Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor) - Page 4

Suicide Junkie · #31 May 29th, 2001, 11:44 PM

quote:
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.

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.

Possum · #32 May 30th, 2001, 12:19 AM

quote:
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

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.

Nitram Draw · #33 May 30th, 2001, 01:19 AM

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.

Phier · #34 May 30th, 2001, 01:35 AM

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.

ZzZ · #35 May 30th, 2001, 01:49 AM

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

Possum · #36 May 30th, 2001, 01:53 AM

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

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

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

Suicide Junkie · #37 May 30th, 2001, 02:16 AM

Anyways, back to the original topic

What about the sneak attack scenario for SE4?

Possum · #38 May 30th, 2001, 06:02 AM

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).]

Phier · #39 May 30th, 2001, 07:00 AM

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.

Atrocities · #40 May 30th, 2001, 07:10 AM

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.