StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:36am**

Czechmate wrote:Did accusing me of being a big bad dogpiling anti-socialist make you feel better? Cause it sure ain't getting you anything else.

Sure it did.

Czechmate wrote:I announced I was mobilizing six hours before you ragequit because you weren't steamrolling Beo like you wanted to from day one.

I wasn't "steamrolling", dumbass - moving 80 km in 10 days with vastly tactically overwhelming forces and grinding to a complete halt is NOT steamrolling. Moreover, should I take that as a support that using vagueness as defence and changing attack vectors, as well as trying to move your defensive line 40 miles West after OOBs were finalized, if it suddenly seems more fitting to your needs, is good playing? You're the same fucktard you were then - no respect for you.

Czechmate wrote:In the interest of what respect I still have for you, I will recognize that you have established Finnish and Estonian SSRs.

YOU WILL RECOGNIZE? That was long made a fact by Steve's decision as I initially took territories of the Russian Empire that were mine by RIGHT, since my backstory lacked the Russian Civil War. See the red on the map? Good for you. You're the same arrogant shit you were in the last game. Nothing changes, I see.

Czechmate wrote:Their recently-established Soviet puppet governments

You're a fucking moron, right? They never got independence. No "puppet governments", they are part of the fucking Soviet Union itself. They are it's territory.

Czechmate wrote:I have legal claim to Finland and Estonia, as they are nations or predominantly Nordic heritage

Who the fuck cares for your racist-nationalist claims? Shut the fuck up. Your "claim" is about the same "legality" as Hitler's.

Czechmate wrote:Additionally, you got Russia into its' current situation by starting a war with Manchuria by any means necessary

Russia's situation? It was okay before you thought that it's an excellent opportunity to dogpile. As I said, you're the same smarmy guy you were last game. You even think you can "recognize" moderator's decisions from the onset of the game, as if they were debatable!

Czechmate wrote:I'd eventually have had to try and take them from you whether you'd made the USSR, Tsarist Russia, or the fucking Kievan Rus, so suck it up and quit pretending you're the poor little victim being beaten up by the schoolyard bullies.

Wow, what a display of arrogance.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:36am**

CmdrWilkens wrote:As to the question of timing, I issued the notes on December 6th and 7th and the ultimatum on the 11th. After the note was posted Ryan did nothing to prepare his forces. While some paranoia likely led to things like leave cancellation and the like he did nothing to prepare for mobilization until D-1 when the ultimatum was issued. Now there is something for not being around but he had 4-5 days to post anything about getting his forces ready prior to the Ultimatum and another 2 afterwards to issue orders. In other words he had a week between when I began staging the war and when I finally rolled for success in my initial operations and he did nothing other than the alert and mobilization order.

Now I gave him credit for issuing orders as Steve placed 4 of his 6 available corps in or immediately adjacent to Panama...however I stationed 8 corps for this attack with 6 in reserve. Amongst the forces that can be in theater within 72 hours from H-Hour I held a 14-6 advantage so I don't know how much else could be done on his part.

Norade wrote:What is the in game time line of Wilkens' attacks? He said they should be assumed to start August first, so that means my ships from South America should have been in port for about a week now and my forces from Africa for a day in the in game time line, however with the attacks taking place in such unreal time, I'm not sure how any nation is able to jump in and intervene especially when we have to deal with fog of war.
I'm assuming August 1st since it would be roughly correct AND neatly historical.

Okay, just wanted to make sure I knew the time line as the fate of Panama is of great interest to my nation, even though I don't personally do too much trade through it. Seeing as I have no land forces in the area I was wondering if I could get a report on the state of naval affairs due to my submarines. For the same reason I think just shooting me a rough PM would work.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:38am**

CmdrWilkens wrote:Just to further clarify: this map shows the results of the operations.

The estimates of Colombian casualties are based on the degree of success Mexican forces achieved. The locations are also estimates but for 1 day of staging and 4 days of advance I estimated movement of 350-400 miles however they are not binding in any way, they are estimates I made for the sake of visual clarity.

