Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

I must admit, after seeing this awesome movie, a brilliantly directed movie by Michael Bay, written by Randall Wallace, and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, is well worth the price of admission. How can I say this? This movie is a great inspiration to behold. It is brimming with cameos and good acting. I really like this movie a lot, and will see it again. It’s a strong cross between Titanic, (love affair with a really unusual twist and turn) Saving Private Ryan, (For the action, and one of the actors), Thin Red Line (for drama effect.) The movie does a very professional job of explaining why the Jap's did what they did, and how they were able to carry it out. Historically speaking, it is damned accurate, and damned compelling.

Again, the movie is full of cameos, and good hearted drama mixed with historical facts, chick flickness, and stand up and cheer "Lets get it on" down home, country loving action. From the appearance of "Armageddon's Captain Willie Sharp (don't recall the actors name) and his dramatic response to being called a German, to the end of the movie, you'll be enthralled and entertained. This is no boring chick flick guys, this is a must see movie.

Now onto the topic at hand, seeing this movie inspired me to think of a new game scenario.

Sneak Attack

Basically, you start the game out with 5 systems, 50 worlds max, in a small section of the galaxy. At the start of the game, all the players are buddy buddy, while everyone is plotting to sneak attack someone. The goal would be for you to try and figure out who's going to hit you, while making plans to hit someone. Everybody would have 3 to 5 specific military bases with between 20 to 100 ships at each protecting that system.

Think of it, you're making plans to hit player 3, while player 5 makes plans against you. You launch your sneak attack, and before you can get to your objective, player 5 glasses your 5th colony system, obliterating your entire 5th fleet leaving your home system open to invasion.

Muuuumm what a thought. This would be a heavy Intel based game as well. Every player would know every player. It would start out with an entirely explored galaxy, and the objective would be conquest. Of course, sensors to scan for cloaked ships would be excluded from this scenario as that would give too much of an advantage. Also, mod in Cloaking devices for fighters, while making large ships like battle cruisers and above too big for a cloak. That would add a lot of flavor to the game.

Again, if you have not seen Pearl yet, please go see it. The hype on this one is on the up and up. It is a darn good movie.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Any movie which was worried about offending the Japanese over their actions in WWII and edits it accordingly is NOT historical. Some time read the history of the Japanese Empire in WWII, the things they did in China alone you can not forget once you read them. This isn't racist, I just don't like to see history rewritten.

As for your idea, thats basicly how I play my games anyways. Be buddy buddy until the fleets are in place and then fry them. I did run into a problem with it in my current game. I didn't have any sensors on my fleet and when I attacked his two battleships in his home system I found out it was his 26 battleships and dreds. Opps.

[This message has been edited by Phier (edited 26 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

While the world worries aboiut offending the Jap, they continue to rewrite history to reflect their "liberation" of Asia-Pacific and their "advancement" into China...
BTW, the AI should be able to send a message to player that goes along this line:
"[Ai empire] deplore all wars. We have not converted your planets to our side by use of intellegence. We are offended by your racist remarks!"

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Any movie which was worried about offending the Japanese over their actions in WWII and edits it accordingly is NOT historical. Some time read the history of the Japanese Empire in WWII, the things they did in China alone you can not forget once you read them. This isn't racist, I just don't like to see history rewritten.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest with you, they did not edit what happened. They dipicited the FACTS that lead the Japanes to do what they did. They did not hide or alter the truth. In fact, there was a very bloody shoot out at the end of the movie that clearly showed the Japanize were not nice.



[This message has been edited by Atrocities (edited 26 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Hey Atrocities, that is a neat idea on a senario of sneak attack for SE4. It would be great for a short PBEM tournament game. See which player in your group can decisively win a war!

As for the movie, I haven't seen it yet, but I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical if it is any good. I'm pretty critical on my war movies. I like them acurate, and I don't like them to be "chick flicks" (hey, its war! Theirs nothing romantic about warfare!). A few of my favorite war movies are "Tora, Tora, Tora", "Glory", "Gettysburg", and a few others. I hope your right Atrocities about the movie. I hope in my opinion that they did a good job with it.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atrocities:
... It would start out with an entirely explored galaxy, and the objective would be conquest. Of course, sensors to scan for cloaked ships would be excluded from this scenario as that would give too much of an advantage...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just have to set omnipresent view to active and you are set. With this setup every sensor is completely worthless (bug?) and cloaking at the lowest level turns you absolutely invisible. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon6.gif

Best scenario to improve persecution mania. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by PsychoTechFreak (edited 26 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

[OT]

Phier: Oh, come on.

