England's Capitals

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

England's Capitals

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> England's Capitals

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

England's Capitals - 8/26/2007 9:22:04 AM

Dion

Posts: 18
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Where are they? I know one is in London, but the rule book says England has two. Do they have just one, or is one of them not marked?

Post #: 1

RE: England's Capitals - 8/26/2007 9:56:30 AM

targul

Posts: 449
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

I have heard Canada is another.

_____________________________

Jim

Cant we just get along.
Hell no I want to kill something!

1st Cav Div 66-69 5th Special Forces 70-73

(in reply to Dion)

Post #: 2

RE: England's Capitals - 8/26/2007 11:59:59 AM

Dave Ferguson

Posts: 302
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: Kent, United Kingdom
Status: offline

The second capital is Ottawa? in Canada. This means capture of London will not force the surrender of the commonwealth player, even occupation of the whole island wont do that. Of course there is a enormous drop in industrail capacity but I believe the convoys get diverted to Canada?

Dave

(in reply to targul)

Post #: 3

RE: England's Capitals - 8/27/2007 3:15:28 AM

Dion

Posts: 18
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

You guys are right. I just checked. It is Ottawa. Seems unrealistic, but after thinking about it for awhile it seems like a good rule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after taking London, England's production gets tranferred to Canada if the Axis keeps a unit in every city and surrounding hex, or is it just city hexes that have to be occupied?

< Message edited by Dion -- 8/27/2007 3:17:17 AM >

(in reply to Dave Ferguson)

Post #: 4

RE: England's Capitals - 8/27/2007 4:09:43 AM

targul

Posts: 449
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

I dont think you have to occupy the cities just own them.

_____________________________

Jim

Cant we just get along.
Hell no I want to kill something!

1st Cav Div 66-69 5th Special Forces 70-73

(in reply to Dion)

Post #: 5

RE: England's Capitals - 8/27/2007 11:21:06 AM

Dave Ferguson

Posts: 302
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: Kent, United Kingdom
Status: offline

The germans will have to capture each UK city to stop it producing, but once you own it there is no need for a garrison. I presume partisans will keep appearing until you occupy Ottawa.

(in reply to targul)

Post #: 6

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 6:57:22 AM

Happycat

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dion

You guys are right. I just checked. It is Ottawa. Seems unrealistic, but after thinking about it for awhile it seems like a good rule.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after taking London, England's production gets tranferred to Canada if the Axis keeps a unit in every city and surrounding hex, or is it just city hexes that have to be occupied?

Ottawa is an excellent and realistic choice as the second capital. Firstly, this is of course an abstraction to reflect the enormous resources available from the British Empire. Churchill himself, in a speech before Parliament (and in the context of contemplating the defeat and occupation of the UK) made reference to "the new world coming to the rescue of the old". Secondly, in the event, British gold reserves were shipped to Canada for safekeeping, so it would not be unrealistic, in game terms, for the British Empire to continue to have high production despite the British Isles themselves being occupied.

I presume (although haven't seen or tried it) that Canada (and, I suppose, for that matter too the USA) can be invaded? If so, this seems grossly unrealistic. Germany could not have mounted an invasion of North America that had any hope of success.

(in reply to Dion)

Post #: 7

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 7:22:00 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

The Royal family was set to be evacuated to Canada - ironically at one point they weer going to use a Fw-200 to do it - a Danish civil one that was in England at the time Denmark was invaded - it was the only plane they had with sufficient range to get from Englad to Canada in 1 hop with decent fuel reserves.

(in reply to Happycat)

Post #: 8

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 12:54:51 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

It'll seem more logical to set up the 2nd capital in Egypt : it was the key for keeping contact with India .
Happycat, why do you think Germany could not have invaded Canada or USA ? Sure they couldnt without total naval superiority, but it's the same in game...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 9

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 2:53:26 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

The capital was never going ot go to Egypt - it was politically impossible - Egypt did hot have hte British King as head of state for example, and keeping contact with India was not all that important as a reason for moving a capital there.

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 10

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 3:03:45 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

Im' not talking about where a "real" political capitol would have been put, but where it would make more sense in the game to give a "fallback" critical city for the UK.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 11

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 4:11:16 PM

Dave Ferguson

Posts: 302
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: Kent, United Kingdom
Status: offline

In CEAW the AI will attempt to capture the primary capital first, followed by the secondary one. The primary capital is always the furthest south so Egypt is a non starter.
I think replacing the southmost test with the following would give more flexibility:

1. East/West distance form Berlin is checked with the nearest being the primary capital

this would give the same results with existing capitals but would allow a mod to have the second russian capital as say Astrakan or even Baku!. you could even have two capials for France, say Paris and Bordeaux. just to make the germans occupy the country.

Dave

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 12

RE: England's Capitals - 8/30/2007 5:44:49 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

I didn't know about that funny "southward" rule ! I was thinking of putting Stalingrad as a secondary USSR capital, with that it won't work correctly neither

The rule should be that secondary capital be ...secondary as a target also

(in reply to Dave Ferguson)

Post #: 13

RE: England's Capitals - 9/17/2007 6:07:40 AM

Happycat

Posts: 177
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Happycat, why do you think Germany could not have invaded Canada or USA ? Sure they couldnt without total naval superiority, but it's the same in game...

Sorry, I don't come on this forum as much as the Slitherine one, so I missed your question.

I think that it would be unrealistic for Germany to invade N America in any wargame that ends in 1945. The German and Italian navies were no match for the combined strength of the Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy and US Navy. As you commented, it would not be possible to invade without naval superiority.

Let's assume that the USSR is conquered. The Russian Navy of 1941 was pathetic. So even if the Germans captured the entire Red Navy, it would be of no help.