Colombian Naval Disposition in the Carribean, Day 0.

Coastal fortress divisions are composed of two infantry brigades and one coastal fortress artillery brigade, which includes 4 x 450L50 triple-mount emplacements, 8 x 350L45 twin-mount emplacements, 36 x 80L60 anti-aircraft emplacements, and 54 x 14.7 mm machine gun emplacements.

The 2nd Army supposedly landed less than 30 km from Fuerte Sherman, which means they're so dead that their boats sunk themselves out of self-pity.

The 102nd army is composed of six combat divisions, each composed of two rifle brigades and a field artillery brigade, which includes three field batteries of 32 x 100 mm field artillery pieces each, for a total of six field artillery brigades and 60 000 troops. Therefore my infantry are outnumbered 3:2, but I have three big guns for every two he brings with him and the home advantage. How did you account for that, Steve?

Ryan I've got an NF 4 versus an NF 3 for you and oh yes and I out gun a couple NF 5s in terms of Capital ship firepower. You have yet to post a ship that can effectively engage my 420 mm/50 caliber guns. It would take a rather highly optimized deployment on your part to do anything more than harass my ships.

I was told by many that what I have would be sufficient for defensive purposes--which is exactly what I happen to be carrying out. You also fail to account for my submarines.

After the note was posted Ryan did nothing to prepare his forces.

I did nothing because I sent you a diplomat, you dishonest piece of shit, whom you chose to ignore.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:40am**

Stas Bush wrote:I feel a lot of bullfuckery is going on. Where were all these "crusaders against Communism" when I was still around? Especially Shep?

Um what? I've always been anti-communist in the game.

Just mildly distracted by the Goddamn-Sheppo conflict before the opportunity presented itself.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:42am**

I have to say that I'm not 100% comfortable with the way results are being done, simply because defenses and forts don't seem to be factored in, nor is 'home field advantage'. Not to say that outnumber isn't outnumbering, but making a landing by sea isn't easy against a forts guns and artillery so numbers may be more even after the fort has its way.

In all honesty I'd like to have Ryan roll as well and compare them to Wilkens' rolls and see how that changes things because as it stands only the attacker gets the chance to be exceptional.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:42am**

MKSheppard wrote:I've always been anti-communist in the game.

And of course, as usual, your fake ongoing war with Lonestar that made your nations permanently mobilized North-Korea like garrison state shitholes (invented purely so you could rationalize being a militaristic garrison state, as you always do), means nothing when it comes to dogpiling. Thanks, I already recognized the usual Shep.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:46am**

Stas Bush wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:I've always been anti-communist in the game.
And of course, as usual, your fake ongoing war with Lonestar

Sir, I take great offense to the descriptor of the conflict with the Schismatics as being 'fake'. Tell that sir, to the dead of the 1913-1915 war.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:52am**

MKSheppard wrote:Sir, I take great offense to the descriptor of the conflict with the Schismatics as being 'fake'.

If that oh-so-dreadful conflict and oh-so-dreadful enemy right next door doesn't tie your hands and you even make amends with the enemy so you can go attack other nations, that looks like just a fake rationale for total militarization. And don't pretend it's not.

After all, everyone in this game invented their history to suit his own needs.

That's about as much "credibility" as this sudden upsurge of "legal claims" by a shitload of nations to the territories of other nations has. Perhaps it's too bad everyone started with powered-up nations - punitively giving post-WWI ravaged cripples to people would've been more fair and more fun.

MKSheppard wrote:Just mildly distracted by the Goddamn-Sheppo conflict

If a World War I-like conflict, according to yourself, is merely a "mild distraction" for your nation, I think it's pointless for me to even fucking try to return to this game. Not to mention that you start with attacking Afghanistan, a buffer state which supressed it's own communists and only made arrangements with the Soviet Union for it's own security, actually erecting fortifications on the Soviet-Afghan border! Whee, what a nice logical train of thought of the Shepistani anti-communists.

