Sudden Death Optional Rule Proposal

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

In no particular order

1. FDR needed the Japanese or Germans to actually attack the US to get them into the war. He ran his 39-40 Presidential campaign on not sending US troops to fight foreign wars. So without Japan attacking PH the US can build all the war materails they want but there is no 8th AF bombing Germany.

Already answered, but clearly you haven't got it. I will re-state with some emphasis added-

Oh! But we have no Pearl, and no declaration of war, you object. Is that really a problem or are you only prepared to entertain 'what ifs' that are quite ungrounded in reality?

Is it not remarkable that in spite of constitutional formalities, FDR had managed to manoeuvre the US into a position that, long before Pearl Harbour, the Germans regarded as a virtual state of war? The immense military output of the US witnessed from 1943 onwards was not the product of a surprised power turning reluctantly to fight a war it had no choice but to fight. It was the result of military-industrial infrastructure laid down years before, in preparation for the inevitable war. I'm sure some student of American history can draw up a list for you, of legislation passed in the US which both economically and politically prepared the US for war, and specifically with Germany. The Germans weren't blind to it, or to the war materials already coming into Briain's possession.

As you point out, Roosevelt provoked Japan into an attack. Do you think that had Adolf not obliged [when he did], he would have been unable to do the same with Germany? WAS HE NOT ALREADY DOING SO? Given the incredible mobilisation of US industry for war during 'peace' and the US's comitment to excusively supply the anti-Axis forces, do you really think that shifting the date of a formal war declaration 6 months or even a year in either way would have made any serious difference?

The US were engaging in undeclared war with Germany and pushing hard to provoke a Declaration of war.

When one deals in abstractions, one can declare the possiblity of anything that takes one's fancy. Concrete reality shows how limited were the options. below is a timeline for you. The incidents do not reveal directly the antagonistic interests motivating the conflict, but they do very much express them -

April 10, 1940 - President, acting under the Neutrality Act of 1939, extends maritime danger zone to include Scandinavian area.

May 16, 1940 - President asks for national defense funds totaling $1,182,000,000; he states that Army and Navy should be equipped with 50,000 aircraft a year.

May 17, 1940 - President announces plan for recommissioning 35 more destroyers.


June 12, 1940 - [us] Navy Department awards contracts for 22 new warships.

June 14, 1940 - Fri. President signs "11% Naval Expansion Act" increasing the carrier, cruiser, and submarine tonnage of the Navy by 167,000 tons, and auxiliary shipping by 75,000 tons.

June 15, 1940 - President approves an act to increase naval aviation to a strength of not more than 10,000 aircraft.


June 17, 1940 - Adm. H. R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, asks $4 billion for construction of "two-ocean Navy.


June 27, 1940 - President declares a "national emergency" and invokes Espionage Act of 1917 to exercise control over shipping movements in territorial waters and in vicinity of Panama Canal.

July 1, 1940 - German U-boats attack merchant ships in the Atlantic.

July 19, 1940 - President signs Naval Expansion Act providing, among other things, for 1,325,000 tons of combatant shipping, 100,000 tons of auxiliary shipping, and 15,000 aircraft; this "Two Ocean Navy" act will expand the Fleet 70 percent.

Aug 17, 1940 - Hitler declares a blockade of the British Isles.

Sept 16, 1940 - United States military conscription bill passed.

Sept 27, 1940 - Tripartite (Axis) Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Oct 8, 1940 - Unites States advises citizens to leave the Far East.
Japan protests United States embargo on aviation gasoline and scrap metal.

Nov 5, 1940 - Roosevelt re-elected as U.S. president.

Nov 8, 1940 - SS CITY OF RAYVILLE sinks after hitting a mine laid by German raider off Cape Otway, Bass Strait, Australia; first United States merchant vessel sunk in World War II.

Jan 29, 1941 - United States-British staff conversations to determine joint strategy in case of United States involvement in the war, begin in Washington.

Jan 30, 1941 - Germany announces that ships of any nationality bringing aid to Great Britain will be torpedoed.

March 11, 1941 - President Roosevelt signs the Lend-Lease Act.