There is two sides to every story. Yes the Japanese were absolutely vicious in China. I don't deny this.

Yet, I have a problem with people pointing out such stuff with complete ignorance as to the causes of WWII from the Japanese perspective.

In the late Edo period, the declining power of the Tokugawa shogunate allowed for an opportunity to be taken by outside powers. This opportunity was initially taken by the Americans, who sailed frigates into Tokyo bay and threatened the shogunate with bLasting the *%$# out of Edo, until the shogun allowed the Americans unrestricted trade (including Opium, but the Japanese never really took it up) in Japan. While trade restrictions remained, in some ways (mainly due to cultural resistance), do you believe this is a fair and decent way for a nation to act towards another nation?

That was soon followed by the disbanding of the warrior class in Japan, and the castration of power from the Japanese people. Since that time, until WWII, the Japanese had an extreme dislike of particularly Americans (which survives today, btw). This was the cause of the war between the Japanese and the allies.

What about after the second world war? The Japanese people, like all Asians, were subject to a whole range of racist attacks in the Western World (I'm personally most familiar with the "White Australia" immigration policy in Australia).

Yes, the Japanese committed a number of atrocities before and during the second world war. But, every country has commited crimes against humanity at some stage, even if one is ignorant of what their own country has done. Winners write history.

[edit]
I remember that I've seen a movie about how Japan was opened up by the black ships. It wrote the Americans as heroes, it was a complete joke..

I agree with whomever said that movies about war should be written without consideration as to whom it would politically offend.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by danjel (edited 26 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Historically speaking, it is damned accurate, and damned compelling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're the first person I've seen describe _Pearl Harbor_ as historically accurate. What few opinions I've read about have accused it of exactly the opposite.

------------------
Cap'n Q


The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

What can I say? Aspects of the back ground details are accurate. Sure The Iowa did not flip over as the shallow water in the harbor prevented that, but the producers of the movie went to great lengths to insure that actuall true facts were regularly put into the movie.

And remember, most of the people reviewing this movie thought that Gandi was the most exciting movie of the 80's too.

The veterains that I have heard talk about it, especially the ones that were hat Pearl Harbor, feel that despite a few inconsistancies, the movie does a great job of representing a glimps of what they experienced.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Um, the Iowa hadn't been built when Pearl Harbor was bombed. It was the Oklahoma that capsized. http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb37.htm

I just got back from Pearl Harbor, and I was certainly disappointed. It was a sappy love story that tried far too hard to follow in Saving Private Ryan's footsteps, and it failed miserably. The action sequences weren't too bad, unless you happen to have a serious interest in the Pacific Theatre and naval warfare in general, and know what the various ships looked like. Some of the errors were so blatant you could spot them almost instantly, despite the ships being obscured by clouds, explosions, smoke, etc. I had heard that there were CGI errors in the commercials, and that these were supposed to be fixed before the movie went to the theaters. Apparently they didn't bother. (Uh-oh! I didn't get good CGI and I heard they were gonna fix it! The movie is incomplete and I want my money back! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif )

What I've noticed so far:

1) Other than the battleships, almost every ship that gets blown up onscreen is not of a WW2-era design. The ships have very boxish superstructures, and little or no equipment forward of the bridge (such as gun turrets, cranes, etc.). Nothing large and immediately noticeable, anyway.

I've gone through photos of every ship damaged at Pearl http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm (the 2nd to Last paragraph has a list), with the exception of the tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9) and Floating Drydock Number 2, the only one that even comes close to matching what's onscreen is the seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4), and even that's a stretch.

After going through Navsource's image archives, the destroyed vessels bear the most resemblence to Spruance-class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, which we all know were around in 1941. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/rolleyes.gif

2) Like the US ships in the Pearl Harbor attack, what seems like ALL of the Japanese carriers were in fact American supercarriers! Almost all WW2 carriers have long and fairly narrow rectangular flight decks with few irregularities. These ships, on the other hand, have very wide flight decks that taper at the front and back, much like a Nimitz does. I think the only carrier that they got right is USS Hornet.

3)Not too certain about this one, but many of the ships travelling in the Japanese fleets looked like Aegis destroyers or cruisers. Glimpses of the fleet were short and infrequent, so it's hard to say.

