spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Nov 4, 2020 20:27:28 GMT -6
I think it would be interesting to include Heligoland as a small possession. Obviously, you would have to rework many game files, but this would allow for MTB squadrons and airbases, which were both historically there IIRC, as well as giving something actually invadeable in Northern Europe. Are there any other places anyone wants included?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Nov 5, 2020 1:35:29 GMT -6
I think it would be interesting to include Heligoland as a small possession. Obviously, you would have to rework many game files, but this would allow for MTB squadrons and airbases, which were both historically there IIRC, as well as giving something actually invadeable in Northern Europe. Are there any other places anyone wants included? I’m doing a map mod, will consider this |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 5, 2020 11:22:11 GMT -6
Thanks SeaWolf.
SpaceNerd4 - historically the Baltic islands were fairly well fortified. As such, playing as Germany or Russia the ability to pop some airbases on the islands would help with the early short range AC. Also being able to specify fortifications or MTB's on the islands would be appreciated, rather than them ending up in out of the way locals.
Kaliningrad always seemed ripe for being treated separately from the Baltic States as it was historically Prussian / German but was taken over by the USSR in WWII. It also stayed Russian property post the break-up of the Warsaw Pact / USSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2020 12:11:32 GMT -6
Helgoland was a British possession from 1814 till 1890 when it was ceded to the Prussians for Zanzibar. It could hold maybe one good air base but not much more and with the advent of radar, a good early warning site to keep an eye on the bight. As such, that is about its only usefulness, but it should be fortified so some one doesn't try to take it. However, Helgoland is only 420 acres, which is kinda small gents.
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Nov 5, 2020 16:04:05 GMT -6
That's still around 1/4 the size of Wake Island, and this space is a lot easier to build upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2020 16:15:44 GMT -6
That's still around 1/4 the size of Wake Island, and this space is a lot easier to build upon. It certainly is, Wake Island is a crater like Midway. It is about 2500 miles from Oahu and Pearl Harbor. Helgoland is a much more useful site... at least for a while until the enemy blows it off the map, which it will do. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 6, 2020 1:43:51 GMT -6
Neither Wake nor Midway is a crater. They are both coral atolls, where coral grows up around a central island, then the island erodes away. "Crater" is used either for impact craters (of which there are very few examples on Earth that haven't eroded beyond recognition) or volcanic calderas (which happen when a magma chamber beneath a volcano empties and can't support the weight of the volcano anymore, basically a sinkhole, but with lava).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 6, 2020 8:28:22 GMT -6
Neither Wake nor Midway is a crater. They are both coral atolls, where coral grows up around a central island, then the island erodes away. "Crater" is used either for impact craters (of which there are very few examples on Earth that haven't eroded beyond recognition) or volcanic calderas (which happen when a magma chamber beneath a volcano empties and can't support the weight of the volcano anymore, basically a sinkhole, but with lava). Sorry, but Wake and Midway are the tops of volcanos. They are the coral atolls on the tops of those and they are summit craters with Coral atolls on top. Without the crater, no Wake or Midway island. www.doi.gov/oia/islands/wakeatoll - "Composed of a reef-enclosed lagoon, the atoll consists of three coral islands (Peale, Wake and Wilkes), built upon an underwater volcano. The atoll's central lagoon is the volcano crater; the islands are part of the rim."Midway Island - Midway Atoll is part of a chain of volcanic islands, atolls, and seamounts extending from Hawai'i up to the tip of the Aleutian Islands and known as the Hawaii-Emperor chain. Midway was formed roughly 28 million years ago when the seabed underneath it was over the same hotspot from which the Island of Hawai'i is now being formed. In fact, Midway was once a shield volcano perhaps as large as the island of Lana'i. As the volcano piled up lava flows building up the island, the load of it depressed the crust and the island slowly subsided over a period of millions of years, a process known as isostatic adjustment. As the island mass subsided, a coral reef around the former volcanic island was able to maintain itself near sea level by growing upwards. They are both atolls build on the subsiding volcano craters. Coral atolls don't grow without some sort of land. The depth of water around Wake island is about 600-700 feet. "Corals prefer clear and shallow water, where lots of sunlight filters through to their symbiotic algae. It is possible to find corals at depths of up to 300 feet (91 meters), but reef-building corals grow poorly below 60–90 feet (18–27 meters). So, you need a piece of land for corals to grow, so you need a crater around with the coral can exist. |
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Nov 6, 2020 15:12:28 GMT -6
That's still around 1/4 the size of Wake Island, and this space is a lot easier to build upon. It certainly is, Wake Island is a crater like Midway. It is about 2500 miles from Oahu and Pearl Harbor. Helgoland is a much more useful site... at least for a while until the enemy blows it off the map, which it will do. But unlike a ship, you can just rebuild the fortifications, and the "hull" still remains, even after the enemy shells it with their full battleline. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 6, 2020 15:26:02 GMT -6
It certainly is, Wake Island is a crater like Midway. It is about 2500 miles from Oahu and Pearl Harbor. Helgoland is a much more useful site... at least for a while until the enemy blows it off the map, which it will do. But unlike a ship, you can just rebuild the fortifications, and the "hull" still remains, even after the enemy shells it with their full battleline. Absolutely, but then the enemy (probably the British) will just send a squadron of Lancaster's and blow it off the map again.... at night with an area bombing. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 6, 2020 16:28:58 GMT -6
