History PBEM - Page 15

Cyrion · August 7, 2002, 11:25

Jacobite, I would fully agree with you IF I hadn't seen on the other thread the damage artillery combined with railways can do!!

But, if we limit the railroad, I would prefer a limit of 10 rather than 6 moves.

But I don't mind going on with an unlimited railway movement.

Jacobite1688 · August 7, 2002, 11:36

League of Nations Resolution introduced -
Russians suggest banning artillery from war by international treaty. "These weapons are just too destructive to be used by civilized nations," said the head of the Duma.

Touché!

The ANZAC · August 7, 2002, 13:03

I would support limited RR movement. But the only way you do that is eliminate RRs and make roads have a higher movement multiplier, so it'll screw up a lot. But I don't like RR blitzes either

Statement From SG of League of Nations:

Proposal overruled

Jacobite1688 · August 7, 2002, 14:33

Yeah, I was half-joking. I just think the railroads should stay as they are. We all play with same rules and when you look back on this thread next year and see the Andorans or the San Marinos drinking their wine and eating thier pasta in railcars in front of the Kremlin everybody will get a BIG laugh that I was one of the players who wanted to keeps the rails the way they are.

sas · August 7, 2002, 14:38

I support the limitation on the movement on railways.

Darius871 · August 7, 2002, 14:57

Gonna say what Anzac said, they were just roads with railroad art in Imp1870.

Anyhow, even though I was in the other game and saw its problems, I don't think a ban on railways is necessarily so realistic. All I did in my conquests is bypass cities with trench systems and gut the rear areas of the countries I attacked. Hypothetically imagine a Germany with three conscripts and a trench system in every city. Russia would only have taken like five cities! The problem in the game was not unlimited movement, it was ridiculously poor defenses. If you look at the thread, you will find that my advances have ground to a halt because I am beginning to encounter machine guns in trench systems, which no veteran artillery can kill.

IMHO all the other thread taught us was to give more priority to Advanced Ballistics and more importantly, to fortresses and Trench Systems. I can tell you this from my current experience there against Austria-Hungary's entrenched remainder.

Jacobite1688 · August 7, 2002, 15:05

That sounds sensible! Leave the rails and whoever is next PLAY YOUR TURN. I haven't moved since June, I think.

academia · August 7, 2002, 15:59

Sorry, but i mantain my position about railroads unlimited movement. It´s something totally unrealistic.
No matter the scenario.
Nothing personal against you Darius, but we played that game, and you know that I quit because it would turn into something stupid, tedious, unrealistic.
It was like this:
Russian turn (Darius), they conquer like 30 cities in France, Germany, Turkey or Austria.
Then, Italy (myself) use the same railways and reconquer the 30 cities.

And over and over again. Ok, in the long run someone may win... but I don´t want to participate in this kind of "war".

In reference to the trench system... i´m not criticizing the use of defenses. You are right, they were really poor. But i´m just questioning that in one turn, a unit built in Rostov, (for example) can reach Brest!!! or maybe Milan or Beirut!!!

Maybe with the trench systems, you could interfere with the progress, but the point is that you have to kill the engineers. If you leave them alive, they´ll find the way to built a railway that will eventually reach your city.

Darius871 · August 7, 2002, 20:41

I disagree totally. As I said, if the enemy had any sort of realistic defenses it would have been five cities taken with high casualties rather than 30+.

Perhaps a plan here would be an agreement by all to have no war for a full ten years so that everyone will be able to build defenses that would negate the railroad problem. With cut railroads, strategic fortress fronts, and trenches in all cities, I guarantee you that there could be nothing even resembling my civfan campaigns.

Decent defenses do not alleviate the problem, they fix it. It takes three artillery units to kill one conscript unit in a trench system (two artillery if veteran). Furthermore, if the enemy has a veteran machine gun in an entrenched city, it is impossible to take the city with even veteran artillery. I did a test game myself (fell free to do it too), and indeed I ran dozens and dozens of veteran artillery units into an entrenched, fortified, veteran machine gun unit and didn't even damage it.