March 30, 1941 - Unites States takes possession of German, Italian, and Danish ships in United States Ports.

April 27, 1941 - American-Dutch-British Conference at Singapore ends, having reached agreement on combined operating plan of local defense forces in the event of war with Japan; Capt. W. R. Purnell, USN, is senior United States representative.

June 14, 1941 - United States freezes German and Italian assets in America.

June 19, 1941 - Germany and Italy request closure of United States consulates.

June 21, 1941 - State department requests closing of all Italian consulates in United States territory.

June 2, 1941 - Japan recalls her merchant ships from Atlantic Ocean, and calls more than 1 million army conscripts.

July 26, 1941 - Roosevelt freezes Japanese assets in United States and suspends relations.

Aug 1, 1941 - United States announces an oil embargo against aggressor states.

Aug 14, 1941 - Roosevelt and Churchill announce the Atlantic Charter.

Aug 27, 1941 - Japan protests shipment of United States goods to Vladivostok through Japanese waters.

Sept 7, 1941 - United States merchant ship STEEL SEAFARER is sunk by German air attack in Gulf of Suez.

Oct 17, 1941 - Destroyer KEARNY (DD-432)is torpedoed and damaged southwest of Iceland.
Navy orders all United States merchantmen in Asiatic waters to put into friendly ports.
Gen. Hideki Tojo becomes Japanese Premier as Konoye Government resigns.

Oct 19, 1941 - United States merchant ship LEHIGH is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine off West Africa.

Oct 31, 1941 - Destroyer REUBEN JAMES (DD-245) is torpedoed and sinks off western Iceland with loss of about 100 lives; this is the first United States naval vessel to be lost by enemy action in World War II.

Nov 8, 1941 - United States Naval Operating Base, Iceland, is established.

Nov 17, 1941 - Neutrality Act of 1939 is amended by Joint Resolution; merchant ships can now be armed and enter war zones. Saburo Kurusu, special Japanese envoy, arrives in Washington and confers with the Secretary of State.

Nov 20, 1941 - Ambassador Nomura presents Japan's "final proposal" to keep peace in the Pacific.

Nov 23, 1941 - United States occupies Surinam, Dutch Guiana, pursuant to agreement with the Netherlands government to protect bauxite mines.

Nov 25, 1941 - Japanese troop transports, en route to Malaya, are sighted off Formosa.

Nov 26, 1941 - Secretary of State submits final proposals to Japanese envoys for readjustment of United States-Japanese relations.

Nov 27, 1941 - Adm. H. R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, sends "war warning" message to commanders of the Pacific and Asiatic Fleets.

Nov 30, 1941 - Japanese Foreign Minister Tojo rejects United States
proposals for settling Far Eastern crisis.

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange2. If the Japanese decided to redirect their efforts against the Soviets nobody says it had to be immediately. They could have postponed PH and drew up plans to see what unfolded. If the Soviets recover launch PH later and maybe catch the carriers there. If the Soviets continue to lose, launch an attack and try to take advantage of a weakened foe.

Yes, that works in a lot of war games where the military side of things is completely abstracted from economic and political concreteness, which, in reality drives the military. Could they have postponed it? What on earth makes you think they had such freedom of action? Do you really think that nations embark on wars that threaten their very existance out of whims and and at their will? In relation to concrete reality your alternative history is nothing but air headed nonsense. Sorry, but it 's true.

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange3. I stated in my first post I don't think Stalin ever would have surrendered. There were people in the government that were more then willing to fight on after the loss of Moscow, but would those people have gained power? It might have been almost impossible for it to happen, but stranger things have happened.

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the verticle. We can change the focus to a soft blur....

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange4. You might have people like Pelton race for certain targets but if they didn't succeed they would lose. Right now he doesn't even try for Leningrad or Moscow. Without something to encourage a defense by the SU or a reason to attack in 42 for the Germans the game is going to continue to look like a WW1 simulation.

It's not an all sided simulation of anything at the moment. There are design flaws which appear to have been recognised and will not be remedied by gamey fudges. Logistics, and the air war are two aspects of the game that need a major overhaul and until they get it, we might as well just enjoy the game for what it is or wait for a fix.