Posted: **2009-12-14 01:59am**

To be fair Stas my claim OOC has been outed for what it is and in game it was the weakest of excuses that would be accepted for a war. Though I have a feeling I was included in your list.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:01am**

Ryan Thunder wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Just to further clarify: this map shows the results of the operations.

The estimates of Colombian casualties are based on the degree of success Mexican forces achieved. The locations are also estimates but for 1 day of staging and 4 days of advance I estimated movement of 350-400 miles however they are not binding in any way, they are estimates I made for the sake of visual clarity.
Colombian Naval Disposition in the Carribean, Day 0.

Coastal fortress divisions are composed of two infantry brigades and one coastal fortress artillery brigade, which includes 4 x 450L50 triple-mount emplacements, 8 x 350L45 twin-mount emplacements, 36 x 80L60 anti-aircraft emplacements, and 54 x 14.7 mm machine gun emplacements.

The 2nd Army supposedly landed less than 30 km from Fuerte Sherman, which means they're so dead that their boats sunk themselves out of self-pity.

The 102nd army is composed of six combat divisions, each composed of two rifle brigades and a field artillery brigade, which includes three field batteries of 32 x 100 mm field artillery pieces each, for a total of 576 guns and 60 000 troops. Therefore they're outnumbered 3:2, but I have a metric fucktonne of artillery and the home advantage. How did you account for that, Steve?

And he attacked with 4 Armies consisting of 8 Corps, roughly 24 divisions, plus 8 artillery brigades as Corps level artillery support. He outnumbers you 4:1, not 2:3, and as it is his attempt at an amphibious flanking attack with one army was a disaster (his one bad roll), so you gave him a good licking on the opening day of the war.

As for your forts? Where'd you list them? They're not in your OrBat, and that's what I looked up for calling the rolls.

I was told by many that what I have would be sufficient. You also fail to account for my submarines.

I informed him your subs would pose the biggest threat to his fleet.

I did nothing because I sent you a diplomat, you dishonest piece of shit, whom you chose to ignore.

You can flame him for attacking you anyway all you want, but it doesn't discount the fact that you sorta failed to take reasonable precautions against the eventuality of a Mexican attack.

Norade, you have a point and I'm going to consider having "counter-rolls" in future events, though it may be more along the lines of a counter-roll doing things like permitting a defender to extricate units after a complete loss (other guy rolls 12) or an attacker being able to regroup and prevent a devastating counterattack following a defender victory.

Finally, Stas? Please, stop it. You left the game, remember? I don't need you coming in and starting bickering matches with players and fueling OOC bitching in the process, no matter how right you might be on any particular issue.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:07am**

Steve wrote:And he attacked with 4 Armies consisting of 8 Corps, roughly 24 divisions, plus 8 artillery brigades as Corps level artillery support. He outnumbers you 4:1, not 2:3, and as it is his attempt at an amphibious flanking attack with one army was a disaster (his one bad roll), so you gave him a good licking on the opening day of the war.

I see two armies on the map in depicted overrunning the 102nd, with the Army of Nicaragua in a position to cut off resupply. That is all.

In short, the 5th and 9th armies suffer heavy casualties to prepared defenders with much greater artillery firepower than anticipated, while the Army of Nicaragua lands and cuts off resupply.

The attack on Colon fails miserably as the landing force is intercepted by a cruiser squadron, a submarine group including five submarine cruisers, and a flotilla of monitors. Anything that somehow makes it to shore is obliterated by one or both of Fuerte Sherman's fortress infantry brigades and a coastal fortress artillery brigade.

I did nothing because I sent you a diplomat, you dishonest piece of shit, whom you chose to ignore.
You can flame him for attacking you anyway all you want, but it doesn't discount the fact that you sorta failed to take reasonable precautions against the eventuality of a Mexican attack.

If you really must know, I forgot, because I have other things to worry about, like exams. I sent a diplomat, and he didn't even post to turn him away!

