Not one of those capitals was captured in WWI despite over four years of mass slaughter.
Thats correct but if they did, the nation would fall. It just happened that they fell before.
Right, because in this war a nation would collapse internally before the enemy was likely to get near to the capital.
Hence my suggestions for alternative victory conditions.
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
Some nations have to have the capital fall, others probable loss of substantial income.
@Imperious:
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
Are you sure that’s what you wanted to say?
It is an opinion, not subject to you trying to make it my de facto argument because you lost the last three of those, requiring 200+ posts of post gibberish….again.
Was the goal really Paris?
Or did the Germans know all along they were in for a long war of attrition?
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Schlieffen-Plan-Planning-1871-1914/dp/0199250162
http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-German-Plan-1904-14/dp/0752456644/ref=pd_sim_b_1/191-8076342-3952441
Since Kenya was the goal and Britain would only have fallen if Kenya was taken and there was no other way, we need the rules to reflect this.
Oh no, more gibberish.
Don’t know I’ve done to deserve it.
Since Kenya was the goal and Britain would only have fallen if Kenya was taken and there was no other way, we need the rules to reflect this.
Exactly, with variable die rolls and modifiers for wind drift and 15 different types of Kenya “pieces”.
@Imperious:
Since Kenya was the goal and Britain would only have fallen if Kenya was taken and there was no other way, we need the rules to reflect this.
Exactly, with variable die rolls and modifiers for wind drift and 15 different types of Kenya “pieces”.
Actually I was poking fun at the idea that France was never going to collapse if Paris held, but I’m not surprised that got past you.
And I don’t have to defend my Kenya claim because it is my “opinion.” :roll:
Seriously, there’s no way France would collapse without losing Paris? Try reading the sources he posted above WITHOUT already deciding what they say before reading them.
And I don’t have to defend my Kenya claim because it is my “opinion.” rolleyes
I am agreeing with it, not attacking it. Don’t be so defensive. It is common knowledge that Kenya was the key based on internet sources.
Seriously, there’s no way France would collapse without losing Paris?
Why do you always turn it into a “no way” i never said that. I said the objective was Paris, which it was. It was not Dijon. Kenya could be a secondary objective based on your sources, which we don’t check because we assume it’s true since it’s from the internet.
@Imperious:
Seriously, there’s no way France would collapse without losing Paris?
Why do you always turn it into a “no way” i never said that.
:roll:
@Imperious:
Well not for France. The goal was Paris and the French would collapse only if it falls.
= “There is no way the French would collapse unless Paris falls.” :roll:
The severe irony is that in plenty of past posts you used internet sources as well. But, once it’s clear that almost all, if not all of the sources both on internet and in print either did not support or refuted your claims that you later claimed you didn’t make, all of a sudden the sources are all bogus. It is a scary mind such as yours that believes that whatever doesn’t confirm its ideas must be wrong.
The fall of Paris is not the only way the French would collapse. Get over it.
Just because it was the German objective (assuming it was in fact the objective, those books suggest other possibilities) does not mean that was the only way the Germans could have beat France.
If I want to win a basketball game by going into the game thinking I will be shooting 3-pointers, it doesn’t mean I lost if I scored more points just because the shots I did take might have been layups.
Oftentimes success is achieved with methods other than those the original goal outlined.
The severe irony is that in plenty of past posts you used internet sources as well. But, once it’s clear that almost all, if not all of the sources both on internet and in print either did not support or refuted your claims that you later claimed you didn’t make, all of a sudden the sources are all bogus. It is a scary mind such as yours that believes that whatever doesn’t confirm its ideas must be wrong.
The fall of Paris is not the only way the French would collapse. Get over it.
Just because it was the German objective (assuming it was in fact the objective, those books suggest other possibilities) does not mean that was the only way the Germans could have beat France.
If I want to win a basketball game by going into the game thinking I will be shooting 3-pointers, it doesn’t mean I lost if I scored more points just because the shots I did take might have been layups.
Oftentimes success is achieved with methods other than those the original goal outlined.
If the death star killed everybody in France, they would surrender even if Paris didn’t fall. But the original German goal was Paris. If it falls France falls. Thats what i meant, so get over it.
:roll: You can attempt to make it sound absurd with some Death Star comment but there are plenty of reasonable ways France could have collapsed without losing Paris, two of which would have been continued attrition and German dominance of shipping lanes (especially if this caused the UK to sue for peace).
There is a difference between what the goal method for defeating France was and the ways France could have been defeated. Just because Paris was allegedly the German goal does not mean that can be the only option for defeating France in the game.
rolleyes You can attempt to make it sound absurd with some Death Star comment but there are plenty of reasonable ways France could have collapsed without losing Paris, two of which would have been continued attrition and German dominance of shipping lanes (especially if this caused the UK to sue for peace).
There is a difference between what the goal method for defeating France was and the ways France could have been defeated. Just because Paris was allegedly the German goal does not mean that can be the only option for defeating France in the game.
But it’s common knowledge that taking Paris leads to her defeat. Whether or not she can be defeated by other means is subjective. What we know is that Paris does it, so why not make it simple.
Besides it was the German goal in the actual war, so it does not mean we need to explore other options unless the game is about a hypothetical war.
Why does there need to be only 1 way France can be defeated? Even as far back as 2nd ed. the axis had 2 ways of winning.
Why does there need to be only 1 way France can be defeated? Even as far back as 2nd ed. the axis had 2 ways of winning.
It doesn’t. i explained that before. It is just one way, and the most known way circa 1914.
Then perhaps next time don’t say the opposite?
Then perhaps next time don’t say the opposite?
Then next time don’t comb out certain words and make entire arguments from them in some vain hope of creating a new argument which could lead to your first winning one?
No, anytime you make a dogmatic assertion about what can and cannot happen it is well within my rights and ability to poke holes in it. There can be a historically sound World War I game where losing Paris isn’t the only way France collapses, and the mutinies, attrition, and potential for German U-boats to succeed make that clear.