[Klydon]

Japan was on the path to be committed to war with the US after they went into Indo-China and the embargo hit them as a result in July 1941. The US finally had something that was going to cause Japan to attack them since the embargo put them on the clock. Tojo did not come to power until October and war was not approved until November and confirmed as of December 1, 1941. Japan was also very aware of the US ship building program and realized they would be hopelessly outnumbered by no later than 1944.

[Rasputitsa]

[font="Arial"]The question is, should there be options for an alternative end to the campaign. This is a game and as such it has to provide enjoyable entertainment, at this end of the gaming business it needs to attract as many customers as possible. Great games do not grow on trees, it needs hard cash .

'No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy', differing circumstance provoke the possibility of changed plans and it is upon this that the what-if scenario is based.

What-if on the 24th May 1940, when Hitler visited von Rundsedt's HQ at Charleville, to discover that 4th Armee with its preponderance of panzer and motorised divisions was to be transferrd to AGB, he had changed his mind. The transfer was intended to circumvent Rundstedt and Kliest's conservative attitude and the 'close up' order of the 23rd May, which had already halted the German mobile units (at a time when they were closer to the Dunkirk beaches than most of the retreating Allied forces). Hitler, angered at not being consulted, decided to rescind the transfer and declared approval for Rundstedt's follow-up 'halt' order. I believe he did this to reassert his supremacy over his immediate subordinates, Halder and von Brauchitsch, despite the resulting impact on the strategic situation. - Yes, Hitler was the prisoner of his ideology, prejudices, arrogance, his relationship with his mother, etc., etc., etc., into boring ad infinitum, but what if he had changed his mind, intending to maximise the military situation and then deal with his subordinates later, an easy thing to have done.

The same conflicts were to re-appear during Barbarossa, with similar detriment to the military situation. The initial British prediction of the possibility of saving only 45,000 allied troops would have been realised. Britain would not have had the morale boost of the 'victory' at Dunkirk, hundreds of thousands of British troops, instead of re-organising for defence, would have gone into captivity, with the corrosive effect of plaintive letters to their families and Goebles full use of newreels to ram the message home.

The smart move would then to have not launched a bombing offensive, but massive fighter sweeps over Southern England, to wear down Fighter Command, and show the failure of British policy, at little cost to the Luftwaffe.

There is a reasonable prospect that this might have provoked a change of British government, prepared to enter into negotiation with Germany and then .........

This may be fit for a novelette, but why should this not be a plausable scenario, Japan benefits from the Axis side of the agreement and obtains access to raw materials from the former Allies' South-east Asia possessions 'peacefully'.

This is long before Pearl Harbor is cast in stone and would the US then attempt to interdict this peaceful trade?

It has been said that Japan would not dare to attack Russia, due to respect for their military prowess at Kaklin-Gol, but they did dare to attack the US, despite its glaringly obvious huge industrial might. Who's to say what they might have done under different circumstances?

There is scope for plausable options that will provide something more to play for, than merely running a drag race down the same track, just to see if you can get into Berlin in this, or that month.

Why the angst, it's only an option, everyone should be able to get what they want out of the game, this is a win, win situation.[/font][:)]

[wosung]

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

[janh]

[align=left]In fact, we already have a set of "Sudden Death" rules, it is called the "Barbarossa" Scenario! It either ends in timely fashion with Axis victory, or not. Fair of course: Axis can either achieve Sudden Death, or it fails and Soviets win early. Not an "I-win" button at least. Perhaps for people like me that are too tied up for a full GC PBEM, a match of two subsequent stock scenarios, i.e first Barbarossa, and then the Bagration 1944 to end, might be an interesting alternative. Then both sides can have the experience of wielding their Armies at their best times?  However, the number of Axis players who would play a 1944-end scenario might also be negligible. 

