04-06-2003 16:47									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Case Churchill Tank: was replaced by Centurion tank. The Churchill sucked - what was I thinking when I included it?

Case, the Centurion arrived just too late to take part in the War, which I guess isn't a problem unless you want to stick to strict historical timelines. If you are looking for an upgrade tank for the Brits then either a Firefly or Comet would do I think. The Firefly's armour was just as poor as any other Sherman, but the 17-pdr the Brits put in it was better than any other anti-tank gun other than a JagdTiger when using sabot ammunition. The Comet had effectively a cut-down version of this gun which, whilst not as good as the 17-pdr, was significantly better than anything either the US or Russians used. It also had decent armour, a low profile and was fast and was pretty much a match for a Panther. Just my two-pennyworth.

	04-06-2003 16:49									#62
	Comments from the swiss consultant... Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Case Because the Swiss are the only ones who wired their their entire country for detenation (seriously!)

Yes and no

What is true (and it's still like that today) is that ALL the transit roads are mined: every bridge (motorway or railway), road, narrow valleys, etc.

The goal of that is to hinder movement along all the access ways into the country! And there were (they are currently being dismentled, for most of them) bunker with guns and such everywhere in the mountains/hills overlooking all those roads.

But nothing was done to provide a "scorched earth" effect, only to stop movement!

I hope I didn't reveal any military secret...

	04-06-2003 16:59									#63
	Re: Comments from the swiss consultant... Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Cyrion Yes and no What is true (and it's still like that today) is that ALL the transit roads are mined: every bridge (motorway or railway), road, narrow valleys, etc.

Blimey - do any of these mines ever go off by mistake?

	04-06-2003 18:09									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And where are the detonators? What if some kid decides to get some kicks by downing a bridge? I know I would.

	04-06-2003 18:37									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, we're not as silly as you think...

Actually, the mines are not in place: they are ready in arsenals nearby and the places (holes and such) have been prepared, so that in the event of a war, it would be a matter of hours to put them in place and be ready to bring it all down...

Yes, we Swiss were (and some still are...) a bit paranoid...

	05-06-2003 11:16									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by fairline Case, the Centurion arrived just too late to take part in the War, which I guess isn't a problem unless you want to stick to strict historical timelines.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Centurion only missed out on the war by a matter of weeks. If the British had given a greater priority to it's development then I don't see why it couldn't have been in service by early 1945, much like the American Pershing and Soviet JS-3.

quote: Originally posted by Cyrion What is true (and it's still like that today) is that ALL the transit roads are mined: every bridge (motorway or railway), road, narrow valleys, etc. The goal of that is to hinder movement along all the access ways into the country! And there were (they are currently being dismentled, for most of them) bunker with guns and such everywhere in the mountains/hills overlooking all those roads. But nothing was done to provide a "scorched earth" effect, only to stop movement! I hope I didn't reveal any military secret...

I have read that in WW2 the Swiss government ordered the explosives to be placed in tunnels, and prepared all the key factories for demolition as well...

Anyway, it's too cool a feature to drop from the scenario

	05-06-2003 11:32									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sure tunnels too, and it's still the fact now!

I don't know about factories during WWII, never heard it, but it sounds quite possible!

	05-06-2003 16:03									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You Swiss must have really strict laws about dropping cigarette butts

	05-06-2003 16:39									#69
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, the restrictions on smoking are not as drastic as in some anglo-saxon countries...

	05-06-2003 21:50									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Case Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Centurion only missed out on the war by a matter of weeks. If the British had given a greater priority to it's development then I don't see why it couldn't have been in service by early 1945, much like the American Pershing and Soviet JS-3.

You're absolutely right Case - initial design studies began in 1942, I think, but the Governmant banned development work on designs that could not be in service in 1944, so development wasn't signed off until mid-'43. The first half dozen or so were ready by May '45 and rushed to the front to try them out, but they arrived shortly after the end of hostilities.

So I guess if it had been green-lighted in '42 it would certainly have been in service well before the war ended.

	06-06-2003 03:51									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Fairline, I was hoping that you'd post something like that, especially after I noticed that Talonsofts 'The Operational Art of War' claimed that Centurions were introduced in 1949!

I've been pretty generous with the Centurions stats - they're about halfway beween the Imp Medium Armour and Heavy Armour. IMO this is justified on the grounds that the Centurion was the first well balanced main battle tank, and was at least half a generation ahead of anything else which was available at the time. I may be wrong on both points

	06-06-2003 04:18									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Centurian was ****-hot for a 1945 tank...17-pdr and an anti-personnel cannon as secondary armament, 152mm max armour and a proper sloped glacis. It was a far better tank than anything else around bar the Konigstiger which was cumbersome and mechanically complicated (read unreliable). IMHO it should have stats to reflect this.

I think that the gun was updated in 1949 to a 20-pdr, so maybe thats where TOAoW reference comes from(?)

	06-06-2003 10:31									#73
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by fairline The Centurian was ****-hot for a 1945 tank...17-pdr and an anti-personnel cannon as secondary armament, 152mm max armour and a proper sloped glacis. It was a far better tank than anything else around bar the Konigstiger which was cumbersome and mechanically complicated (read unreliable). IMHO it should have stats to reflect this.

...and it does (though my stats reflect the likely performance of a division armed with such tanks, not the actual tanks per-se).

quote: I think that the gun was updated in 1949 to a 20-pdr, so maybe thats where TOAoW reference comes from(?)

