Topic: Who wrote this?

[Gook]

As we have moved onto WW2 analogies, consider this when discussing the retarded deeps strike.

Now you all remmeber Dec 7th 1941 deepstrike, Wake Island Deep strike, defence of Midway deepstrike gone wrong, no LOS in any of these.

Every Bomber raid made by an airforce was a deepsrtike, no ground seized at all just plain destruction over enemy territory.

Chindits in Burma, deep strike and land seized, just about every Island seized in the pacific war, deep strike.

Long Range desert Group srikes against fuel dumps and airfields, deep strikes.

Every commerce raider that ever sailed, deep strike.

Uboats deep strikes, US Navy subs in pacific deep strikes.

Not Deep strikes front line actions.

Deeps strike, every Airborne (paras and Gliders) operation from Belgium (German) to the Rhine(Allied).

Number of capital ship encounters in WW2 one in North Atlantic, One in the Arctic Ocean, One in South Atlantic, Guadalcanal, Leyte, 3 In the Mediterreanean, plus raider encounters in the Indian ocean.

WW2 was won by overwhelming industrial capacity and manpower by the Allies (USA, USSR, UK, plus their confederates). 55 million dead, 25 million from USSR.

To make your examples valid you would need to demonstrate how they could have been used in a non deep strike way. Otherwise they are not deep strikes, but rather normal operations. By definition an airforce bomber must cross the front line to find the enemy and drop bombs, even if it's only a kilometre. You must then decide what is deep (2 week patrol?) and what is not (2 day patrol?), and for the army versus the navy. But of course this is what happens when you mix your military metaphors and deal with differing time frames (air force mission 12 hrs Vs army mission of 12 days).

I agree with you Cleaven, but the common thread is that they are not frontline mano a mano examples but pass through the enemy lines whether by one klik or several thousand.

[Cleaven]

But you need to be careful about choosing your paradigm. In the D2 we are used to a map with front lines that you can't penetrate without resistance (missions). This is an army style paradigm, with front lines and supply dumps. It is not appropriate to lay over that the concepts used in naval warfare which use supply points but no front lines. Instead you have zones of resistance related to degree of aircover, and suitability for submarine ops. Also no matter how many times you patrol a sealane it doesn't become yours. You lose control of it as soon as you leave it. Air ops are even harder to incorporate into the frontline paradigm because you have tac air and strategic air. one is directly related and the other is not. Considering the way the D2 map works it is better to just stick with the army paradigm, and if you want to play Chindits you had better be prepared to eat your mules.

[Gook]

But you need to be careful about choosing your paradigm. In the D2 we are used to a map with front lines that you can't penetrate without resistance (missions). This is an army style paradigm, with front lines and supply dumps. It is not appropriate to lay over that the concepts used in naval warfare which use supply points but no front lines. Instead you have zones of resistance related to degree of aircover, and suitability for submarine ops. Also no matter how many times you patrol a sealane it doesn't become yours. You lose control of it as soon as you leave it. Air ops are even harder to incorporate into the frontline paradigm because you have tac air and strategic air. one is directly related and the other is not. Considering the way the D2 map works it is better to just stick with the army paradigm, and if you want to play Chindits you had better be prepared to eat your mules.

Thats exactly the problem. this a 2 D space game which for D2 is treated more like static army lines than naval ZOCs, my view is that it should be and is more analagous to naval war than land war.

[Cleaven]

But you need to be careful about choosing your paradigm. In the D2 we are used to a map with front lines that you can't penetrate without resistance (missions). This is an army style paradigm, with front lines and supply dumps. It is not appropriate to lay over that the concepts used in naval warfare which use supply points but no front lines. Instead you have zones of resistance related to degree of aircover, and suitability for submarine ops. Also no matter how many times you patrol a sealane it doesn't become yours. You lose control of it as soon as you leave it. Air ops are even harder to incorporate into the frontline paradigm because you have tac air and strategic air. one is directly related and the other is not. Considering the way the D2 map works it is better to just stick with the army paradigm, and if you want to play Chindits you had better be prepared to eat your mules.

Thats exactly the problem. this a 2 D space game which for D2 is treated more like static army lines than naval ZOCs, my view is that it should be and is more analagous to naval war than land war.

Well given that this is how the D2 works what other options are there?  Turn all manditory open space missions off so that there is free movement until you get to a planet or base? This will give you the navy effect because naval war is really about ports and harbours for supply, and denying the sealanes to the enemy for cargo ships, while escorting your own. Naval missions in a low air/sub threat situation are simply about destroying enemy warships or cargo ships. One is large fleet sorties and the other is patroling and escorting.

[kv1at3485]

But is there a way we can create the necessary economic and logistic system to simulate convoys and the like?

As a side note, would it not make sense for each ship to have a 'supply' rating.  At a base, a ship loads up with a maximum amount of 'general supplies', and as a ship moves and conducts missions, it consumes those supplies.  Thus, it would be necessary that a ship return to dock or rendevous with a convoy to replenish those supplies.  If a ship runs out of supplies, its combat effectiveness drops dramatically.

I guess we could make it even more complicated an have a 'fuel' rating (or even a matter and anti-matter system...)

[Cleaven]

While that would be absolutley necessary for a 20th century oil or coal fueled ship, it is not the case for a starship that can go on a five year mission etc. And movement is a fast as you can click on the next hex. Maybe it would work on the time scale of F&E, but very hard for the real time we use.

It may be possible to put in some sort of rules that simulate this but it would have to be based on a lot of honour. Far better just to make the best use of the configuration of the existing software.

Ultimately I'd like games like this to have no rules, such that if the software allows it, then it is legal, but that seems like an impossible coding task.

[SSCF-LeRoy]

Bump.

Just tryin' to fan the flames o' revolution