Otherwise offering Sudden Death rules is something more reserved for a small group of people, and best done in the form of house rules by mutual agreement between two players since it would be based purely on a speculative "what if".  In a GC, the most I would concede when playing Soviet would be a "honorable mention to have excelled on the offensive", and that "thereby a certain probability might exist for a Soviet breakdown"; perhaps award him some extra VPs for the honor. Breakdown would probably only have occurred if the Panzer divisions had reached the base of the Urals while simultaneously the Red Army would just be a skeleton of its former self -- so unless that happened, the game should continue...
[/align][align=center] [/align]

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

I can't understand why anyone would want to play German in the current game. But that's just me my lack of understanding other gamers attitudes runs much deeper than that.

[BleedingOrange]

There is a huge difference in virtual state of war and an actual one. A virtual one is US ships escorting British shipping in the Atlantic and an actual one is bombers over Germany. The 2nd wasn't going to happen without a declaration of war that congress was not willing to give even after the sinking of the USS Rueben James.

Yes I do think that 6 months would have made a difference. The Republicans were looking into impeaching FDR for abuse of power due to the incidents involving the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and the USS Rueben James. Those plans were dropped after PH. Had they started impeachment proceedings it's possible that the oil embargo would have been lifted and America could have moved back to a more neutral stance. This would probably include stopping Lend Lease.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

Depending on how it is set up, I don't have an issue as long as you don't mind playing with the German sudden death rules for the spring of 42 either.

The track meet for both sides needs to stop at some point.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

There is a huge difference in virtual state of war and an actual one. A virtual one is US ships escorting British shipping in the Atlantic and an actual one is bombers over Germany. The 2nd wasn't going to happen without a declaration of war that congress was not willing to give even after the sinking of the USS Rueben James.

Yes I do think that 6 months would have made a difference. The Republicans were looking into impeaching FDR for abuse of power due to the incidents involving the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and the USS Rueben James. Those plans were dropped after PH. Had they started impeachment proceedings it's possible that the oil embargo would have been lifted and America could have moved back to a more neutral stance. This would probably include stopping Lend Lease.

Must someone point out to you that there is a huge difference between looking into impeaching FDR, and an actual impeachment? Tell us what happened to the Republican move to impeach FDR in 1935? Ironic, that you give such weight to hot air while denying the tangible preparations for war and gargantuan shifts in the economy that they entailed.


Your distinction between virtual war and war as facile, to say the least. War does not come from nowhere. Sometimes an invasion or declaration of war may seem to come out of the blue but somewhere there is an observable quantitative buildup of tension, perhaps even internally and not overtly involving the victim of agression. The time line I have shown you demonstrates a quantitative increase in belligerence and preparations for war. At what exact point that quantitative increase changes quality, tipping from one state to another, can only be determined absolutely in hindsight, there are too many variables for precision. But the general outline can be determined. It is clear and irefutable and the eventual declaration of war coresponds not only with the quantitative escalation but also the interests of all conflicting parties.

The US was laying down military-industrial infrastructure from, latest, mid 1940, ordering war materials and conscripting men into the services. They went ahead both in virtual war and after the declaration of war. Their fruit was not evident in war winning proportions until 1943, somewhat more than a year after the US was officially at war. They would have been accumulating and the services organising whether the US were at war or not. Therefore, as I stated, it made no difference whether the US joined the war in 1940 or 1943. The effectiveness of its involvement was determined by its industrial preparations bearing fruit.

I have a scenario to join your 'what ifs?' mod, and I insist that it be included.

Hitler Has An Epiphany
In October 1941, Hitler suddenly realises that he will feel really bad if the Wehrmacht's plans to starve millions of Russians and Jews to death actually goes ahead. Rations for the front are halved, also industrial output as hungry workers cannot work effectively. Reduce all resource, vehicle and armaments production by half until next harvest.

Throw a die. on 1-2, the war continues as above. 3-6 Hitler throws in the towel and kills himself out of guilt for all the trouble he's caused.

It's about as likely as what you suggest. After all, you know Himmler was really upset when he saw a load of jews being shot, he was physically sick, you know, sensitive fellow, it could have turned him around, and he would have gone to talk to Hitler and anything could have happened.