So another proposal would be for us to forego all war for ten years for two purposes:

1) We all are able to build fortress fronts, entrench cities,cut any superfluous border railroads, and even build fortresses on railroads between cities.

2) One civ rush-builds the Arms Race wonder, selects Advanced Ballistics as one of its two options, and then gifts the technology to all other 6 civs. Then the machine guns will be able to augment the defenses we would be building, thereby making all existing armies obsolete in a manner more historically realistic.

Would anyone agree with this plan?

Jacobite1688 · August 7, 2002, 21:15

Unrealistic? Are you kidding us?

Quote:

Originally posted by academia
Nothing personal against you Darius, but we played that game, and you know that I quit because it would turn into something stupid, tedious, unrealistic.

I never have heard such an accurate description of the First World War: stupid, tedious, unrealistic. Listen to yourself:

Quote:

Originally posted by academia
It was like this:
Russian turn (Darius), they conquer like 30 cities in France, Germany, Turkey or Austria.
Then, Italy (myself) use the same railways and reconquer the 30 cities.
And over and over again.

A stalemate that could go on for years (sound familiar?) until...

Quote:

Originally posted by academia
Ok, in the long run someone may win... but I don´t want to participate in this kind of "war".

Exactly, the same moral that's in the cold war era film WAR GAMES. In industrialized warfare, the only way to insure victory is not play, just like the game tic tac toe. It's a stupid waste of time because nobody ever wins.

Yes, I agree with not entering into war, but for diplomatic reasons, not as a 'rule' that is forced on to this scenario.

As for sharing tech, again a diplomatic call, not as a rule.
Remember when Ole Ronald Regan 'promised' to share SDI technology with the Soviets. HA! I like Ron, but that would have happened when monkeys flew out of his arse! No, not as a rule...as always, if I am out voted six to one I'm not gonna quit, but

I don't want any changes!

Edited to fix the quote, all other errers left in tact

academia · August 8, 2002, 00:42

Quote:

A stalemate that could go on for years (sound familiar?) until...

Sorry, but in WW1 nobody was able to move an inch. That was a totally different stalemate.

Quote:

Unrealistic? Are you kidding us?

Have you ever seen (in 1914) a war like this one? I one turn i expand my empire from Moscow to Brest?????

That´s what I mean by "unrealistic"

Personally, i like Darius proposal. I´m with him.
I mean, let´s try this option. Let´s see the results...

Darius871 · August 8, 2002, 00:57

So who should build it, and should we all gift gold to him to even out the rush's cost?

Civfan · August 8, 2002, 01:22

if the limit of railroads is not possible, only course of action is to beef up your defenses. Fortresses on railroads, cut railroads and trenches. Its a part of the game/scenario. So lets continue as it is.

Whos turn is it?

Cyrion · August 8, 2002, 03:40

Yes, I really don't mind going on with unlimited move on railway! But Darius is right: we need to be able to strengthen our defenses, and machine-guns and trenches seem to be the way to do it!

So, if we do it the "Darius way": who is to build the Arms Race?? And what will be the other countries contribution (after all, they'll all get a tech!). And IF we make an equal contribution from all countries (including the builder!), then BOTH techs must be shared...

And I don't like too much the "10 years ban on war": I don't like to have it as a rule and it seems a bit long... Let's make an agreement for the League of Nations to declare war to the one who attacks in the X years to come??

And Darius: play your turn, my Ottoman Friend!

Darius871 · August 8, 2002, 03:50

Quote:

I don't like to have it as a rule and it seems a bit long...

Well a trench system takes about three to four turns to build in a developed city, and it takes two or three to build a machine gun battalion, so since there is a year per turn, it would take about six turns to square away every city. Since there are many underdeveloped cities, another four turns making it ten turns (years) would seem about right.

Anyhoo I will do the turn since obviously Turkey won't be building the Arms Race.

The ANZAC · August 8, 2002, 14:19

Statement from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations:

No restrictions on warfare should be issued nor anymore restrictions on transportation. Europe shall develop on it's own path without any regulation.

