Tweet
I mentioned earlier my concerns about wooden viking galleys (let alone english manowars) successfully attacking WWII battleships and nuclear submarines. For those interested in some documentary evidence check out the following web site:
NO wooden ship can survive an encounter with an ironclad, and specifically the monitor with its revolutionary turret and heavy guns (in two guns, the equivalent of any sail ships full broadside).
The new ships are increasingly less expensive to operate and more effective. A typical sail ship required 400 to 600 men while the monitor required only fifty. The monitors only weakness was that it was a river/close coastal ship and could not survive the open ocean.
The point is that a real revolution in arms completly outclasses the previous paradigm.
On the ground, cannon become inneffective once troops have conical bullets and advanced tactics. Even modern artillary is comparativly less effective against comtemporary troops than cannon was against its contemporary ground units. Basically, as long as ground troops march in dense squares, cannon and artillary attacks will be very effective.
Even with the simplistic and avatistic combat system in use, enough factors could be added (such as armor and fire vulnerabilities) that would make things somewhat rational.
That that combat 'system' is still basically counters butting heads is disapointing, but I could live with it if it were somewhat realistic.
Nowhere but in a computer game or a music video would the idea of naked people colliding with an armored vehicle that resulted in the distruction of the vehicle be accepted.
The other problem is that the AI is nuke happy, no rational state is willing to see millions of its people and production vaporized at a wim. Even for despots of small territories who have nothing concern themselves but their own egos this is an act of absolute desperation. In the case of the US, the possibility of losing even one city, even with a complete victory, has been completely unacceptable (Curtis LeMay excepted).
NO wooden ship can survive an encounter with an ironclad, and specifically the monitor with its revolutionary turret and heavy guns (in two guns, the equivalent of any sail ships full broadside).
The new ships are increasingly less expensive to operate and more effective. A typical sail ship required 400 to 600 men while the monitor required only fifty. The monitors only weakness was that it was a river/close coastal ship and could not survive the open ocean.
The point is that a real revolution in arms completly outclasses the previous paradigm.
On the ground, cannon become inneffective once troops have conical bullets and advanced tactics. Even modern artillary is comparativly less effective against comtemporary troops than cannon was against its contemporary ground units. Basically, as long as ground troops march in dense squares, cannon and artillary attacks will be very effective.
Even with the simplistic and avatistic combat system in use, enough factors could be added (such as armor and fire vulnerabilities) that would make things somewhat rational.
That that combat 'system' is still basically counters butting heads is disapointing, but I could live with it if it were somewhat realistic.
Nowhere but in a computer game or a music video would the idea of naked people colliding with an armored vehicle that resulted in the distruction of the vehicle be accepted.
The other problem is that the AI is nuke happy, no rational state is willing to see millions of its people and production vaporized at a wim. Even for despots of small territories who have nothing concern themselves but their own egos this is an act of absolute desperation. In the case of the US, the possibility of losing even one city, even with a complete victory, has been completely unacceptable (Curtis LeMay excepted).
Comment