if you're worried about being outside the timeframe of the game... 3- Every war is an outlier. None are ever the same. Except in games. Oldpop- I never tire of a history lecture. Keep telling me how complicated it is.
I disagree on all three points but oh well. The only thing I want to say about them without writing a book-length post was that the Spanish-American War clearly fits in the type of wars we fight in this game. Even if it doesn't, there doesn't need to be a historical analogue to address the topic I'm trying to discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2019 16:22:57 GMT -6
1- The timeframe doesn't really matter in the circumstance. The question is about balance, not technology. 2- True. But which historical war is the type you fight in this game? The Russo-Japanese war is the only one I can think of that fits well. The Quasi War maybe, except it wasn't a real war and misses the time frame by 100 years. You could maybe get close with the First Punic War, but if you're worried about being outside the timeframe of the game... 3- Every war is an outlier. None are ever the same. Except in games. Oldpop- I never tire of a history lecture. Keep telling me how complicated it is.
I disagree on all three points but oh well. The only thing I want to say about them without writing a book-length post was that the Spanish-American War clearly fits in the type of wars we fight in this game. Even if it doesn't, there doesn't need to be a historical analogue to address the topic I'm trying to discuss.
I would actually agree that Brush Wars are not the types that are in the game. Those wars would be like the Rhodesian, South African, Ugandan and the Central African just to name a few. The Korean and Vietnam wars were proxy wars. This is where two opposing powers use other countries as substitutes for fighting each other directly. The Egyptian-Ottoman War, Chinese Civil War, Greek Civil War, First Indochina war would be examples, again just to name a few. Now, using those two definitions, do they arise in RTW and RTW2? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. The Spanish-American war does not fall into either of those two categories. It was a war between two nations, in Cuba and in the Philippines. Could it be the type that we could see in the games? Most likely yes. |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 5, 2019 19:11:48 GMT -6
1- The timeframe doesn't really matter in the circumstance. The question is about balance, not technology. 2- True. But which historical war is the type you fight in this game? The Russo-Japanese war is the only one I can think of that fits well. The Quasi War maybe, except it wasn't a real war and misses the time frame by 100 years. You could maybe get close with the First Punic War, but if you're worried about being outside the timeframe of the game... 3- Every war is an outlier. None are ever the same. Except in games. Oldpop- I never tire of a history lecture. Keep telling me how complicated it is.
I disagree on all three points but oh well. The only thing I want to say about them without writing a book-length post was that the Spanish-American War clearly fits in the type of wars we fight in this game. Even if it doesn't, there doesn't need to be a historical analogue to address the topic I'm trying to discuss.
True enough about the Spanish American war, I guess I brain farted on that one because the Spanish aren't in the game, ,because they were never a power after that war... or during it. Went 'sick man' too soon, just missed the cutoff. Austria-Hungary got lucky. And you are correct, I got us off in the weeds again, dragging up old stuff. I think a possible solution would be to allow invasion of home territories. Break the countries up into states that can be invaded. Make amphibious invasions much harder than land invasions, and allow the player to select the per month investment for the invasion. A higher investment would increase the chance of an invasion triggering and succeeding. And make all the home territories that get invaded during the war get returned when the war ends, but claim points in the treaty get added to by the total value of the territories returned. Those territories should be claimable but have a very high cost to invade and value. It would be good to break up some of the colonial possessions too. Make the invasion cost and chance of success based on the type of invasion. Put amphibious assaults from a low value state to a high value one with no supporting airfields in range on one end of the spectrum, and land invasion of low value states from high value ones with all of the airfields on the other. Should also put unrest into the invasion and budget equations as well with the same principals. Unrest should increase the chance of being successfully invaded (or a rebellion obviously) and decrease chances of invading from. It should also increase maintenance costs for the state and lower the budget value as it increases. Unrest should increase the longer an outgoing invasion is staged from that state and increase outgoing invasion cost. That way when you aren't able to force them to surrender at sea you can do some damage and push for concessions on land. I know it's a little outside the scope of the game, but it would increase the realism without getting any further into the weeds than I tend roam. |
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Sept 5, 2019 23:29:03 GMT -6
I disagree on all three points but oh well. The only thing I want to say about them without writing a book-length post was that the Spanish-American War clearly fits in the type of wars we fight in this game. Even if it doesn't, there doesn't need to be a historical analogue to address the topic I'm trying to discuss.
True enough about the Spanish American war, I guess I brain farted on that one because the Spanish aren't in the game, They are |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 6, 2019 4:54:43 GMT -6
True enough about the Spanish American war, I guess I brain farted on that one because the Spanish aren't in the game, They are Just had to boot up the game to see what you were talking about. Custom nations, how bout that. Still, the historical Spain isn't in the game. |
|