Norade, you have a point and I'm going to consider having "counter-rolls" in future events, though it may be more along the lines of a counter-roll doing things like permitting a defender to extricate units after a complete loss (other guy rolls 12) or an attacker being able to regroup and prevent a devastating counterattack following a defender victory.

Ah, so my coastal fortresses and navy don't exist, then. Neat, tidy, and utterly retarded...

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:16am**

Ryan Thunder wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Just to further clarify: this map shows the results of the operations.

The estimates of Colombian casualties are based on the degree of success Mexican forces achieved. The locations are also estimates but for 1 day of staging and 4 days of advance I estimated movement of 350-400 miles however they are not binding in any way, they are estimates I made for the sake of visual clarity.
Colombian Naval Disposition in the Carribean, Day 0.

So you are primarily Caribbean deployed. Look at my Main Fleet stats and then guess how much your disposition worries me. Also on the pacific side with just a monitor flotilla I've got a full battleship squadron plus my pre-dread heavy cruisers available. Yes you've got subs but I also have planes to recon the area and destroyers to prosecute attacks, worst you might be able to do is force me to land SW of Santiago instead of SE.

Coastal fortress divisions are composed of two infantry brigades and one coastal fortress artillery brigade, which includes 4 x 450L50 triple-mount emplacements, 8 x 350L45 twin-mount emplacements, 36 x 80L60 anti-aircraft emplacements, and 54 x 14.7 mm machine gun emplacements.

The 2nd Army supposedly landed less than 30 km from Fuerte Sherman, which means they're so dead that their boats sunk themselves out of self-pity.

Which will face off against my BC fleet providing fire support which would be 36x 420mm/L50, and 32x 380mm/L45. Moreover I could easily drop in support from my main fleet and add 96x 380mm/L45s without hampering my ability to check your fleet. I also have 2 freakin corps or 6 divisions with organic artillery along with 2 corps artillery brigades. Its not surprising they were over run.

The 102nd army is composed of six combat divisions, each composed of two rifle brigades and a field artillery brigade, which includes three field batteries of 32 x 100 mm field artillery pieces each, for a total of six field artillery brigades and 60 000 troops. Therefore my infantry are outnumbered 3:2, but I have three big guns for every two he brings with him and the home advantage. How did you account for that, Steve?

You have 6 divisions facing off against 12 with supporting fleet artillery able to range up to 20 mi inland. You've got 8 Armies set against the 102nd and you did manage to inflict crippling losses on one of them (The 21st is out of it for quite some time)

I was told by many that what I have would be sufficient for defensive purposes--which is exactly what I happen to be carrying out. You also fail to account for my submarines.

No I discounted them as an effective means of stopping my transports just as German submarines never menaced shipment of forces or supplies to the continent from Britain in WW1, nor were they able to sink a single US transport moving that Army to the continent.

After the note was posted Ryan did nothing to prepare his forces.
I did nothing because I sent you a diplomat, you dishonest piece of shit, whom you chose to ignore.

I asked for a response not pervication which is what sending a diplomat when I asked for a written response is. You wanted to delay and I wanted an immediate response. You decided to hope for the best and I planned to attack if I didn't get what I needed.

What is funny is that when Spain, Portugal and the others began sending fleets to the Caribbean you shit a brick instantly, when I ramped up the pressure and issued notes of demand you sat back. I don't know why you chose to see them as a threat but not me but that is how you acted.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:19am**

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Steve wrote:And he attacked with 4 Armies consisting of 8 Corps, roughly 24 divisions, plus 8 artillery brigades as Corps level artillery support. He outnumbers you 4:1, not 2:3, and as it is his attempt at an amphibious flanking attack with one army was a disaster (his one bad roll), so you gave him a good licking on the opening day of the war.
I see two armies on the map in depicted overrunning the 102nd, with the Army of Nicaragua in a position to cut off resupply. That is all.

In short, the 5th and 9th armies suffer heavy casualties to prepared defenders with much greater artillery firepower than anticipated, while the Army of Nicaragua lands and cuts off resupply.

