|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 18, 2020 7:33:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 18, 2018 0:00:08 GMT -6
Good discussion, thanks for some constructive ideas and input for RTW2. There are depressions in RTW, as you can see in the events occasionally, though they are admittedly not as severe or long lasting as the "real" great depression. OTOH when I studied the effect of the depression on actual defense budgets for RTW I got the impression that it was not as dramatic as is commonly assumed. That is one reason that its effects in RTW are relatively mild compared to what one might expect. Huh, did not know that. I actually presumed that with such poor economic prospect, the government would try to scale down their military budgets, at least for the democratic ones. Then again, the Washington Naval Treaty practically put a cap on naval spending for the majority of the Great Depression. There is not much budget to slash in the first place. And none of the major powers would risk to look weak, especially with World War 1 and it's effects still being felt. Also reading about the Washington Treaty showed that it was made in due part to the economic recessions being felt by the major powers just a few years after World War 1. Even if the Naval Treaty was rejected, their faltering economy would have seriously constricted them from doing so. Not to mention the Great Depression just a few years down the line would have throttled any naval expansion. As such, the only option is to find the balance between a large force to deter threats, while keeping it small enough to be fiscally sustainable. The Naval Treaty just formalized such balance. And history does support this. Once the Great Depression was going away, the governments went back to building new ships, regardless of the treaty signed. Economic constraints did more to enforce the Naval Treaty than any form of policing and enforcement ever could.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 17, 2018 10:07:29 GMT -6
Excellent point. While the risk of unrest would certainly make sense for democracies, it would not make sense in autocratic ones. Hmm, maybe for autocratic countries the effect of the Great Depression is that their naval budgets won't get slashed, but their chance of getting new funding is severely curtailed. E.g. events that would give additional funding are not issued. Instead, only being at war would give said increase in budget. This way it could somewhat reflect the reality that the autocratic government were able to keep their military budget but at the expense of their economy. Thoughts on this idea? I thought a little about this while writing my response, but couldn't make up my mind about it and still can't. From the perspective of the chief of a military service, living under a totalitarian system is objectively better; you're going to get more funding, no strikes, and if the depression is effecting you at all, re-armament is, if anything, going to be a solution rather than a problem. There's just one real downside, of course, and that is the risk of being shot. There are some related complications, though; even if you're not going to be shot, you're still more likely to suffer from the whims of the leadership than you would be in a liberal democracy. It is difficult to imagine, for example, that the intense inter-service struggle that took place in Japan could have occurred in any country in which the influence of the military establishment over society was not so great as it was there. The military was steering the government, and not the other way around, and this could be translated into a higher-risk event system for that type of government. Furthermore, consider some of the event choices that we already have. If you're at the risk of having your budget cut, normally you can choose to avoid it by taking a hit to prestige, tensions or unrest. If you're ordered to build a certain number of ships, you can normally choose not to do that as well - but are you really going to say 'no' to the Navy Comissar with a bad temper and an itchy trigger finger? Perhaps submarines really are your best bet, but if the Fuhrer wants big, shiny battleships, who are you to refuse him? Beyond that, if in a normal system you're concerned about unrest, but all of a sudden you find yourself suddenly not having to worry about the unions any more, this perhaps ought to be balanced by the fact that you have to take extra special care to keep your prestige moving onwards and upwards. In the aforementioned climate of intense inter-service competition, any drop in prestige should risk earning the displeasure or disinterest of the dictator - and the army and air force will be only too eager to exploit that. Fail to keep impressing the glory - hungry bosses, and severe budget cuts should be just around the corner - and perhaps one of your new battleships is going to get its guns commandeered for the army's extremely necessary and oh-so-practical siege guns... My point is that, in reality, being a dictatorship means more money for armaments no matter how you look at it, so I think this ought to be represented in game by a greater base allotment of the national resources. However, it can be balanced out by allowing the player to lose control of how this money is spent in a variety of ways, without unduly infringing on his ability to play the game. Excellent points. The main problem is how to simulate both the advantages and disadvantages of being under and autocratic regime. On one hand a secure source of funding, on the other a very cut throat politics and back room dealings. As such, my new suggestion is that, during the Great Depression the players in an autocratic regime, their prestige score is used as the basis of the events. If it is high enough the player is given the option to deny "suggestions" made by the Head of State, with the price being ones prestige. Or that said "suggestions" won't appear at all. Or maybe the player is even given the chance to use their prestige in exchange of additional funds. This is to reflect that the player is highly valued by the Head of State and that their personal input has great weight. If the players prestige score is in the middle then the "suggestions" made by the Head of State have a large prestige hit if the suggestion is denied. However, agreeing to do the orders only nets a slight increase in prestige. This set-up is meant to reflect that while you are not in high-esteem with the Head of State you are still secure in your position that only they can order you around and not the other military branches or other government organizations. If however the player has low prestige, then those "suggestions" have the possibility of the player losing their job if they say no. While agreeing to it only yields a slight increase in prestige. As such to give more options other potential source of prestige is necessary. And those are the other military branches or government departments in the regime. For example, a group approaches the player with the offer of additional prestige but at the cost of considerable funding. This is to represent the player making compromises in order to secure their position. Or that they were out-maneuvered and lost their funding to their rivals but kept their position. This is done so that the player has the option of being able to increase their prestige but at the price of