Nemo121 -> RE: Commands (11/14/2006 2:08:44 AM)
|
Well as you know I've advocated splitting the difference when we disagree on several occasions. My one concern with the 50/50 split for India is as follows: 1. I believe that since we're not simulating the civilian economy ( no civies are going to starve no matter how much of the industry I destroy) not military resources that 100% destruction of these military resources is entirely reasonable. I accept that the repair algorithm is definitely not accurate, too lenient in some cases, too harsh in others. 2. Factories, shipyards and oil wells are much more point targets than resource centres. So, how about a division of resources elsewhere into two sectors: a) HI, repair shipyards, airplane factories, engine factories, armaments, armour, merchant and naval shipyards... all of which can be bombed to 100% destruction. These sorts of point targets can be almost 100% destroyed if sufficient weight of material is applied ( and I've read some of the same German reports as you and know the whole argument that destroying the factory will not necessarily destroy the critical machine and so long as the critical machines are preserved production can resume in only a couple of days). Still, this is the game we have at the moment... When someone creates something better or allows something better to be modded I'll happily play it but I do believe that once you've gotten things as accurate as possible then you have to play the game given to you - and try to limit further house rules as much as possible ( this hasn't always worked well for me though ;) ). b) some resources can certainly be bombed in a similar manner as other point targets, others cannot. So I think that splitting the difference between 0 and 100 is unrealistic as, I'm sure, you'd agree that SOME resources certainly could be targetted for bombing as they were quite point resources. So, if you were to say 1/3rd could be targetted, I'd say 100% could be targetted ( since we are only talking about militarily useful resources, not civie resources) and we split the difference to 66%. Obviously though this is only on the understanding that the Allies go along with this... I'm happy for this to be represented to them BUT with three crucial points understood: 1. It would have to apply to China, Soviet Union, India, Australia, US and Japan, IOW ALL theatres including ourselves in 44 and 45 when the Allies are in range to hurt us. 2. No specific mention be made which gives India away as the origin of this... I assume Sneer has analysed my AARs and is preparing to stuff Ceylon to the gills with stuff. No need to make him even surer of this at present. 3. We present this as something WE want. It is up to the Allied players to figure out this benefits them. I don't, unless one is winning by a major margin and is turning it into a teaching exercise, believe in pointing out an opponent's errors and best courses of action to them until it no longer matters. So we shouldn't present this as something for their benefit. If they analyse things properly they will see that this will benefit them far more than us and will accept the deal. If they seek to haggle ( or refuse it) then 100% bombing of any target is back on the table. If we were modelling the civie economy I'd be much more open to a lower % of bombing but we are modelling ONLY the military portion of that economy and I think that, therefore, much more of that economy should be open to bombing. Oh, for what its worth, the Imperial Japanese Army air force will NOT engage in terror-bombing of cities. I believe it is a war crime and while civilian casualties would occur collaterally from HI, resource etc bombing these casualties are incidental and NOT the aim. I would like to piggy-back a request to our opponents that the terror-bombing of cities ( represented by manpower attacks in-game) not occur. They are, of course, free to disagree to this but this is a personal belief issue for me and I would like it asked. I presume that since the IJNAF isn't all that interested in strategic bombing then it certainly won't be interested in terror bombing, correct? As to raids: Unless an opportunity to mount a raid an cut off and destroy several brigades presented itself I do not think I would be willing to divert the necessary forces ( several divisions probably) from China and elsewhere. They can do more good there than killing a couple of Brigades in India. I'll probably mount a few minor raids after Ceylon just to keep the Allies on their toes, try to cut off and destroy a few southern brigades and create the illusion that the conquest of India is on the cards. This uncertainty in the minds of our opponents can only be helpful to us.
|
|
|
|