I did a bit of research on the net this morning, and it seems like the 1945 Centurions were advanced prototypes which the British were trying to rush into battle (they'd built about 50 and were weeks away from fielding the first squadron when Germany surrendered). When the war ended Centurion development seems to have bee put on the back burner, and the tank was developed further before entering service with the British Army in the late 40s (presumably with the 20-pdr gun, hence the TOAW date as you sugest). Production seems to have been painfully slow, with Australia ordering Centurians in 1950, but the first Centurian not arriving untill 1955!

BTW, the 20 pounder seems to have been a fantastic weapon, with one site stating that it had twice the tank killing power of the Konigstiger's 88mm gun! You certainly can't say that the British didn't learn from their experiance in WW2

	07-06-2003 05:24									#74
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

OK, all the RRs are now history, and the road muliplier has been increased to 6. Thanks for sugesting that Darius - the scenario 'feels' a lot better.

I really want to include a ground attack aircraft unit, but this requires getting rid of another unit. Does anyone have any sugestions as to what I should kill off? (I'm leaning towards getting rid of either the artillery or AA unit).

	07-06-2003 05:27									#75
	Support Apolyton

BTW, given the amount of techs available, is research too slow?

	07-06-2003 09:01									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Case I really want to include a ground attack aircraft unit, but this requires getting rid of another unit. Does anyone have any sugestions as to what I should kill off? (I'm leaning towards getting rid of either the artillery or AA unit).

You may consider what Pap finally did in 2194 days of war Case. He made the Standard Infantry Unit also 2X against air attack. At the level you are talking about most of the AA would prpobabaly be attached to Infantry divisions anyway and this way you could kill two birds with one stone so to speak. Also if you want to Infantry could be slightly more expensive.

Just a Thought!

Keep up the great work!

	07-06-2003 10:13									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 You may consider what Pap finally did in 2194 days of war Case. He made the Standard Infantry Unit also 2X against air attack. At the level you are talking about most of the AA would prpobabaly be attached to Infantry divisions anyway and this way you could kill two birds with one stone so to speak. Also if you want to Infantry could be slightly more expensive.

I like the sound of that idea. As a bonus, it would also reflect armoured units higher vunerability to air attack, and this would give me greater flexability on introducing anti-armour attack aircraft such as the dive bomber and ground attack aircraft (ie, by giving them the ability to chew up armoured units but only dent infantry). On the downside I'd probably have to fiddle around with all the stats to impliment this.

	07-06-2003 11:34									#78
	Increase Your PM Length

That would fit well with your aim to encourage a combined arms approach with armor and infantry.

Speaking of fiddling, did you decide to increase the af or hp of your torpedo bombers? Looks like it'll take an average of 3 of them to knock off a KGV with the current settings. I don't know how that will affect play balance, but the Prince of Wales' fate suggests a vulnerability to air attack.

	07-06-2003 15:02									#79
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by conmcb25 You may consider what Pap finally did in 2194 days of war Case. He made the Standard Infantry Unit also 2X against air attack.

Wow, I didn't even remember that. I know why we decided on no AA units (the fighter flags which solved another problem also served to make units stronger against air attacks in cities, making AA's obsolete), but he never told me they had the AEGIS flag. No wonder those damn things melted all my Betties!

Anyway, my $.02: I think that a fighter flag for the infantry would be better than AEGIS. This is because infantry out in the field was vulnerable to air attack, while infantry in urban areas was safe. The fighter flag recreates this by giving them an anti-air advantage in cities (scramble), whereas AEGIS gives them the advantage 100% of the time, which isn't accurate IMO.

	07-06-2003 15:11									#80
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But then infantry would be able to attack and shoot down fighters and I really don't want that. Anyway, all first rate WW2 infantry divisions had the AA capacities of a small city. For example, British divisions had no less then 56 40mm AA guns as well as thousands of soldiers trained to shoot back at aircaft with everything from rifles to medium machine guns.

	07-06-2003 15:37									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Case But then infantry would be able to attack and shoot down fighters and I really don't want that.

Just make a house rule against it, that was Pap's solution. The downside of course is that a house rule offers one extra temptation to cheat.

quote: Originally posted by Case Anyway, all first rate WW2 infantry divisions had the AA capacities of a small city.

Still, you know that there is a huge difference between a division's AA ability in an open field and in a city. Fighter flags recreate this difference, AEGIS does not. Both options have downsides though, so I don't know which is better.

Key word: first rate. Maybe give Regulars the AEGIS flag but not Reserves.

	08-06-2003 06:26									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Just make a house rule against it, that was Pap's solution. The downside of course is that a house rule offers one extra temptation to cheat.

Nah, I don't like it. The temptation to cheat will always be too great.

quote: Key word: first rate. Maybe give Regulars the AEGIS flag but not Reserves.

That's a great idea!

	04-08-2003 23:47									#83
	Increase the size of your Attachments

BUMP

University starting up or something Case? I was looking forward to this scen...

	05-08-2003 05:47									#84
	Got spare money?

The long and short of it is that when I stopped being unemployed I stopped working on this scenario intensively. It's slowly creaking along and I hope to have it out soon-ish

BTW, it anyone has any more comments on the beta version I'd love to hear them

	05-08-2003 15:55									#85
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Austria shouldn't belong to italy IMHO. But I don't know how accurate you want to make this scenario. I know it's negotiations you want but I still think it's wrong that Italy owns Austria.