The attack on Colon fails miserably as the landing force is intercepted by a cruiser squadron, a submarine group including five submarine cruisers, and a flotilla of monitors. Anything that somehow makes it to shore is obliterated by one or both of Fuerte Sherman's fortress infantry brigades and a coastal fortress artillery brigade.

I did nothing because I sent you a diplomat, you dishonest piece of shit, whom you chose to ignore.
You can flame him for attacking you anyway all you want, but it doesn't discount the fact that you sorta failed to take reasonable precautions against the eventuality of a Mexican attack.
If you really must know, I forgot, because I have other things to worry about, like exams. I sent a diplomat, and he didn't even post to turn him away!

I posted these for you on the last page, in the interest of proving to you the validity of Wilkens' actions and in the interest of showing you how generous Steve was being on your behalf. I will repost them again because I can only assume you missed them entirely. It's a busy thread, after all.

AIM wrote: [20:31:34] sbbigsteve: He has three armies in that Army Group. However, I can see him having started to shift them to Panama as it became clear Mexico would pick a fight.
[20:31:58] sbbigsteve: Well, I'm going to be nice and presume his country carved out a good railroad system through the jungle that historically made Panama almost separate from Colombia.
[20:32:23] sbbigsteve: Let's say you face 2 Corps on the border at war start, one Corps back toward Colon as reserve, and a fourth moving up.

[20:33:45] cmdrwilkens: Anyway the narrowness of the viable terrain (only about 80km of front between the mountains and the sea) I'm also engaging in some small coast hugging amphibious operations
[20:34:30] cmdrwilkens: 4 Armies, 8 Corps, 24 Divisions (plus 8 additional Coprs Arty Brigades) with 15k/division and 5k/arty brigade

[20:36:20] sbbigsteve: Well, we'll do the roll like this: 2 means abject failure, the Colombian resistance is far better than expected and your advance doesn't go far. 3-5 means only a few objectives are achieved with severe loss. 6-8 means general success. And I'm looking at it, not sure which unit is which though.
[20:38:59] sbbigsteve: 9-11 means spectacular success, all obectives achieved, severe loss inflicted on Panamaian forces; perhaps even a couple divisions encircled and forced to surrender, and a 12 is a devastating Mexican success.

[20:48:54] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 4 6
[20:48:54] sbbigsteve: Well, roll two times.
[20:49:04] DagorladSurvivor: 10 for the land attack!
[20:49:14] sbbigsteve: Okay, 10.
[20:49:16] sbbigsteve: 9-11 means spectacular success, all obectives achieved, severe loss inflicted on Panamaian forces; perhaps even a couple divisions encircled and forced to surrender
[20:49:22] sbbigsteve: *objectives
[20:49:33] sbbigsteve: So your starting land attack up to, say, D+10, goes smashingly-well.
[20:49:40] sbbigsteve: Now roll for amphib operation.
[20:49:48] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 2 1
[20:49:53] cmdrwilkens: Noooooooo!
[20:49:59] DagorladSurvivor: gallipoli'd!
[20:50:01] cmdrwilkens:
[20:50:20] sbbigsteve: Yeah, amphib attack suffers heavy losses and your forces are generally fail to get past the initial beachhead.
[20:50:32] sbbigsteve: That said, the smashing success of the land attack probably permits your land forces to link up with them.

[20:54:03] cmdrwilkens: Okay I'm going to make 4 rolls: Phase 2 land, Phase 2 Amphib 1, Phase 2 Amphib 2, Phase 2 Amphib 3
[20:54:09] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 5 5
[20:54:14] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 5 3
[20:54:22] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 3 5
[20:54:28] cmdrwilkens: cmdrwilkens rolled 2 6-sided dice: 3 6
[20:54:30] MHui 421: smashing!
[20:54:31] sbbigsteve: Oh damn.
[20:54:33] sbbigsteve: Hot dice!
[20:54:35] DagorladSurvivor: 10, 8, 8, 9
[20:54:46] sbbigsteve: Mexico's Phase 2 is a complete success.
[20:54:50] DagorladSurvivor: the Mexican blitzkrieg rolls on!
[20:54:58] cmdrwilkens: Yay for superior Mexican firepower
[20:55:01] sbbigsteve: The land attack and D+6 amphib are spectacular successes, though not "total smashing" ones.
[20:55:18] sbbigsteve: The D+4 and D+5 attacks are full successes, though not spectacular.