Really, I'd have to go see the movie again to double-check everything I've said, but there is no way I'm wasting another $4.50 and 3 hours of my life just to confirm my points about the effects screw-ups. I'd rather go downstairs and watch my recording of Tora! Tora! Tora!; it's a far better movie, and is actually interesting enough that I've never bothered to look for effects errors (good movies do that, keep you interested in the characters and events and not the things that go BOOM!).

[This message has been edited by Noble713 (edited 27 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

"2) Like the US ships in the Pearl Harbor attack, what seems like ALL of the Japanese carriers were in fact American supercarriers! Almost all WW2 carriers have long and fairly narrow rectangular flight decks with few irregularities. These ships, on the other hand, have very wide flight decks that taper at the front and back, much like a Nimitz does. I think the only carrier that they got right is USS Hornet."

Many of the attack carriers the Japs used were converted Hulls, so they are even less like what you describe, with pretty much square filght decks and no appreciable superstructure.

As to OHP's and Spru cans - that is horrible. Sounds more like Red Storm rising than Tora Tora Tora to me.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Um, the Iowa hadn't been built when Pearl Harbor was bombed. It was the Oklahoma that capsized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right off, GOOD JOB. That was a test to see if people who would respond KNEW their history. LOL. You pegged it right out of the gate. My hats off to you.

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>$4.50 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man your getting a deal on your early showings. Regal is screwing us for %5.75 a show and $9.75 a late show.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nerfman:
Many of the attack carriers the Japs used were converted Hulls, so they are even less like what you describe, with pretty much square filght decks and no appreciable superstructure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of the six carriers that participated in the attack (Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Akagi, Kaga), only 2 were converted from BCs or BBs (Akagi and Kaga). After checking out pics at warships1.com and hazegray.org, the only carrier with a noticeably different flight deck is Akagi, and even it's deck looks too narrow compared to the ships in the movie.

As you said, most Japanese carriers had small superstructures. This wasn't the case in the movie. They had BIG superstructures, like those of a Nimitz...

Oh yeah, and Hiryu and Akagi had port-side islands, and I don't think any ship in the movie did.

If anyone else does go to see this movie, can you try and look for the stuff I've described and confirm it? If there is one thing I hate doing it's giving out erroneous information, so I like to check my information or get a second opinion on things.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Sorry Noble, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong below, just that the disparity was even more. I didn't mean to say that they didn't have any superstructure, just that is is way scaled back. I thought I remebered reading somewhere that Hiryu and Soryu were originally laid down as liners and then changed mid-way through, although I am not certain now. Either way, just trying to say that they had small superstructures and very "square" flight decks.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Ok, I saw the movie again today, and have to admit that there are a lot of TECHNICAL detail holes in this flick. But what the hell do you expect from Bay? After all he's the guy who had a shuttle land on an asteroid, and that shuttle was more like a flying supercarrier.

So ya, the movie does have a ton of things that are not accurate especially the Egis (sp) destroyers made out to look like pre-WWII destroyers.

For this movie, YOU are going to have to suspend the concept of 100% accuracy as IT IS NOT possible to acheive that on a $140,000,000 budget.

All in all, it was still a nice movie to see.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

O.k.

just a telegram from me.

1.) I'm living in Germany. The movie is not in theatres here yet. So I haven't seen it.

2.) I first wanted to see it because I'm specially interested in the Pearl Harbor incident. I already visited Hawaii and the Arizona Memorial and read lots of books and articles about it. I also know Tora Tora Tora.

3.) Later I decided NOT to see that movie because all major german movie critics called it historically and politically inaccurate.

4.) I personally don't focus on ship designs and stuff like that. I want a true perspective behind the mask of official statements. What is the truth? Today many historians believe that the U.S. government knew about the Pearl Harbor attack before. Some even say Roosevelt provoked the attack on Pearl Harbour to have a reason for the US entering WWII. I don't know yet whether this part is implemented into the movie or if there will only be some nasty yellow Kamikaze pilots, that kill innocent Americans. But I will go and see for myself.

5.) The winner writes history - that's damn true. And war is ugly. But when you look back my personal opinion is that you should stick to historical details as much as you could. Unfortunately Hollywood movies nearly never achieve this.

My greatest disappointment on this was Private Ryan. Did you notice that there was not one afroamerican soldier in the whole movie? And that right after Amistad which has been a financial desaster for Dreamworks and Spielberg in special ... What I read in books says that about 30% of the US forces personell had been afroamerican people. Most of them in the lower rank (cannonfood ... that kind of peole that most Generals would use for a mission like Omaha beach).