[Klydon]

No way the US stops lend lease. It was simply too good for business and had millions working in ship yards, aircraft factories, and elsewhere filling war contracts for foreign countries.

The other thing you have to consider is the Japanese got permission from the Vichy government to enter Indo-China. They did not invade. The US still flipped out and got the embargo in place. With the conditions in place that not only must Japan pull out of Indo-China (that may have been possible), but that she must also leave China among other things (that was never going to happen without a fight, which is what FDR was counting on), then Japan was really stuck from the standpoint of where to get oil.

[alfonso]

Some economy-based historians have the same stunning trait as economists themselves: a cunning ability to predict the past. No matter which historical fact you point at, they will see it as the inevitable result of socioeconomic forces operating beyond control. It is a pity that they are not able to project to the future their capacity to identify hidden economic forces giving shape to the world…


Regrettably, some malevolent critics could be tempted to minimize their feats as…hindsight.

[BleedingOrange]

Mehring you have repeatedly missed the point that I've never said it would have happened, I said it was a possibility. I have no doubt FDR was doing everything in his power to get the US into the war. What you fail to understand is that Americans did not want to get involved. They could have cared less about Europe and Asia. You ignored the point that even with a German U-boat sinking a US destroyer, plus two other events that congress still refused to declare war. Americans were determined not to be pulled into WW2 like they had WW1. Only 55% of voters got FDR elected that term and he ran on a promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. If the Republicans had started the impeachment process it would have been bigger then Watergate and the political pressure for either FDR to resign or for him to be impeached would have been immense. He would have lost his base and the other party had no love for him. The Democrats only hope for future elections would have been to distance themselves from it. For you to deny this shows that you don't understand the political dynamics of the time inside the US or you refuse to look at anything that differs from your preset beliefs. Either way it is pointless to continue.

Yes Lend Lease was very valuable, but power is more important to politicians. If FDR had been impeached the average citizen would have been pushing against anything that put us on a path to war and since they vote the only way to get or stay elected would have been to go with it. They remembered the cost of WW1. Even if the only thing congress did was remove the oil embargo, that would have removed the immediate need for the Japanese to attack the US. Which leads right back to if Japan hadn't launched PH the US wasn't going to declare war anytime soon. Remember the initial post is that nobody can say what would have happened because it never did.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Some economy-based historians have the same stunning trait as economists themselves: a cunning ability to predict the past. No matter which historical fact you point at, they will see it as the inevitable result of socioeconomic forces operating beyond control. It is a pity that they are not able to project to the future their capacity to identify hidden economic forces giving shape to the world…


Regrettably, some malevolent critics could be tempted to minimize their feats as…hindsight.

The malevolence of some critics is beyond doubt, as is the prescience of historical materialist analysis.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

Mehring you have repeatedly missed the point that I've never said it would have happened, I said it was a possibility. I have no doubt FDR was doing everything in his power to get the US into the war. What you fail to understand is that Americans did not want to get involved. They could have cared less about Europe and Asia. You ignored the point that even with a German U-boat sinking a US destroyer, plus two other events that congress still refused to declare war. Americans were determined not to be pulled into WW2 like they had WW1. Only 55% of voters got FDR elected that term and he ran on a promise to keep the US out of foreign wars. If the Republicans had started the impeachment process it would have been bigger then Watergate and the political pressure for either FDR to resign or for him to be impeached would have been immense. He would have lost his base and the other party had no love for him. The Democrats only hope for future elections would have been to distance themselves from it. For you to deny this shows that you don't understand the political dynamics of the time inside the US or you refuse to look at anything that differs from your preset beliefs. Either way it is pointless to continue.

Yes Lend Lease was very valuable, but power is more important to politicians. If FDR had been impeached the average citizen would have been pushing against anything that put us on a path to war and since they vote the only way to get or stay elected would have been to go with it. They remembered the cost of WW1. Even if the only thing congress did was remove the oil embargo, that would have removed the immediate need for the Japanese to attack the US. Which leads right back to if Japan hadn't launched PH the US wasn't going to declare war anytime soon. Remember the initial post is that nobody can say what would have happened because it never did.