[21:01:21] DagorladSurvivor: the Mexicans have gained, what
[21:01:40] sbbigsteve: I'd say pretty much all of Western Panama by D+10, D+12.
[21:01:41] DagorladSurvivor: ~100mi?
[21:01:48] DagorladSurvivor: nice.
[21:02:05] sbbigsteve: The daring attack on Colon will ignite the imaginations of naval planners the world over.
[21:02:22] sbbigsteve: Probably spurring more development from Cascadia's own Marines on amphibious assaults.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:22am**

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Steve wrote:And he attacked with 4 Armies consisting of 8 Corps, roughly 24 divisions, plus 8 artillery brigades as Corps level artillery support. He outnumbers you 4:1, not 2:3, and as it is his attempt at an amphibious flanking attack with one army was a disaster (his one bad roll), so you gave him a good licking on the opening day of the war.
I see two armies on the map in depicted overrunning the 102nd, with the Army of Nicaragua in a position to cut off resupply. That is all.

21st Attacks from the north to cut off the rear of the 102nd and 14th takes the southern flank on days 1-2 before boarding ships to cut off the 102nd's retreat out of Santiago.

In short, the 5th and 9th armies suffer heavy casualties to prepared defenders with much greater artillery firepower than anticipated, while the Army of Nicaragua lands and cuts off resupply.

The attack on Colon fails miserably as the landing force is intercepted by a cruiser squadron, a submarine group including five submarine cruisers, and a flotilla of monitors. Anything that somehow makes it to shore is obliterated by one or both of Fuerte Sherman's fortress infantry brigades and a coastal fortress artillery brigade.

If that fleet does come out my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships crush them before pounding the forts to rubble. Your cruiser subs are hunted down by my cruisers and destroyers while my own subs are busy laying a trap for any of your fleet units. If that fleet doesn't come out then my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships pound your forts to rubble and then wait for your fleet to engage while my cruisers...so on and so on. Dude I have you so ridiculously out gunned it isn't even funny.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:24am**

Wartime construction posted.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:25am**

Steve, my point with both sides rolling was so there are no hard feelings about hot dice on one side as each player has a chance to roll hot. This is a simple human nature thing where rolling dice yourself makes results seem less one sided even when you roll poorly and your opponent rolls well at least you can blame your dice and not a player or mod. Other than that assuming it is realistically governed one set of rolls works just fine.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:26am**

Ryan Thunder wrote: I see two armies on the map in depicted overrunning the 102nd, with the Army of Nicaragua in a position to cut off resupply. That is all.

He has four armies on the map attacking, one of which gets mauled badly in the failed amphibious attack on Day 1.

If you really must know, I forgot, because I have other things to worry about, like exams. I sent a diplomat, and he didn't even post to turn him away!

If you're having issues that impact ability to play, just let us know. I would've restrained Wilkens if you needed a few days had I known.

Ah, so my coastal fortresses and navy don't exist, then. Neat, tidy, and utterly retarded...

Your Navy exists, but I had no fucking way of knowing where it was because you didn't specify that in your OrBat! By the same token, your OrBat doesn't mention a single coastal fort, so again as far as I was concerned you didn't have any! And you've had a month and a half to do this, Ryan.

Now if you want to post attempts to interfere with the landing operations with naval forces I'll let you as part of your response. You will roll for success and we'll post the result.

Norade: Again, I like your idea and will implement something like that in the next set of rolls. Though to be fair to Ryan his response roll will not have a counter-roll for Mexico.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:31am**

Sweet! I just know as a long term DM and player of forum games that dual random chance rolls, while not always popular with some crowds, do reduce moaning after bad defeats.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:34am**

You know, I didn't know that the SSRs weren't formed until 1956. Thought they were an integral thing.