An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces. Does anyone here know some German anti-war movies ... like Stalingrad, Das Boot (a Wolfgang Petersen film BTW) or Die Brücke (sorry, don't know the english titels)? They are great ... realistic, hopeless, show what everyone would experience when being part of a war ... you would hate it. This is what most Hollywood dierctors never found out ...

ZzZ

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZzZ:
My greatest disappointment on this was Private Ryan. Did you notice that there was not one afroamerican soldier in the whole movie? And that right after Amistad which has been a financial desaster for Dreamworks and Spielberg in special ... What I read in books says that about 30% of the US forces personell had been afroamerican people. Most of them in the lower rank (cannonfood ... that kind of peole that most Generals would use for a mission like Omaha beach).
ZzZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

ZzZ, let me offer a bit of a reply http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

The western allies had been unhappy with the japanese since the mid 1930's, chiefly over japanese military expansionism on the chinese mainland.

In about September of 1941, the US, UK, and Netherlands placed a joint oil embargo on the japanese. The japanese had no oil deposits of their own at this time, and were totally dependent on oil imports. Since the US, UK, and Netherlands between them controlled over 90% of the world oil exports at this time, the embargo meant that japanese industrial society could not continue to function any longer than their stockpiles would Last.

Please note that I say "controlled by". Oil was already being exported from the middle east by this time, but it was exclusively under the control of Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, or one of the american oil companies.

The concessions demanded by the allies in return for lifting the oil embargo were considered unacceptably humiliating by the japanese, and so the attack on the western allies was planned and executed.

It is worth noting that admiral Yamamoto considered the attack on Pearl Harbor something of a failure, since none of the american carriers were caught in port.

But yes, oil was the prime japanese goal in launching the second world war. One of their main early goals was seizure of the oilfields of java. I have read that the people of java hated their dutch colonial masters with such passion that they at first willingly helped the japanese. This willing cooperation from the locals enabled the japanese to quickly put captured oil facilities back into production. I have also read that the crude of java was so pure that the IJN were able to pump it straight into their ships and burn it like ships bunker oil. The Last 2 anecdotes are from a book by an IJN submarine captain.

Did Roosevelt expect to be attacked? We'll never know, but if he did not expect it, he was a damned fool.

Please note that none of the above is intended to excuse the behavior of the japanese military in WWII, only to explain it.



[This message has been edited by Possum (edited 29 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Atrocities - you recommended this film by comparing it to Thin Red Line, Titanic and Private Ryan. I haven't seen Private Ryan but those others are two of the dullest films I've seen in the Last few years.

I get the feeling that this film is just another historical exploitation from Hollywood, hoping to drag in the dollars with some gung-ho patriotism, empty talk about "historical accuracy" and big explosions.

Sorry, but I'll probably be giving this one a miss.


------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jc173:
I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm .... good point. I would have to check that eventually.

I have more criticism for that movie but normally I hesitate to post that into international forums. To many idiots see that I am Germany and instantly call me (or my family) Nazi which makes me very angry.

I personally don't like how Germany soldiers are usually shown in WWII movies (especially some old french or italian movies and - of course - most of the Hollywood stuff). My grandfather served the Wehrmacht but he was no Nazi. It is sad when you listen to his storys ... how big the political pressure was for everyone. Even most of the German generals in WWII hadn't been Nazis at all (some even tried to kill Hitler).

In the movies the German soldiers are all looking like some fanatic monsters ... showing no mercy. Believe me they were also full of fear and they don't like killing other people more than anyone else on this planet. The Nazi leaders had been perverted *******s and they knew how to control the masses (especially those who weren't that clever) but the average soldier was just someone like you and me. That's what most directors forget in their movies. There were good and bad people on both sides. And it seems that Pearl Harbour makes no difference here (regarding the Japanese). I will see ... soon.

ZzZ

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AFAIK, _Pearl Harbor_ was never intended to be an anti-war movie. Most war movies are basically action-adventure genre; I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by capnq:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point ...


[This message has been edited by ZzZ (edited 29 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

QUOTE:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.
/QUOTE

Doesn't mean they're not worth making. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind (anyone wanting to go to war after watching that really is nuts.)

Besides, a film doesn't have to be actively anti- war. Better to honestly depict both sides, ie the horror and the (occasional) necessity of warfare and let people make up their own minds.