being curtailed in what they could do later. E.g. lack of funding and sub-optimal choices could lay the seeds of the players downfall. The main idea is to reflect the high-risk high-reward dynamic in an autocratic regime. If your on the top you can feel invincible, but if you are struggling you can easily slip into a downward spiral ending in a lost play through. But it should be noted that these events should only fire if their is a Great Depression. That way, the player can feel the economic squeeze of the Depression. As for democratic governments, the choice between slashing the budget or increase unrest is enough. The only thing I would add is that the choice were the player is suggested to build a certain ship, is not added. I mean it would be weird for a government official to order the navy to build ships when their is a economic crises. This would reflect the fact that the democratic government is less likely to meddle in the affairs of the navy, while the navy also cannot dictate to the government. A less-risk but also less-reward option. And again this scenario should only apply during the Great Depression. As a final note, I think the Great Depression should be an optional choice and that it should affect the other A.I. nations as well. For example the A.I. would also experience some effects similar to the choices given to the players. E.g. a democratic nation either slashes their budget or experiences unrest. While an autocratic government either slashes their naval budgets to give to other branches or increases their navy budget. Or that they are building ships. Said events must be decided in random in how they happen but within the parameters set for either democratic or autocratic governments. That way players have the choice of whether they want to deal with these scenarios or not. And that if they do chose, they won't feel that only they are hampered by the Great Depression. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 16, 2018 23:06:41 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be. What would the loss of prestige represent in this system? Prestige is derived from diplomatic sabre-rattling, glory in battle, and pleasing the higher-ups. More and better ships is always a good thing for prestige; fewer and worse ships is always bad. Meanwhile, we have a mechanic in game which causes unrest to be generated when the budget is too high relative to the national resources, representing popular discontent with naval spending that is too high compared to the economy as a whole. I think that the already existing choice between budget cuts and unrest is a better representation of the choice faced by democratic governments during the depression; the national resources are drastically decreased, and all of a sudden the player must make do with less, or risk strikes, mutiny, and revolution. However, this is only a good model for the democracies. Re-armament is what got Germany out of the depression, and the depression did not seriously effect the Soviet economy at all. Modelling these differences in game would go a long way to distinguishing the new time period which RTW2 aims to cover. Excellent point. While the risk of unrest would certainly make sense for democracies, it would not make sense in autocratic ones. Hmm, maybe for autocratic countries the effect of the Great Depression is that their naval budgets won't get slashed, but their chance of getting new funding is severely curtailed. E.g. events that would give additional funding are not issued. Instead, only being at war would give said increase in budget. This way it could somewhat reflect the reality that the autocratic government were able to keep their military budget but at the expense of their economy. Thoughts on this idea?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Dec 16, 2018 11:00:35 GMT -6
Interesting thread. Though the cause of the Depression has been discussed it does not yet explain how this event would affect the players. Here's my suggestions for its effects on the players. Maybe make it that for several years, maybe once or twice per year under the effect of Global Depression the player is given a choice event for their budget. The first choice is that their budget is slashed considerably but there is no other effect. The other is that the player rejects the slashing of their budget but their prestige takes a hit. In other words, the player is given the choice of either accepting the budget cuts or they try to "tough it out" by sacrificing their prestige. This would allow the player options in how to respond to the Depression. This would also reward players who are doing well, while not severely punishing those who are doing poorly. And to make it more fair, the player is given some form of advanced warning of imminent budget cuts. Maybe include in the warning an estimation of how much in the budget would be cut. That way the player can plan on what their future acts would be.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 17, 2017 9:29:43 GMT -6
That was an interesting read. Also while reading the article I learned about the Yagi-Uda antenna. Which got me thinking. Since the tech in RTW2 would be around 1950 what possible additional tech research advantage would be given to the countries.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 14, 2017 9:36:01 GMT -6
That was an interesting discussion. My next quick question is what were the tactics and technology that were required to allow aircraft to sink ships at night. I mean the Japanese relied on night time operations to allow their ships to operate without the risk of being sunk by aircraft. How can one counter this doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 8, 2017 8:41:00 GMT -6
Quick question for the thread. How would pilot skill and experience be possibly reflected in RTW2. I mean historically one of the big advantages the Americans had over the Japanese in the late war period was higher quality pilots. The average American pilot was better trained and experienced compared to the rushed training of late war Japanese pilots. While RTW had an experience system in place, it was designed for the crew of ships not pilots. Also how would RTW2 simulate the harsh conditions present in the Pacific campaign? Maybe a higher maintenance bill for aircraft operating in the Pacific region?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 4, 2017 7:35:55 GMT -6
Very informative discussion about the history of the British carriers. Though that tidbit of the aircraft designers not talking with their carrier counter parts reminded me of a similar incident in the creation of the US 16" Mark 2 and 3 naval guns www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.phpAnybody know how did this mistake take place?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 27, 2017 8:56:12 GMT -6
Fire away. This is interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 23, 2017 9:45:25 GMT -6
Ah I see. The use of the gatling gun at World War 2 would have been similar to Germany's wunderwaffe. The reason being that while powerful the sheer cost and requirements to use the gatling system would have meant that only a few ships could have used them. In other words the gatling gun would have been awesome but impractical to use. Especially since the aa guns that the USN ships had were adequate for the mission at hand and just as importantly available in large numbers.