Sorry, but Wake and Midway are the tops of volcanos. They are the coral atolls on the tops of those and they are summit craters with Coral atolls on top. Without the crater, no Wake or Midway island. The point is, the existing landform above water is not a crater. When the island is still there, a reef forms around it, then continues to build itself as the island subsides. The reef forms an outline as large or larger than the shoreline of the original island, while the summit crater is necessarily smaller than the original island. The reef is not built on the rim of the original summit crater, it is well outside it. If the summit crater hasn't been eroded to unrecognizability by the time it slips belowthe waves, it soon will be, but the reef will continue to outline the original shoreline for a long while. EDIT: fixed screwed up quote tags. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 6, 2020 16:50:48 GMT -6
The point is, the existing landform above water is not a crater. When the island is still there, a reef forms around it, then continues to build itself as the island subsides. The reef forms an outline as large or larger than the shoreline of the original island, while the summit crater is necessarily smaller than the original island. The reef is not built on the rim of the original summit crater, it is well outside it. If the summit crater hasn't been eroded to unrecognizability by the time it slips belowthe waves, it soon will be, but the reef will continue to outline the original shoreline for a long while. The problem with this whole issue is that Marine Biologists and geologist have not determined if the coral reefs will continue to exist without the crater. We know that there are many craters in the same line of the mantle plum that created all these volcanoes and craters, but after the crater has disappeared, so has the coral reefs. Update: here is an article that explains it at National Geographic - www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atoll/ - You are correct. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 6, 2020 19:04:41 GMT -6
The problem with this whole issue is that Marine Biologists and geologist have not determined if the coral reefs will continue to exist without the crater. We know that there are many craters in the same line of the mantle plum that created all these volcanoes and craters, but after the crater has disappeared, so has the coral reefs. Actually, scientists *do* know this, and you are correct except for the timing: once the volcano is gone, the erosion and subsidence of the island will eventually outstrip coral growth. But it takes time for that to happen, and for a while after the demise of the island the coral remains able to grow up to the ocean surface, and that's where you get an atoll, when the island is gone, but the reef is still hanging on. You do have to be somewhat careful about the use of the word "crater", too. There are several volcanically-linked features that all can be called "craters". The first is just the opening of a magma tube at the surface, and the other two feature types generally contain such an opening, or its remains, but are distinct from it. The second type is formed when gasses trapped within magma bubble out and blow away the ground above them, and is like a crater from a bomb going off underground (the crater on Mt. St. Helens formed when the weakened side of the mountain slid away, releasing pressure on the magma underneath and causing this kind of explosion. Some of the crater is just from the landslide, some from the explosion). The third type is when a magma chamber is emptied (often by an eruption) and the ground above it is no longer supported and collapses to fill in the magma chamber (this is known as a caldera, and is basically a giant sinkhole). |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 6, 2020 19:11:46 GMT -6
The problem with this whole issue is that Marine Biologists and geologist have not determined if the coral reefs will continue to exist without the crater. We know that there are many craters in the same line of the mantle plum that created all these volcanoes and craters, but after the crater has disappeared, so has the coral reefs. Actually, scientists *do* know this, and you are correct except for the timing: once the volcano is gone, the erosion and subsidence of the island will eventually outstrip coral growth. But it takes time for that to happen, and for a while after the demise of the island the coral remains able to grow up to the ocean surface, and that's where you get an atoll, when the island is gone, but the reef is still hanging on. You do have to be somewhat careful about the use of the word "crater", too. There are several volcanically-linked features that all can be called "craters". The first is just the opening of a magma tube at the surface, and the other two feature types generally contain such an opening, or its remains, but are distinct from it. The second type is formed when gasses trapped within magma bubble out and blow away the ground above them, and is like a crater from a bomb going off underground (the crater on Mt. St. Helens formed when the weakened side of the mountain slid away, releasing pressure on the magma underneath and causing this kind of explosion. Some of the crater is just from the landslide, some from the explosion). The third type is when a magma chamber is emptied (often by an eruption) and the ground above it is no longer supported and collapses to fill in the magma chamber (this is known as a caldera, and is basically a giant sinkhole). In geology, the terminology can be a bit confusing, crater is used in a general sense and most times, the answer is something different. Much has changed in fifty years since I minored in geology so I am still keeping my skills up but the research is complicated but I enjoy it thoroughly. |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Nov 10, 2020 16:08:40 GMT -6
I will say one thing in opposition to the idea of Heligoland as a value 0 possession, and that is with base capacity. As far as I can remember, Germany is an opponent nation for every nation in game, and one of the most common challenges when playing USA/CSA/Italy/Austria/Japan/China is getting that foothold in Northern Europe. With Heligoland being a zero cost possession, any successful war with Germany would grant the player that foothold, which after only a few years of base expansion would be capable of supplying a major fleet.
That seems...wrong to me.
|
|