What annoys me are action/ war/ Bruce Willis type films which show people walking away virtually unhurt from bullet wounds / car smashes / exploding helicopters etc.

I've nothing against the principle of realistic violence in films, or even unrealistic violence in cartoons, scifi (ie Matrix) and other "unreal" contexts. However I think it is irresponsible for film makers to trivialise and glorify violence.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Later I decided NOT to see that movie because all major german movie critics called it historically and politically inaccurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly, many Film critics denounced a little film called Star Wars because it was too spacie.

When it comes to war movies, you will always have one side saying one thing about it, while the other side says something else.

Pearl Harbor WAS NOT INTENDED to be an accurate film. It was inteded to be a movie set in and around the time of December 7th.

Please DO NOT get caught up in all this political BS, as its just a complete waste of time and eneregy.

I also would like to know what you all think of the Sneak Attack idea for SEIV.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

It would be a little difficult to do your proposed sneak attack because everyone knows its coming, just not where from. It might be better to set up only one or two and not say who is going to be on the receiving end of it. Also, would the AI carry it out?

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

What if each side had a specific advantage and counter?

So you have to try to figure out whos going to attack you and then build the appropriate type of defense.

Like crystalline to stop the organics, PDC ships to stop missile guys, etc etc

Give each side only one weapon tech, so the missile guy can try do attack whomever they feel is most vulnerable to them (if they can figure out what the other players have).

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

That would probably work better.
Definately make the AI a defender, possibly with lots of cloaked ships, WP, fighters, mines and sats to surprise the supriser.
Since it would be a scenario you could establish the victory conditions and get the AI in position to win if the human failed to attack and win the battles within a certain amount of turns.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

That's one of the best things about this forum, you can take the time to give a long, thoughtful reply to someone's question, and then be completely f*cking ignored http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Possum:
That's one of the best things about this forum, you can take the time to give a long, thoughtful reply to someone's question, and then be completely f*cking ignored http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to apologize. I did not want to ignore you. You gave a good statement and it was backed with lots of true historical information. I think always have to do with power ... there is no religious or other reason for a war except the hunger for power and more power. Oil also means power ... another good reason to start a war.

ZzZ

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That would probably work better.
Definately make the AI a defender, possibly with lots of cloaked ships, WP, fighters, mines and sats to surprise the supriser.
Since it would be a scenario you could establish the victory conditions and get the AI in position to win if the human failed to attack and win the battles within a certain amount of turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would this be a sort of "capture the flag(homeworld)" style scenario?
If everybody had a starting supply of 10million resources (stored on homeworld), you could make the goal be to reach and plague (or destroy with normal weapons) the enemy homeworld with a super expensive and large (700kt) level 6 plague bomb.
Your two or three "flag runner" plague ships would just have to reach point-black range with a homeworld to hit it and win the game.
Your fleet would have to clear the way using the sneak attack against your choice of empire, since the plague ships could be cut down easily.
Give everybody lots of shipyards that can build anything instantly, and give everybody a few turns to prepare before attacking and defending. The whole thing could be over in a year or two.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZzZ:
I have to apologize. I did not want to ignore you. You gave a good statement and it was backed with lots of true historical information. I think always have to do with power ... there is no religious or other reason for a war except the hunger for power and more power. Oil also means power ... another good reason to start a war.

ZzZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, no apologies called for ZZZ, I was just offering another of my usual wry, cynical observations.

One of the most unfortunate things about Americans is our appalling disregard of history. Look at the way we disregarded the french experience in Indochina, and proceeded to make all the same mistakes.

My original point was simply that, morality aside, the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was an inevitable result of our own actions. From the the naval treaty of 1922, with its insulting "5-5-3" clause, to the oil embargo that was the final step, we provoked the Japanese, but never took them seriously.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

I agree with you ZzZ.
It's the same with the Vietnamese but movies tend to make the soldiers a substitute for the leaders of the countries with all of their bad traits expressed through the individual soldiers.
Most US movies portray the VC, the Nazi's and the Russians soldiers as emotionless, cruel, psychopathic robots when in reality they were people just like us, as afraid, homesick, weary and as duty bound as our soldiers. It's unfortunate that movies do this, for it minimizes the true sacrifices that all war veterans made.
While I like a good action movie as well as anyone, the movies that portray wars effect on the people involved always make me think and realize how horrible and usually pointless war is. Don't ever be afraid to speak up or your children will accept these false images of war as the truth.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Possum - You are correct in saying it was inevitable but you are wrong in your reasons. Japan was a EVIL expansionist nation at the time. Plain and simple. They wanted land and they wanted power. They ignored the 5-5-3 treaty, and were planing for a war with the US for many years. You forgot to mention WHY there was an oil embargo as well. Where they screwed up was going to war with the US too soon before they had enough production. If you know your history so well you will know the Japanese mind set at the time was the reason for the war, and their actions durring that war were as close to evil as man can come.