If Britain was conquered, there is no chance that the Royal Navy would have been part of the deal. The centuries old traditions of that force would ensure that those ships would be scuttled before ever being surrendered to an enemy. More likely, they'd just sail for North America.

So we are left with a small, and not so modern Italian Navy, and a bit larger, and more modern German Navy. The top four navies in the world in 1945 were USN, RN, IJN and RCN. No matter how you crunch the numbers, the Axis would be faced with crossing a hostile Atlantic, landing forces against a determined bunch of defenders, and then having to keep them supplied.

In order to achieve anything close to naval parity with the western Allies, Germany would have had to embark on a huge naval building program in order to be ready by 1945. Such a program would be at the expense of other things; say like tanks and airplanes, without which Russia and the UK would never fall. So, a "Catch 22" situation...

If the Axis had defeated the UK and USSR, I don't believe that an invasion of North America would have been possible before the early 1950's (in terms of logistics). And by then, it would be a whole new ball game (think nukes).

Of course, since making my earlier remark about it being "unrealistic", I had not played the game much. Now, after playing it for many, many hours, I see that the distance of North America from Berlin would trigger distance penalties for supply which would render this whole topic somewhat moot.

Now watch what happens next---a dozen or more players are going to post about their experiences conquering Canada and the USA .

_____________________________

Chance favours the prepared mind

(in reply to PDiFolco)

Post #: 14

RE: England's Capitals - 9/17/2007 6:40:48 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Invading Con America (or Europe from America) requires considerable seagoing merchant fleet.......the US did launch Torch from Con USA (in part) in 1942, so it's certainly not outside the capabilities of 1940's shipping.

The problem for the Axis would be resupply....it's at least a 10 day journey across the Atlantic, and they didn't have THAT much ocean going mercantile navy - much of hte conquered contries merchant fleets escaped to the UK in 1940 - vast amounts of shipping was outside their home waters when each successive country surrendered (that's where shipping mostly is of course - somewhere else!!) and almost certainly most of the UK's fleet would also have escaped any German conquest.

(in reply to Happycat)

Post #: 15

RE: England's Capitals - 9/17/2007 4:24:33 PM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I agree, but its also very very difficult in the game. North America is there more for an area where you have to build and send units from than anything else.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 16

RE: England's Capitals - 9/18/2007 12:35:18 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Supplying the shipping is trivially easy in teh game - embarking a unit costs 2 PP's - end of story.....

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 17

RE: England's Capitals - 9/18/2007 2:42:29 AM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

4 PP not 2, and 1 supply is very bad.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 18

RE: England's Capitals - 9/18/2007 1:28:40 PM

PDiFolco

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

4 PP not 2, and 1 supply is very bad.

It's still quite cheap - a railroad transport is 7 ! This makes impossible to make landings as much difficult to mount in game as they were in reality.
There should be a rather cheap "transport" cost *to a controlled port* and a much more expensive "invasion transport" for beach landings.

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 19

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 5:04:09 AM

Major Victory

Posts: 84
Joined: 9/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Invading Con America (or Europe from America) requires considerable seagoing merchant fleet.......the US did launch Torch from Con USA (in part) in 1942, so it's certainly not outside the capabilities of 1940's shipping.�

The problem for the Axis would be resupply....it's at least a 10 day journey across the Atlantic, and they didn't have THAT much ocean going mercantile navy - much of hte conquered contries merchant fleets escaped to the UK in 1940 - vast amounts of shipping was outside their home waters when each successive country surrendered (that's where shipping mostly is of course - somewhere else!!) and almost certainly most of the UK's fleet would also have escaped any German conquest.

The thought of the Axis invading North America makes me laugh, If memory serves me correct, the US only based their obsolute battleships and no modern carriers on the East Coast, I'm quite sure if any real threat was taken seriously, The Enterprise and a couple of her friends would have been transferred to greet the "grand invasion armada" and promptly send them on there way to the bottom of the sea!

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 20

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 5:09:53 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

There's no question that a decent fleet would exterminate it........but an incautious allied player might have gotten his fleet destroyed somehow.

The game is simplistic in this regard (and many others)....if there was an invasion threat then IMO the US would certainly have pulled resources from the Pacific.....and I guess it's possible to see the short building times and cheap costs of naval elements as reflecting this....well it would be except they apply equally to nations building brand spanking new battleships as to those merely sailing them half way around the world and AFAIK NO-ONE built any new battleships once they joined the war - they only ever completed ones already laid down(?)

But hey - read the review...this is a wonderful strategy game....they all say so.....http://www.matrixgames.com/games/reviews.asp?gid=344

(in reply to Major Victory)

Post #: 21

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 11:55:33 AM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

Maybe we could add a cost for disembarking from naval transports and not being in a port - maybe 10 PP? It would give a big incentive to use ports. Not sure if it can be dropped in though.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 22

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 4:13:35 PM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

That would be interesting - but I think you would have to combine that with an amphibious attack ability too (with a 50% amphibious penalty, say)

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 23

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 4:18:46 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

Thats a much more complex change unfortunately.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 24

RE: England's Capitals - 9/19/2007 7:18:51 PM

davetheroad

Posts: 73
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: offline

I have suggested a pp cost for disembarking in a ENEMY coast hex as a simulation of the additional specialist shipping resources needed to carry out a amphibious assault. If you can test for the presence of a port you can also test for a enemy controlled hex?

test:

Is disembarkation hex enemy controlled?
NO > disembark
YES > are sufficient pp available?
NO > dont allow, display message
YES > deduct n pp, disembark

I reckon even I could code that (in BASIC!)

OK, so the problem is the AI, how does it know how to save points? Answer, let the AI perform free invasions, it is not good at it anyway, we would at least have human players having to plan and prepare all those invasions with countries without amphib capability, e.g. Italy!

dave

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 25