So uh any ideas? I can't really think of a new question to ask right now.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 21, 2017 21:27:34 GMT -6
That was an interesting discussion. The Maunsell Forts were cost ineffective for the protection they offered. To maximize the effectiveness of fortifications they must answer two major criteria. First, where they are located and against what threat they are protecting against. The first means that the area located is a chokepoint where the enemy must pass through. If they can go around it, the whole fortifications is rendered useless. So while this criteria is possible in the land and sea, it is another thing entirely in the air. The second criteria, which is the kind of threat the fortification was designed to resist from. Low-flying aircraft while damaging is not enough to cause the kind of destruction that heavy bombers were capable of. Therefore, what should have been done was to use the aa guns on said forts and put them on either mobile platforms or put them on or around London itself. That way, the guns could cover the area they were supposed to be protecting.
Though a quick question. Was it possible to deploy Gatling guns in the 1940's as anti-air? More specifically as ship's anti-air like the phalanx system. I mean the research to utilize the Gatling gun began on 1946. If research and funding were provided earlier would it be enough to have it deploy sooner.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 19, 2017 22:14:58 GMT -6
I see, not only would this system be able to counter night time reconnaissance but also air attacks as well. Though interestingly enough, only in the Pacific and Atlantic theater could the scenario of being able to erect multiple bases in areas away from your main area of operations can be considered. The shorter distance combined with already established bases means that any expansion of ones SAGE in the Mediterranean would mean capturing new areas. And while the Indian Ocean could be a potential area of expansion, a major prerequisite would be that one has secured either the Mediterranean, Pacific or Atlantic Ocean. Otherwise, one runs the risk of said bases being cut off from resupply and support. Though there is the question of whether ones opponent could actually muster the kind of air power to justify building such expensive system there.
It would be very interesting to see such a system utilized in RTW2. Though this discussion has given me a new question. What is your opinion on Maunsell Forts? Where they effective for the cost required in their creation. Where they a sound idea. I mean, they only had anti-aircraft guns. A naval bombardment or air strikes could have largely rendered them ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 18, 2017 7:55:10 GMT -6
Interesting, though wouldn't night fighters be a good counter in this scenario? I mean if one deploys night fighters to patrol the airfield wouldn't this catch the recon Plane? While the recon plane can approach the airfield undetected, the moment it tries to climb up it would be detected. And that is when the night fighter would strike. The sheer difference in aircraft capability should mean that the night fighter would shoot down the recon plane.
Are their any flaws in my assumption. Would the scouting force employ some new tech or tactic to overcome this defense? I very much would like to know.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 16, 2017 9:36:19 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies. The naval bombardment of Henderson Airfield really relied on having the airfield having no naval assets that could interfere. Because even if one made the proper preparation and timing, the presence of hostile naval forces could easily screw you over. Best to stick to a combined naval and air assault for maximum effect.
Though that part about extensive air reconnaissance got me thinking. How was that done against an airfield? I mean today we got very specialized aircraft for the job. But in World War 2 stealth aircraft wasn't really a thing. Especially in the Pacific Theater. Do correct me if this assumption is wrong. I mean a hostile airfield pretty much guarantees hostile fighter aircraft, the best anti-air asset one could get. So how did one achieve air recon against an airfield? Wouldn't the airfield send out aircraft to take out the recon aircraft?
|
|