SH3 Gen reports

[robj250]

Hmm. It is November 28, 1939 and I just came across an American Large Cargo ship in grid BE35. In reading the Operational Order, I believe it says we are not to attack any US ships.

Quote: Fuhrer authorises on-sight sinking of all enemy passenger liners known or seem to be armed, all tankers, including neutrals, EXCEPT American or allies of Germany, which are beyond all doubt going to or from Britain of France. Unquote

Is this correct?

It is a single merchant and I believe at this time of the war, the US had not entered the war yet. So, I cannot sink it?

Will I lose renoun points if I sink it?

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Hmm. It is November 28, 1939 and I just came across an American Large Cargo ship in grid BE35. In reading the Operational Order, I believe it says we are not to attack any US ships.

Quote: Fuhrer authorises on-sight sinking of all enemy passenger liners known or seem to be armed, all tankers, including neutrals, EXCEPT American or allies of Germany, which are beyond all doubt going to or from Britain of France. Unquote

Is this correct?

It is a single merchant and I believe at this time of the war, the US had not entered the war yet. So, I cannot sink it?

Will I lose renoun points if I sink it?

If you are playing stock SHIII or GW, yes, you will lose renown as at that point (date) of the war the US are most certainly neutral. I'm not sure how NYGM works, as that doesn't use renown but totes up absolute tonnage instead. Also, SH3 Gen 'orders' are, effectively, 'eye-candy'; they enhance the immersion but does nothing to effect the coding aspects of the game itself.

[robj250]

@Mr. Hesse

Thank you for clarifying my thoughts. I am using TGW1.1a, so therefore I would lose renoun points.

[mookiemookie]

The real life justification being that Berlin was trying to forestall America's entry into the war at all costs. Even though the US was obviously giving support to England, Germany had to keep up the illusion of diplomacy and could not openly attack US ships as that would have been all the excuse needed for America to enter the war.

So it does make geopolitical sense. In a way. :know:

[bookworm_020]

America may have not even fought agaist germany if Hitler hadn't decleared war agaist America a couple of days after. They may have done a Russia and delt with one before taking on the other.

[robj250]

It all makes sense to me. I would not want that giant on my back either if I had other plans at the moment, besides, mine Fuhrer was a litle off sense sometimes, eh? :rotfl:

[TheSatyr]

Well,before the USA and Germany actually went to War there was an incident where a U-Boat radioed in that he was tracking the US Texas (BB) outside the so called "neutrality zone" the USA set up and he requested permission to fire. Doenitz passed the request all the way up to Hitler,but Hitler said no...as it would have created an International Incident.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roosevelt would have kept putting our merchant ships and warships at risk in the Atlantic if Hitler hadn't of declared war after Pearl Harbor....after all...our DDs were already escorting English convoys.

Roosevelt wanted to create an incident with Germany so he could "legitimately" declare war. I think the whole thing with Japan was done for the same reason. Cut off their oil and steel,supporting a dictator in China (Chian Kai Chek (spelling?) was nothing more than a warlord who happened to be more powerful than the other warlords in China),treating Japan as a 3rd class nation by dictating what we wanted them to do,refusing to even listen to Japanese counter proposals and then acting all surprised when Japan lashed out by attacking us.

Roosevelt wanted war...and he didn't care who with...I think he wanted to remake the world in the image of the USA.

Granted that he was one hell of a wartime president...but he seemed to do whatever he could to make sure he got his war.

[Corsair]

Some reading on this topic :
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

[Sailor Steve]

Even if you don't lose renown, you shouldn't attack neutrals. It's just not right.

[melnibonian]

Even if you don't lose renown, you shouldn't attack neutrals. It's just not right.

Yes but it can be fun :oops: :oops:

[GlobalExplorer]

Like SailorSteve said, if you're not 100% sure, leave neutrals in peace. That was the situation of the real skippers. I hope the Standing Orders are actually adding to that dilemma .. because they're intended to make you think .. So any confusion on your side is a success .. from my point of view :)

GE