|
Post by xeoran on Apr 3, 2006 8:45:04 GMT -5
I feel once you removed the 'hea' the British would do what they always do, go somewhere else and grow a new head. Nmely go to another city or even somewhere in the Empire. Huge psycological blow but it would mean total war. If you blow up the Royal Family Brits wont be best pleased. Russians by 43 however were a major threat, by 44 they were winning single handed. 45 was a coup de grace. Depends what period of the war this takes place in. While Pulp i feel realism has its place here...otherwise why isnt everyone lobbing nukes everywhere. Germans had few compunctions, Russians had none. And Hitler even in 42 and later still wanted the British Empire as an ally. Think back to Rudolph Hess and his crazy parachute mission. Would he really nuke 'fellow Aryans'? Thats why i prefer the 'sabotage' theory. Not oly does it preserve cool stuff (like Tower of London or Houses of Parliament to fight over but cool people like the Royal Family, Winston Churchill, the BBC and governments in exile.... Maybe a barrage of reduced uranium V3
|
|
|
Post by malika on Apr 3, 2006 8:51:57 GMT -5
Of course, but before that new "head" is establish you would have a void.
Its already total war, and with a morale which has plumeted to the ground well..the situation would be in the Axis' advantage.
True, but personally with that I would just love to see a "conventional" war with lots of infantry and warmachines (tanks, walkers, aircraft, etc).
The idea of having London bombed came from the fat that London did get bombed in real history, we are just taking it a level up.
He might have wanted them as allies, but when did the Luftwaffe bombard London? We just change that into a nuclear (proto atom bomb) on London. We could have a V3 with reduced plutonium/uranium so it would practically be an atom bombs but weaker than lets say the bomb thrown on Hiroshima. The Germans were still experimenting with nuclear weaponry at this time. So parts of London would be levelled to the ground while other building have just become ruined hulks of what they once were.
|
|
|
Post by myincubliss on Apr 3, 2006 8:56:17 GMT -5
haha and the bbc become the underground communications network... 'the news brought to you today from the bbc bunker'...
|
|
|
Post by xeoran on Apr 3, 2006 8:58:01 GMT -5
I agree, i just didnt want all of London leveled as a real bomb would do. Thats why i suggest V3's with minor nukes. Hitler only bombed London. Lots of difference between a nuke and a bomb. Anyway the British bombed loads of German cities, Dresden for example (bad example actually but very effective) so why arent they dropping nukes? (actually an interesting alternative history might have the British Empire joinging Germany, very, very unlikely but could be a laugh...) Thing is once you start dropping you either win or everywhere gets bombed, why havent the Allies bombed Berlin, or the Japanese Moscow......?
|
|
|
Post by malika on Apr 3, 2006 8:58:24 GMT -5
For example! But I assume the British would move their capital to another city and establish their government and other important things there.
|
|
|
Post by xeoran on Apr 3, 2006 9:06:14 GMT -5
exactly, just go somewhere like Oxford. One of the great British advantages was their command core, lots of highly trained, experienced men. Also you could recall officers/diplomats/civil servants from around the Empire. The other aspect is that many areas of the Empire (Australia, India) were self sufficent with their own command cadrs and groups. SO for example Field Marshal Slim in Burma might take command of Indian and Australia until new Government was ready.
|
|
|
Post by myincubliss on Apr 3, 2006 9:07:06 GMT -5
allies aren't dropping bombs because the allies are 'goodies' after all... i like the idea of britain being pretty much wiped out... with scavengers left to pick at the bones of what was once a proud empire...
|
|
|
Post by malika on Apr 3, 2006 9:08:43 GMT -5
Like stated in other discussion we should try to stay away from the "Allies are the good guys and the other ones are bad", each faction can be good or bad, but thats up to the player
|
|
|
Post by xeoran on Apr 3, 2006 9:11:57 GMT -5
Very true, everyone should be a shade of grey.
I disagree with wiping out the British Empire..it destroys many of the most fun units (Commandos, SAS, LRDG, Anzacs, Ghurkas, colonial troops, SOE.....)
|
|
|
Post by malika on Apr 3, 2006 9:14:51 GMT -5
We shouldnt directly whipe it out like suggested, but the idea of it receiving some serious blows is interesting!
But all this depends of course on how far the timeline and the war would last. Personally I wouldnt go further than lets say the 50s or so.
|
|
|
Post by myincubliss on Apr 3, 2006 10:10:28 GMT -5
sorry, my 'goodies' comment was referencing someone elses point of 'you have to have good, bad, and 2 neutrals' i guess tongue in cheek humour doesn't carry too well in text...
|
|
|
Post by xeoran on Apr 3, 2006 10:38:06 GMT -5
It would just be nice to swap roles. British Empire is always racist aristocratic nuts whose Empire dislikes them (very far from truth, very few aristocrats; most of whom were intellignet and well trained. Less racist than say America and most ex-Empire areas would rather have Empire rule back [Zimbabwe] or still like us [India]). Maybe we'll get nasty. spiteful, money rich Americans or Germans who arent psycho Nazis but Prussians trying to avenge Versailles.....
That sort of thing.
|
|