OOC: I think we're making a big deal out of nothing.

Anyway this scenario isn't perfect

Let's just play

academia · August 8, 2002, 14:24

So...????
Are you going to fix it or not?

Jacobite1688 · August 8, 2002, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Statement from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations:

No restrictions on warfare should be issued nor anymore restrictions on transportation. Europe shall develop on it's own path without any regulation.

OOC: I think we're making a big deal out of nothing.

Anyway this scenario isn't perfect

Let's just play

Correct in every sense of the post!

If we're putting it to a vote thats two (maybe three, w/Italy) for just playing the damn game.

sas · August 8, 2002, 16:29

ANZAC got a point, lets just play.

Jacobite1688 · August 8, 2002, 16:38

That's four - a majority. Lets get on with it.

The ANZAC · August 8, 2002, 16:43

Good to see we're running with it. We'll just go with it. Anyway with the transcontinental charges happening, those nations are going to be exshausted--then it's time for the sideliners to step in

academia · August 8, 2002, 16:53

Quote:

That's four - a majority. Lets get on with it.

Ok, if that´s the decision of the majority...
Then I´ll inform you that i decline to continue with this game.
As I said a few posts above, i don´t want to experience the same kind of war. I´ve already given my arguments. If you don´t pay attention or simply don´t care about it; no problem is up to you guys.
But personally, i don´t want to go on.
As some of you said: this is an scenario made by a human-being with its problems; it´s not perfect.
And If I filled in for Germany, i had done it before taking notice of this problem. well, not problem, characteristic of the scenario.

Guys:
No hard feelings. It´s your decision. Good luck, and try to enjoy this scenario. Personally, i feel that this unlimited movement doesn´t fit in this historical situation.

Darius:
Hehe, you know how to win this game...

Good luck!!

About the file, don´t worry; there´s no password.

See you

Darius871 · August 8, 2002, 17:00

Obviously I put a vote in for fixing it, but I guess it isn't going to happen.

Assuming we are continuing as-is, I considered leaving too, but as Academia touched on I can just take advantage of your bad position as you decided not to fix this.

For that matter I can take Germany if no one takes it, and the Ottoman Empire can be shooting practice once again.

Jacobite1688 · August 8, 2002, 17:09

Whatever! Lets just play! There isn't even any war going on right now! Jeeez...

Jacobite1688 · August 8, 2002, 17:26

I'm not suggesting we should abandon this game, lets get another player and continue.

NOW, like I said in the Hellas thread, I would like to start a game just with players who PLAY: Darius, ANZAC, sas, & Cyrion (or anybody else you can vouche for.) I'm not one to judge w/o knowing someone, so I'll extend this to Civfan, too. Somebody start a scenario and let's play! I don't even care what it is or what my country is! I started playing PBEMs back in the spring and between two games I've had about four turns so far!

What do you say to one more PBEM?

Oh, and I'll start a thread to find a new Germany, if that is the plan. Let me know or DIY.

The ANZAC · August 8, 2002, 17:39

DIY? Anyway I'm going to start a thread for the "Player's PBEM" thread and we'll see what happens. Yes let's let this game continue...

Jacobite1688 · August 8, 2002, 17:52

Cool, count me in.

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
DIY?

Do
It
Yourself

A common abrevation among fans of independent music. DIY is the only way most good music gets recorded anymore.

FürstMetternich · August 9, 2002, 08:03

Hi!!

I would be glad if you would let me participate here. Oh am I in the right thread hmm I think so? Well I might be new to this PBEM thing but I will do my best to be reliable. Hope you experts won't roll over me on my first turn

Cyrion · August 9, 2002, 08:45

Hi Fürst,

For me you are welcome indeed!!

And if all others agree, you just have to see with Darius who will be Turk and who will be German!!

And don't be too afraid of being "rolled over": this game is, up to now at least, much more diplomatic than military...

Jacobite1688 · August 9, 2002, 14:07

Welcome aboard.