No, it is you who has completely missed the point. The chances of what you suggest coming about are so small as to be as worthy of inclusion in a wargame as my Hitler's Epiphany mod.

Your assertion that Americans didn't want to get involved and the election percent you quote appears almost disingenuous. Who on earth wants to get involved in a world war after we saw what happened in the first one? It shattered all illusions, for all but a tiny psychotic minority, in the glory of war. The Germans didn't, nor the French or British. There was no cheering in the streets and town squares.

Nevertheless 71% of Americans approved FDRs military conscription bill of September 1940. You point to FDR's re-election with 55 % of the vote as almost a vote of no confidence, yet in US presidential elections that is something of a triumph. No president has achieved such a mandate since Reagan, in 1984. And who is to say that had the Republicans taken power, they would not have dropped their former objections as an opposition, adopted in search of votes rather than on principle, and continued with the exact same line as was dictated to Roosevelt by the global and internal political and economic situation? This is how politics works, yet you say I fail to understand the dynamics of contemporary US politics. I would argue that you fail to understand the dynamics and machinations of any politics of any time.

And neither have I ignored any point about US ships being sunk.

Your distinction between virtual war and war as facile, to say the least. War does not come from nowhere. Sometimes an invasion or declaration of war may seem to come out of the blue but somewhere there is an observable quantitative buildup of tension, perhaps even internally and not overtly involving the victim of agression. The time line I have shown you demonstrates a quantitative increase in belligerence and preparations for war. At what exact point that quantitative increase changes quality, tipping from one state to another, can only be determined absolutely in hindsight, there are too many variables for precision. But the general outline can be determined. It is clear and irefutable and the eventual declaration of war coresponds not only with the quantitative escalation but also the interests of all conflicting parties.

Rather, you have failed to understand my response.

[JAMiAM]

I think you've both missed the point. This is a thread about WitE sudden death victory conditions. Not one about the entry of the US into the Second World War. You two should get a room, preferably with soundproofing, whips and chains, to play out the rest of this little tete-a-tete...[;)]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I think you've both missed the point. This is a thread about WitE sudden death victory conditions. Not one about the entry of the US into the Second World War. You two should get a room, preferably with soundproofing, whips and chains, to play out the rest of this little tete-a-tete...[;)]

Precisely. You could take it to the WitP forums, where it would not cause a ripple (mostly because there are at least 10,000 posts on the subject already)

[Mehring]

This was an argument about the historical basis for sudden death victory conditions. And given

ORIGINAL: BleedingOrange

Either way it is pointless to continue.

the timing of your intervention is impeccable. I saw it and thought of this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbi5Zegp55o

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would.
I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked.
IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would.
I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked.
IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

The problem is not (at least to me) that some people want sudden death. The problem is they want it because they affirm the Soviets are doing things when they shouldn't be allowed to do them (basically, let the Red Army be swallowed)... and yet these same persons are doing "things" (which I clearly mentioned) that could have never happened... it's called contradictions. They don't want a part of the cake. They want all the cake (they've said they want the Soviets stand and fight, but haven't said a single word about German limitations).

There's also another problem. When I bought the game I knew there would be some people who would never accept the Germans could not win. I suspect it's somewhat related to russophobia in some cases, or the product of 50 years of Cold War if you prefer: how could these mujiks defeat the mighty panzers, the cream of the cream? [;)] This I knew it was inevitable.

As a WitP regular, you know very well this issue (Japan must win) never really appeared (except few, extravagant individuals) [;)]

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

ORIGINAL: wosung

So how many of you guys want to play the Russian side with sudden death optinal rules?

Regards

If sudden death conditions are difficult enough to achieve for the German Player in 1941, I certainly would.
I do not understand why there are so many critics to a sudden death rule. We're talking about an OPTIONAL rule, if it does not work or you do not like it, simply leave it unchecked.
IMHO more options = better game = more fun.

Fun is the key. The more the better. It's not really fun for me to spend many hours playing a game I have no chance of winning, or conversely that I have an absolute certainty of winning.

This really should have been thought out more during development.