I have no problem with Japan now but lets not rewrite history.

This is my Last post on this thread.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Thank you for your posting Nitram. It's good to hear such an opinion from an US citizen. I also think that the average intelligence of people in this forum is much higher than in the public.

Let's just hope for better (anti-)war movies in the future.

It is interesting that I can easily accept the villian in an action (not war) movie to be just the way you described the German/Vietnamese/Russian/etc... soldiers. It is really a big difference if there is a historic reference for something.

ZzZ

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Phier, bud...

I said, "morality aside". I also said in my first post that I was not excusing anything, just explaining.

To call the Japanese government of the 30's and 40's "evil" is both an over-simplification and a value judgement. Military History is a science, and as such it calls for cold, objective evaluation, not value judgements. If you want to argue morality, then you need to go see the Philosophy department, bro http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

As far as my own opinions, I'm a unreconstructed nationalist and anti-globalist. I think America is the greatest nation on earth, and Americans are the greatest people on earth http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

But none of that changes the facts of the matter. What was involved was a simple logic statement-

If A, then B
If we cut off their oil, they will attack us

I think I understand where you're coming from. My statements sound like I'm making excuses for the Japanese, and that offends your sense of patriotism.

But on the other hand, I will also observe that the Japanese have no business making excuses for the Rape of Nanking, or whining about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese are a controversial people. I see much in them that is intensely admirable, and also some things that are rather despicable. Oddly enough, many foreigners seem to feel that same way about us Americans http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Anyways, back to the original topic http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

What about the sneak attack scenario for SE4?

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Well, SJ, it's an amusing little idea, but I fear that SE4 is rather poorly suited to acting it out.

Basically, a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor or Taranto is a tactical occurrence, and SE4 is a strategic game. Perhaps, if we eventually get a very capable scenario editor, you could setup a battle like that, but I can't see making it work for a full game.



[This message has been edited by Possum (edited 30 May 2001).]

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

I can't see a sneak attack working in SEIV unless your resources were so low that you NEEDED to mothball your fleet until you attacked.

On a somewhat related note, SEIV really needs what MOO 1 had (and not moo 2) (never played se1-3), which is ship initative and a sort of 'overwatch' mode. Initative is obvious why it would help, but what would help the AI in tactical would be the ability to set your weapons to auto fire at the first dangerous ship that enters your weapon range. This would help minimise the effect of 'wait for the computer to get close, rush into range and bLast' technique.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

The point is that there would be several players, and you would not know when or by whom you were going to be attacked, thus you would have to be extra dilligent in your war preprations for if you anticipated the wrong empire was going to attack, well.....

The game would work best with limited resources or dwindling resources. The more you have, the more it costs you. So keeping a large fleet on hand would be too costly. But you could keep a few small battle Groups, but no major war Groups.

Additionally this type of game would work, because its very simular to BOTF style of game play. You expand, and as you do so, you have to take into account that other empires are watching you very very closely, waiting for an opening in which to strike.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Actually, if you really think about it though, we already could do a "Capture the Flag" type of ending senario (at least for PBEM). I remember a year ago that lots of SE3 leagues and Ladders has special rule to dictate winners and champions. You could make it were if someone destroyes a certain base (maybe a Homeworld for example) the player wins the game or something. Would be very helpful for Tournament games if you wanted to keep it short. It would require good book keeping on the Host player though.

Unfortunetly, I have to agree that thier is now way to make the game itself have victory conditions like this, at least none to my knowlege.

Re: Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)
 

Actually, if you really think about it though, we already could do a "Capture the Flag" type of ending senario (at least for PBEM). I remember a year ago that lots of SE3 leagues and Ladders has special rule to dictate winners and champions. You could make it were if someone destroyes a certain base (maybe a Homeworld for example) the player wins the game or something. Would be very helpful for Tournament games if you wanted to keep it short. It would require good book keeping on the Host player though.

Unfortunetly, I have to agree that thier is now way to make the game itself have victory conditions like this, at least none to my knowlege.