Man, I cannot wait until this page cycles over into a new one.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:34am**

Stas Bush wrote:If a World War I-like conflict, according to yourself, is merely a "mild distraction" for your nation, I think it's pointless for me to even fucking try to return to this game.

Um what? The game year is 1925. The Sheppo-Goddamn WWI style conflict ended a decade ago -- I'm referring more to the current state of tension "no war/no peace" between us two with a destroyer's weight worth of shells being sent over in disputed areas each month; plus naval jackassedry on the high seas.

Not to mention that you start with attacking Afghanistan, a buffer state which supressed it's own communists and only made arrangements with the Soviet Union for it's own security, actually erecting fortifications on the Soviet-Afghan border! Whee, what a nice logical train of thought of the Shepistani anti-communists.

So explain why the Afghanistanis are sending people to help the Soviet Union maintain internal security in the Manchurian Conflict? That really strikes Sheppo leaders as support for communism.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:38am**

CmdrWilkens wrote:If that fleet does come out my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships crush them before pounding the forts to rubble. Your cruiser subs are hunted down by my cruisers and destroyers while my own subs are busy laying a trap for any of your fleet units. If that fleet doesn't come out then my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships pound your forts to rubble and then wait for your fleet to engage while my cruisers...so on and so on. Dude I have you so ridiculously out gunned it isn't even funny.

How the fuck do you have so many fucking battleships!?

Why are my forts (which I announced the existence of multiple times) fucking useless when everybody was talking about how powerful they were for holding ground? Are they useful or fucking not?

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:41am**

Ryan Thunder wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:If that fleet does come out my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships crush them before pounding the forts to rubble. Your cruiser subs are hunted down by my cruisers and destroyers while my own subs are busy laying a trap for any of your fleet units. If that fleet doesn't come out then my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships pound your forts to rubble and then wait for your fleet to engage while my cruisers...so on and so on. Dude I have you so ridiculously out gunned it isn't even funny.
How the fuck do you have so many fucking battleships!?

Why the fuck is it so easy to completely overrun everything? Why are my forts fucking useless when everybody was talking about how powerful they were for holding ground?

He went around them. Made landings behind them and attacked them from all around, as far as I can tell. Quite the logical thing to do on the skinny Central American isthmus.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:43am**

Because he's an NF4 nation that kinda skimped on destroyers, looking at his OrBat.

I have 26 active capital vessels myself as an NF5 nation (12 dreadnoughts in my main fleet, 2 in the Pacific force, 8 in Australia, 4 battlecruisers), 30 if you count the Large Cruisers, and 36 next game year when my Sovereigns enter service. But I also have 38 CLs, 10 CAs commissioning in 1926, 80 or so subs, and 110 destroyers, plus a CL-sized carrier. I probably could've had more capitals has I reduced my run of 1920 battleships; reducing by just two would've let me keep my four coal-burners, maybe even one of my first BCs.

And honestly, where did you post your forts? They are not in your OrBat.

Posted: **2009-12-14 02:47am**

I'm a nation that has overly many mid range combatants and is now playing catch-up for big guns and torpedoes it would seem...

Posted: **2009-12-14 03:10am**

Steve wrote:Because he's an NF4 nation that kinda skimped on destroyers, looking at his OrBat.

My forts can hold off battlefleet-scale attacks. That is what they were intended to do when I decided to put them where they are, and that is not an unreasonable capability for a coastal fortress in this age if Thanas is to be believed...

If I haven't described them properly, then I'll have to fix that. That's not me cheating, that's just how they were intended to be, and that's how such installations were described to me.

In any event, either the 2nd Army is dead, or they called off their assault, or they assaulted further away. One does not simply walk into that region.

And honestly, where did you post your forts? They are not in your OrBat.

Oh shit...

Well, I mentioned them here, in any event.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

Re: SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II