WWII wonders

[Heresson]

Aha. Where are You from, then?

[The ANZAC]

new jersey

[Case]

The ANZACs served in both world wars and I think were disbanded after the second

Not quite - Australia and New Zealand enjoy very close relations to this day and when our troops deploy together these contingents are generally called ANZACs (ie 'ANZAC' forces are currently operating together in East Timor)

To be really pedantic, the ANZAC only exhisted during the Galipoli campaign of 1915, the later stages of the WW1 in Europe and in 1940-41 when an ANZAC was formed in North Africa and later Greece.

[The ANZAC]

oh, I thought the ANZACs were in Italy? or is that outside of your pedantic explanation

[Case]

Nah, only the New Zealanders sent troops to Italy [the the form of the 2nd Division] - by that stage of the war the entire Australian army was engaged in fighting Japan, and the only Australians in the European theatre were several thousand members of the air force (including a single fighter squadron which operated in Italy) and various Aussies sprinkled through British and Canadian naval units.

[MagyarCrusader]

They won't be depressed for long! Seriously, I think it's possible to limit the construction of an A-bomb to someone who has clearly already won.

Ah yes! Good point. In a massive scenario, just as any WW2 project, when the tables have clearly turned to someone's favor, it would be a bad thing to have the game drag on while one side gets slowly crushed without any chance. Nukes could bring a sudden, and exhilirating end.

You can have Civ specific techs that cannot be researched or traded by another civ, but my experiments show they can still be stolen by spies.

No no, the point I was trying to make is why would you need civ specific techs?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Henrik
You might not want to go overboard with "punishments" for the players that don't follow the historical path, historically lots of decisions could've been made differently, make the options one has result in stuff that could've happened rather than just imposing a big penalty on the civ that doesn't follow the historical "path" (for instance I don't see why the americans would lose profit if they conquer those oil fields for themselves).
PBEMs should be a gaming experience, not a movie one (imho no civ scenarios should be but aparently very few agree).
On the other hand for every decision made there is most likely a reason (or several), I'd try to include that reason rather than just punishing people not following the "rules".
Just a thought...

I agree Henrik. You want to keep the alternate options open and limit resulting penalties to within reasonable historical limits. But you also need to recognize that there were negative consequences to attacking any Neutral. It's just in some cases the benefits outweighed the costs. Why did Germany attack Norway, but not Sweden? Or the Allies occupy Reykjavik but not Dublin?

It really comes down to balancing the strategic and economic benefits against the cost. Hopefully the events will give a reasonable choice in each case. At a minimum there will be a one-time financial penalty for each Neutral (barbarian) city conquered.

The Americans received the benefit of the Venezulan oil fields without actually occupying the country, a more advanced and economical state of affairs (Neocolonialism) than traditional colonialism. There was no advantage and possibly a significant disadvantage to the US of attempting a direct conquest of Latin American cities and I want the scenario represent that. (The same with Gemany and Sweden or Britain and Ireland.)

It should also simulate the burden of hemispheric defense on the overall American war effort. I just think it's more interesting to force the US to defend a barbarian controlled South America without creating an advantage for direct conquest.