Eric Muenter was a very bad boy!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Eric Muenter was a very bad boy!

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Eric Muenter was a very bad boy!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/8/2020 12:44:08 PM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

This dishevelled looking character popped up in a caption in my latest game this week. I had never heard of him but, of course, Wikipedia has an entry for him . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Muenter

Post #: 1

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/8/2020 1:22:09 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Indeed, there's lot of history in the game!

_____________________________

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 2

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/8/2020 6:14:16 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

Very cool always learning something new!

_____________________________

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 3

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/9/2020 1:49:51 PM

1775Cerberus

Posts: 40
Joined: 8/11/2019
Status: offline

There was quite the active sabotage network going in North America. Arms factories, port facilities, besides the shipments themselves. I have argued since the first SC:WW1 that the USA mobilization should be increased to reflect the events going on and the publics reaction to it.

Its a bit of a dichotomy that Wilson, a pacifist, had to deal with a very large "Warhawk" faction in the public and congress. He maneuvered, sometimes clumsily, in congress to keep the US out of the war. When the US did enter the war the Wilson government basically threw the Constitution out the window and ran the country with complete central government control. Then Roosevelt, not a "warhawk" but in some ways more progressive than even Wilson, understanding that the US would be in the war at some point needed to be prepared. Roosevelt faced a large "peace" faction in congress and the public. He, having learned from his earlier stumbles in congress and the Supreme Court maneuvered well and was able to get many pieces of what history would view as important legislation through the public and congress aiding the allies before Dec 7th, 1941.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 4

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/12/2020 9:28:22 AM

avensis

Posts: 12
Joined: 9/2/2019
Status: offline

really very good to know thank you for sharing

(in reply to 1775Cerberus)

Post #: 5

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/13/2020 6:40:11 AM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1775Cerberus
I have argued since the first SC:WW1 that the USA mobilization should be increased to reflect the events going on and the publics reaction to it.

Perhaps they could add a fun decision of whether to go ahead with a sabotage campaign in the USA. When things mysteriously go boom on US soil, there's a % chance Germany will get caught and suffer a relations hit.

(in reply to 1775Cerberus)

Post #: 6

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/13/2020 9:25:41 AM

stockwellpete

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

Just flagging this up from the Wikipedia link in my first post. There is a recent book ("Dark Invasion" 2014) on this subject and it looks like a film is going to be made with the usually excellent Bradley Cooper in it. I hope the project survives all this COVID disruption . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Invasion

(in reply to Chernobyl)

Post #: 7

RE: Eric Muenter was a very bad boy! - 12/13/2020 4:14:30 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Interesting, and that could make for a good film.

_____________________________

(in reply to stockwellpete)

Post #: 8