WW2 Gaming vs WW2 Reality

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
Kung Karl
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:54 pm

WW2 Gaming vs WW2 Reality

Post by Kung Karl »

I have been thinking about something interesting for some time now.

The common opinion is that the German high command made some bad mistakes during WW2. Examples: Not to defeat Britain in 1940, the invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalingrad, the neglection of Africa etc.

But when I play an WW2 GRAND STRATEGIC game I always find myself doing exactly as the Germans did in reality. Not because I choose to just to make the game more historicaly but because it seems to be the best strategy.

I never defeats Britain in 1940, I always invade Soviet Union and I always neglect Africa.

To defeat Britain is to hard mostly and the Soviet Union needs to be crushed as quickly as posible. Some people may say that the invasion of Soviet is nesecery in games because they count as allies. But in real life the soviets had plans to attack Germany in 1945 so that is not an valid argument.

Another example is case blue(operation blau), the offensive in southern russia in 1942. That is also somthing that always seems to happen to me. Why? Well that is were you can hit soviets the hardest and that is were the campaign is most likley to end in pleasing way.

The point is, either is the games are to scripted or "geared" towards historical gameplay or the Germans actually never did so many mistakes. What do you think?
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Depends on the game, and the premise of the game.

Hearts of Iron will allow you to conquer the world with any country on the map. Dumb, but so what.

Strategic Command will allow you to invade Canada even, with a suitably sneaky German player, but it is called "gamey" to do so.

Third Reich PC (an older computer game) is a faithful recreation of the board game of that name. You can bet you won't be conquering the world with Brazil, and if your Sealion is not perfection you just threw the game.

When I want psuedo history I play Civilization. It makes you acknowledge a certain amount of real history, but is not very intrusive.

When I want brutally historically credible, I almost always turn off the computer and set up one of my board games though.

I like playing the board game Fortress Europa from AH when examining the trouble of how to invade 1944 Europe.

If I want to explore invading Russia, my game of choice is Russian Front by AH.

If I want grand strategy politics and economic simulation, I prefer Advanced Third Reich (originally from AH, but newly re released under a new label).

The Front series from Columbia Games East Front West/Mediteranean etc. all can be combined to a more grand strategy scope. They have a design style that is quite refreshing for being unique.

But I have never been fully constrained to repeat the blunders of the past in my games of choice. It is merely that some political choices were almost impossible to ignore.

In A3R the USSR starts constrained in how they can declare war, but the German player can't just ignore them. The US must meet specific requirements to enter the war, but the German player has to be incredibly good to see them remain out long.

Ignoring the African theater unduly in a grand strategy game of WW2 is a bad choice. Just as is playing down the importance of Britain.

Games that make a farce of actual history, invariably run the risk of being treated as a farce as well.

We wargamers are many types of gamer, but most of us are obsessed with history. When history becomes a joke in a simulation, then credibility is lost. A loss of credibility is always a bad thing.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Kung Karl
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:54 pm

Post by Kung Karl »

Hearts of Iron is a huge loss of credibility.:D

I liked Third Reich PC, never played the boardgame and probably never will because the choice in boardgames in Sweden is realy small.:(
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Kung assuming you liked Third Reich PC, you might want to try checking out here.

This is the site for the unified design of what was Advanced Third Reich (board game) and Rising Sun (pacific version of the game design). It is possibly the best board game at global strategy level that money can buy. But it ain't cheap (as you will discover).

http://www.aworldatwar.com/

This is the current state of design for Advanced Third Reich. And if I haven't made any key computer wargame purchases between now and christmas, this game is actually on the list of hopefuls.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/game3R.php

This last link will let you look into the scurrent situation for computer World in Flames which might some day actually exist as a finished concept, but currently is something of a pet project notion by the looks of things.

http://www.marinacci.com/Chris/
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”